Struglers Storytellers Surfers Others Alvesson

Human Relations
http://hum.sagepub.com
Self-doubters, strugglers, storytellers, surfers and others: Images of

self-identities in organization studies
Mats Alvesson
Human Relations 2010; 63; 193 originally published online Jan 19, 2010;
DOI: 10.1177/0018726709350372
The online version of this article can be found at:

http://hum.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/63/2/193
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
The Tavistock Institute
Additional services and information for Human Relations can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://hum.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://hum.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations http://hum.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/63/2/193
Downloaded from http://hum.sagepub.com at Univ Complutense de Madrid on June 15, 2010

human relations
human relations
63(2) 193–217
Self-doubters, strugglers, © The Author(s) 2010
Reprints and permission: http://www.
storytellers, surfers and others: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0018726709350372
Images of self-identities in hum.sagepub.com
organization studies
Mats Alvesson
University of Lund, Sweden and University of Queensland Business School, Australia
Abstract
This article provides an overview of the key images of identity in organizations found in
the research literature. Image refers to the overall idea or conceptualization, capturing
how researchers relate to – and shape – a phenomenon. Seven images are suggested:
self-doubters, strugglers, surfers, storytellers, strategists, stencils and soldiers. These
refer to how the individual is metaphorically understood in terms of identity, that is,
how the researcher (research text) captures the individual producing a sense of self.The
article aims to facilitate orientation – or encourage productive confusion – within the
field, encourage reflexivity and sharpen analytic choices through awareness of options
for how to conceptualize self-identity constructions.
Keywords
construction, discourse, identity, organizational psychology, self
Introduction
Identity is a theme popular with scholars wanting to highlight individuals as well as collec-
tive phenomena. This article addresses the individual level in a social/organizational
context and thus the interface between individual and organizational identity, with an
emphasis on the self-identity aspect (Collinson, 2003; Watson, 2008). Kuhn (2006)
defines identity as ‘the conception of the self reflexively and discursively understood’
(p. 1340). Identity marks a separate area of interest from, for example, impression manage-
ment or external social categorizations, although these are of course important for identity
constructions (Jenkins, 2000). Such self-constructions are sometimes done through social
Corresponding author:
Mats Alvesson, Department of Business Administration, School of Economics & Management,
Lund University, PO Box 7080, Sweden.
Email: mats.alvesson@fek.lu.se

194 Human Relations 63(2)
categories and organizational identification, so links to organizational identity certainly

exist (Humphreys and Brown, 2002), but the latter theme is not directly addressed here.
Many authors see issues of identity as potentially ‘leading to significant theoretical
and practical advances in the study of almost every aspect of organizational life’ (Haslam
and Reicher, 2006: 135). As with many other fields, organization studies are character-
ized by a fair amount of fashion consciousness, which, in turn, drives a significant num-
ber of identity studies. The current popularity and, perhaps, the overconsumption of self
and identity in social science (‘over used and under specified’, Pratt, cited in Brown,
2006: 734, see also Alvesson et al., 2008a), as well as the slippery notion of identity
means that it is not easy to get an overview of the area(s). Reviews rarely take the variety
of theoretical perspectives and key reference points seriously. Many reviewers tend to
structure the field in terms of two different (sometimes complementary) overall posi-
tions, providing fairly broad-brushed portraits. For example, authors refer to essentialist
and anti-essentialist approaches (Cerulo, 1997), social cognition (emphasizing social
schemas and information about self) and interactionism (focusing on symbolic meaning
in interaction) (Howard, 2000). Others find it useful to divide the field into three major
areas. Using Habermas’s (1972) framework of cognitive interests, Alvesson et al. (2008a)
relate studies of social identity, identity work and identity regulation to technical, herme-
neutic and emancipatory cognitive interests. Collinson (2003) identifies literature talking
about conformist, dramaturgic and resistant selves. These reviews are helpful but still
point at a fairly narrow set of options. There is more to be done in terms of encouraging
sensitivity about alternative ways of approaching identity.
It is common to be sceptical of conventional, ‘Western’ thinking, which is said to have
‘traditionally viewed human beings as unitary, coherent and autonomous individuals
who are separate and separable from social relations and organizations’ (Collinson, 2003:
527). This is then, perhaps not unsurprisingly, followed by critique for essentialism and
for a ’dualistic tendency artificially to separate individual from society, mind from body,
rationality from emotion’ (Collinson, 2003: 527). It is difficult not to agree with a cri-
tique saying that something that is dualistic and that ’artificially’ separates individual
from society is not so good. And there are still many authors who take a version of
this ‘traditional’ perspective. Acknowledging the multidimensional nature of the self-
concept, Leonard et al. (1999) propose three general sets of individuals’ identity attri-
butes: traits, competencies and values. Albert et al. (2000) claim that identity means that
one can ‘interact effectively with other entities over the long run’ and ‘a sense of identity
serves as a rudder for navigating difficult waters’ (p. 13). Stets and Burke (2000) suggest
that ‘a complete theory of the self would consider both the role and the group bases of
identity as well as identities based in the person that provide stability across groups, roles
and situations’ (p. 234). But, as will be explored in this article, many if not most contem-
porary texts on identity go beyond a view of individuals as unitary, coherent and autono-
mous and embrace a position somewhere in between a ‘traditional’ and a postmodernist
or ‘anti-essentialist’ view.
In the spirit of the in-between position, it is common to acknowledge less stable
aspects of identity, often with references to destabilizing faculties of dynamic social and
economic conditions. In contemporary business life in particular, social contexts are fre-
quently portrayed as unstable, ambiguous, and sometimes contradictory (Gioia et al.,

Alvesson 195
2000; Gubrium and Holstein, 2001; Jackall, 1988; Sennett, 1998; Watson, 1994). This
makes identity constructions precarious and calls for an emphasis on processual aspects
of identity. The significance and depth of contemporary organizational changes are mat-
ters of dispute (Alvesson and Thompson, 2005; Grey, 2005; McSweeney, 2006;
Thompson and Warhurst, 1998), but complexity and changes in contemporary social and
organizational life make identity a more open project and thus something to take seri-
ously. A variety of ideas about identity, reflecting differing attitudes towards the turbu-
lent and fragmented nature of society, various views of the individual and which elements
(discourses, social belongingness, existential themes) are crucial in identity construc-
tions have sprung up in the literature. Although perspectives such as (Western) ‘essen-
tialism’ versus constructionism (postmodernism) indicate radically different views, there
are a range of options, as we will see. We don’t have to choose between a mainly fixed
and a predominantly fluid view, nor between a sovereign self and a decentred one
(Dunne, 1996).1 In addition, there is a wide set of stability as well as process conceptu-
alizations. A more fine-tuned overview of the alternative positions is therefore called for.
This article indicates the range of contemporary ideas on identity constructions in
organizational and work contexts through the development of some concepts that may
help us to both navigate this difficult terrain and to attempt clarification of alternative
possibilities. The idea is to encourage self-critical distancing from and reflexivity about
a favoured position and to facilitate choices in thinking about, and doing, empirical
research on identity. The identification (or rather the construction) of a set of images of
individuals’ identity constructions, as they appear in the literature, is helpful. I follow
Morgan’s (1980, 1997) successful and thought-provoking exercise of bringing forward
the images (root metaphors) behind the explicit argumentation and analysis of identity. I
am using the slightly broader and looser concept of image here, rather than the similar,
but somewhat more specific, idea of root metaphor. These images capture key elements
in the gestalt and act as starting points in thinking about the subject matter. The images
are related to, but are not the same as, theoretical perspectives and lines of reasoning. An
image can be linked to various theories. This means that approaching a theoretical per-
spective by way of different images allows one to use that theoretical perspective in dif-
ferent ways, although not all images and theories can be linked. The article supplements
other overviews that emphasize theoretical traditions and definitions through suggesting
a set of images of the subject matter. The ambition is to inspire the field to take alterna-
tives into more serious consideration and to widen the imagination in terms of approach-
ing identity issues in organization studies. A more playful attitude is thus encouraged.
On ’method’: Modesty, irony and reflexivity

Issues around subjectivity – including identity – are very difficult to describe and inter-
pret. As Dunne (1996) puts it, ‘the self lacks the substantiality and discreteness of an
object which is amenable to direct description or explanation’ (p. 143). The theoretical
framework and the use of a particular vocabulary construct the subject matter, but it
would be unwise to reduce all empirical phenomena to just being a matter of the employ-
ment of a specific framework and discourse. When studying non-discrete and non-
substantial phenomena such as subjectivity, it is particularly important to develop ideas

and ways of thinking that reduce the inclination to impose a vocabulary and order onto
the studied subjectivities. We cannot completely avoid such impositions – and thus exer-
cise of power when developing knowledge (Foucault, 1980), also when trying to order a
field. This will be so whether we have chosen to normalize uncertainty and fluidity or
coherence and direction. Ideas surrounding reflexivity become important here (Alvesson
and Sköldberg, 2009; Alvesson et al., 2008b). Through systematically considering alter-
native viewpoints and opening up tensions, we can create some safety mechanisms in the
research process, which guard against one-dimensional and premature construction
work. A typology is not without mixed blessings, but makes it easier to remember and
consider alternative reference points for thinking. Awareness that there may exist another
vocabulary, one that is as good as or even better than the vocabulary that is actually in
use, in terms of saying something interesting about the subject matter, is an important
part of this process (Rorty, 1989). The production of a new vocabulary and the confronta-
tion of various alternative concepts may thus serve to reinforce an element of irony and
encourage its more explicit use in identity studies.
This article offers seven images of identity salient in the organization studies litera-
ture. A key consideration in this kind of work is the meaningfulness and manageability
of a set of images. As discussed above, identity reviews (e.g. Cerulo, 1997; Collinson,
2003; Howard, 2000; Markus and Wurf, 1987) only point at two or three theoretical
streams, which is limited and discourages a broader consideration of the variety of
images to consider. The seven images outlined here reflect a desire to facilitate further
distinctions and to suggest new options for studying identity. This article is based on
careful readings of the self-identity literature (in organization studies over the years,
including a large proportion of the articles on self-identity recently published in leading
organization studies journals (Academy of Management Journal, Academy of
Management Review, Administrative Science Quarterly, Human Relations, Journal of
Management Studies, Organization Studies, Organization) and also texts frequently
referred to in these. This article is, however, concerned with offering ideas about images
of identity, not about the frequencies of which such are expressed. The intention is not to
vacuum-clean the literature for all possible images, but rather to indicate a spectrum of
salient ones, thus allowing an opening up for more analytical options. The idea is to get
a good understanding of what researchers, at a ‘deeper’ level, seem to mean by identity.
What basic images are used? Of most interest here are texts expressing a ‘strong’ concep-
tualization and/or cases conveying a clear overall idea of how to make sense of that case.
The view on identity then should include more than a general definition (the answer to
the question ‘who am I?’) and include a distinct idea that differentiates the text from
many others also addressing identity.
Methodologically, there is interplay between emergent ideas, attentions and inspira-
tion from additional readings and ideas. There is a hermeneutic circle between a gradu-
ally developed pre-understanding informing text readings and the efforts to interpret the
underlying ideas and meanings of texts in terms of the underlying image informing stud-
ies (Alvesson and Sköldberg, 2009). There are two moves here. The first methodological
move is to get an overall structure or framework for making comparisons. Two broad,
key dimensions were identified. One concerns what is typically constructed as the tradi-
tional Western view and efforts to negate it. The traditional position views identity as

Alvesson 197
robust, integrated and a clear reference and starting point for how individuals can orien-
tate themselves in life. The opposite position assumes a much more uncertain, precarious
and fluid kind of subjective reference point. The positions appear to reflect a crucial,
paradigm-like kind of distinction, salient in many writings comparing modernist (essen-
tialist) and post-modernist (constructionist) understandings (Cerulo, 1997; Howard,
2000; Rosenau, 1992; Sarup, 1988; Shotter and Gergen, 1989). This key dimension is
here seen as including a variety of possible views and not just two opposite fixed points.
My other key dimension is the degree of agency – the individual being active and
guided by both meaning and goals, over which there is at least an element of control.
This is a ‘classic’ key theme in social science. Humanistic researchers tend to give prior-
ity to meaning and intention and view the individual as a meaning-maker. They may
do this through narratives or strategies for developing identity (e.g. Giddens, 1991;
Ibarra, 1999; Pratt et al., 2006). Non-humanists – Marxists, structuralists, behaviourists,
discursivists – while disagreeing in other aspects, all locate powers creating subjectivity
primarily outside the individual, in structures, the situation or the Discourse (e.g. Ely and
Padavic, 2007; Foucault, 1977, 1980; Knights and Morgan, 1991; Townley, 1993). This
key dimension of agency has in various ways been expressed in different kinds of litera-
tures (e.g. Burrell and Morgan, 1979) and is an important part of my (and most other
contemporaries’) pre-understanding. Readings of the identity literature have confirmed
the relevance and significance of this dimension. I chose these two broad dimensions,
expressed as key dimensions in a considerable amount of the literature, as a loose frame-
work for identifying positions in the field.
The second methodological move transcends this loose two-dimensional framework
and tries to identify/ construct (as always it is a mix of input from what is ‘out there’,
i.e. in texts, and the invention of something) something distinct in various texts about
how the authors try to capture individuals in identity terms. Here, the idea is to go
beyond the broad similarities following from the use of the key dimensions and find
more distinct and unique key themes in the texts. Having identified/constructed a theme –
storytelling, existential anxiety, social identification, etc. – the idea is to hold on to
its distinctiveness without trying to reduce them to being fully grasped by the two-
dimensional framework (see Figure 1, placed later in the article).
These two moves then develop a broad terrain that offers some degree of overview,
but also allows for sensitivity to the unique features of images. One criterion for the
proposal of a specific image is that there should be several studies where it seems to be
expressed. Equally important is that an image captures an important orientation in con-
temporary identity research in organization studies. A third consideration concerns the
overall combination of aspects covered: the selected set of images should offer a good
framework, indicating a set of alternative ways of conceptualizing identity.
As is probably common in studies, this article is not an outcome of either deductive
or inductive work. It is neither based on the development and use of a strict framework –
which acts as a net for capturing the various big fish in the pond of identity studies.
Nor does it rely on a detailed (grounded theory-like) coding of various pieces of texts in
the literature. As with most studies, my approach is a complex mix of inputs and pre-
understandings, where readings and developed understandings over the years guide the
interpretation of the texts addressed.

Given the constructed, not to say artificial, nature of typologies, paradigm distinc-
tions, borders between positions and the arbitrariness of the labels put on whatever posi-
tion one wants to represent or propose (or invent), there are good reasons to remind
oneself and the reader that what is suggested here is not the only way of making sense of
the field. As Locke and Golden-Biddle (1997) point out, how we integrate and differenti-
ate earlier research in literature reviews is as much a matter of rhetorical moves as objec-
tive mappings.
The purpose of this article is to give a hopefully creative and illuminative overview of
some options in addressing identity constructions. There is a mapping element involved
here, but it is by necessity rough and rather than be too worried about whether everything
important ‘out there’ (other texts) is mirrored well ‘in here’ (in this text), it is perhaps
more important to consider the productive-functional aspects of the re-presentations of
what people may be up to in their constructions of others’ constructions of their selves.
I will now attend to the sets of images of identities, expressed in metaphorical ways,
referring specifically to the theoretical understandings of the key characteristics of indi-
viduals in terms of identity constructions. These are self-doubters, strugglers, surfers,
storytellers, strategists, stencils and soldiers (see Table 1 for a summary of the images).
Seven images on identity

Self-doubters: Insecurity as the key element of existence and social relations
Many contemporary researchers of identity in work and organizations emphasize insecu-
rity and anxiety as key elements of experience. The idea is that human existence is char-
acterized by the uncertainties that follow from a dependence on social relations, but that
social trends and contemporary society add heavily to this uncertainty. Collinson (2003),
for instance, argues that there is a ‘broad-sweeping shift from ascriptions to achieve-
ment’ leading to identities becoming more open and potentially allowing greater freedom
and more choices, but also resulting in increasing ‘precarious, insecure and uncertain
subjectivities’ (p. 530).
Insecurity thus seems to be the key element around which subjectivity and identity is
being formed and reshaped. Self-doubter therefore refers to the researcher’s image of the
identity construction’s quality as ultimately shaky. Knights and Willmott (1989, 1999)
claim that insecurity arises from ‘the impossibility of controlling the conditions that sup-
port a stable sense of identity’ (1999: 19). Not even wealth, status and power will do the
trick – those having accumulated this are among the most insecure of all, simply because
they have most to lose. Insecurity is seen as an existential condition. Authors informed
by a self-doubter image assume that there is an irreducible ambiguity at the heart of
identity construction and argue that individuals’ attachment to a particular sense of self
can reinforce insecurities. In their analyses, insecurity is privileged and appears, at the
end of the day, to be the basic element. Efforts to cope with it often lead to reinforced
insecurity. Drawing upon the psychoanalyst Lacan, Roberts (2005) points to the impos-
sibility of self-identity as a reflexively constituted sense of self. The perpetual anxiety is
here traced to ‘the socially constructed, and therefore unstable, character of any identifi-
cation’ (p. 632). Collinson (2003) also argues that whatever people do, they tend to

Alvesson
Table 1. An overview of the seven images
Image Key characteristics Theory Driver, challenge Examples
Self-doubter Trying to cope with a high level of Political theory, Multitude of social relations, Collinson (2003)
uncertainty & insecurity existentialism existential insecurity Knights and
Willmott (1989)
Struggler Dealing with contradictions and Critical management Conflicting demands and Sveningsson and
conflicts between self-view and studies challenges Alvesson (2003)
external demands and conditions Thomas and
Davies (2005)
Surfer Responding to a complex and Poststructuralism, Multitude of discourses Deetz (1992)
multiple-discursive world leading discourse analysis driving the individual Weedon (1987)
to fragmentation and fluidity between different subject
positions
Storyteller Creation of meaning through Narrative theory Want to create order and Giddens (1991)
crafting a personal narrative of direction in life Sims (2003)
oneself
Strategist Crafting a functional identity, Socialization, career Being true to self versus Ibarra (1999)
producing a synthesis between theory, conflict theory overadaptation Dahler-Larsen (1997)
‘authenticity’ and organizational/
professional adaptation
Stencil Shaping of the individual through Foucauldian power Exposure to contemporary Knights and
a knowledge/power regime theory, institutional forms of (disciplinary) Morgan (1991)
creating a normalized subject theory power Townley (1993)
Soldier Responding to the availability of Social identity theory Pressure and want to Ashforth and
(attractive) social categories subordinate oneself to a Mael (1989),
used for social and organizational greater whole; affiliation Dutton et al. (1994)
identification
199
reinforce insecurity. This is the case if they put a lot of energy into, for example, a spe-
cific gender identity:
[P]reoccupation with securing clearly defined and coherent gender identities may further rein-
force, rather than resolve, the very insecurity these strategies were intended to overcome.
(Collinson, 2003: 533)
This is also the case with the simultaneous occupation of many subjective positions: ‘the
multiple nature of selves can thus reinforce ambiguity and insecurity’ (p. 534). Sennett
(1998) also emphasizes insecurity, but sees this as directly contingent upon economic
and social changes creating a working life, where flexibility is the key element. Here the
constant pressure on individuals to adapt and be responsive means that the social precon-
ditions for building character and identity are not there anymore and consequently peo-
ple experience difficulties finding meaning and direction in life. Self-doubt becomes
more explicit. The social roots are the basic elements, which is different from Knights
and Willmott who emphasize social conditions that mainly reinforce the strong existen-
tial insecurity associated with human nature per se.
For these authors, issues around identity are very much a matter of dealing with inse-
curity. At best, according to Knights and Willmott, this can be tolerated. Given the pre-
dominance of insecurity, and its related quality anxiety, identity projects will always (or
normally) be experiences of doubt, perhaps lurking beneath the surface. The individual
engaged in identity constructions can thus be conceptualized as a self-doubter – riddled
by the unpleasant and pervasive experiences of insecurity and anxiety. The self-doubter
image leads to a quite sad story of the individual, with a fairly strong pessimism around
the options for the creation of security and satisfaction in working life. The strong forces
of existential worries and the operations of contemporary business under ‘flexible capi-
talism’ threaten to undermine any identity-securing project.
Strugglers: Identity as a possible accomplishment or an uphill battle

While self-doubters refer to the idea of an individual experiencing a difficult and some-
what depressive situation, the alternative image of a struggler suggests a somewhat more
‘positive’ or optimistic version of individuals engaged in constructing a view of them
selves. The view of the identity constructer relates to more active efforts of oneself fight-
ing through a jungle of contradictions and messiness in the pursuit of a sense of self.
Insecurity and anxiety may be part of the picture, but not necessarily the defining fea-
tures and not necessarily the qualities that, at the end of the day, remain. Dealing with
insecurity is, according to the struggle view, not an uphill battle all the time.
There are different theoretical versions of this image, from psychoanalytical to post-
structuralist approaches. Some psychoanalytically oriented authors take a struggle perspec-
tive, particularly when being more ego- and self-oriented than orthodox. Freudians Brown
and Starkey (2000: 111)), for example, take seriously the anxieties and the fear of confront-
ing the ‘inevitable gap between the desire for a perfect self and the profound disappoint-
ment of never being able to realize this desire’. They also consider the defensive mechanisms
used to cope with these issues, along with the possibility through critical self-reflexivity

Alvesson 201
and dialogue, identity can be shaped and reshaped in a more integrated, wise and positive
sense. Coping with a changing reality therefore means understanding and militating against
ego defences such as denial and rationalization, while at the same time resisting the regres-
sive retreat from facing changes and instead dealing with the implications for self-identity.
Other authors are more interested in resistance to discourses, for example, in the imposition
of forms of management as a key element in struggles (e.g. Thomas and Davies, 2005) or
in how people try to sustain a positive and authentic sense of self in a context of contradic-
tory demands (Sveningsson and Alvesson, 2003; Watson, 2008).
Ideas about the difficulty of identity struggles also vary; for some researchers it is
(typically) fairly light (e.g. Ibarra, 1999; Kreiner et al., 2006), for others it is much harder
and may involve self-alienation (Costas and Fleming, 2009). In the former case, the
struggler image may be less salient (useful) than in the latter. A basic conflict, a dilemma,
or contradictory forces operating on the subject are key characteristics of the situation in
which the identity construction work takes place.
The concept of identity work refers to people being engaged in forming, repairing,
maintaining, strengthening or revising the constructions that are productive of a sense of
coherence and distinctiveness. Identity work may, in complex and fragmented contexts,
either be more or less ongoing or be a theme of engagement during crises or transitions.
More generally, specific events, encounters, transitions, surprises, as well as more con-
stant strains, all serve to heighten awareness of the constructed quality of self-identity
and to compel more concentrated identity work. Conscious identity work is thus grounded
in at least a minimal amount of self-doubt and self-openness, typically contingent upon
a mix of psychological-existential worry and the scepticism or inconsistencies faced in
encounters with others or with our images of them (Alvesson and Willmott, 2002). The
idea of identity work is not necessarily confined to the struggle view, it can also be used
in relation to the self-doubter and storyteller images, but is perhaps often most relevant
to the former framing of identity.
Researchers emphasizing identity as struggle assume that there are contradictions,
frustrations and forces acting upon, and sometimes undermining, a self-identity, but
also that the individual, backed up by or being subjected to various ’resources’ some-
times can produce and sustain a self-image, neither independent of, nor totally victim-
ized by these forces. Compared with the self-doubter image, alignment is, in principle,
possible. Socially induced contradictions rather than existential anxieties are the key
driving force.
Compared with many of the other conceptualizations, the individual as a struggler for
self-identity has an element of mild heroism, even though the outcome can be tragic (see
e.g. Sveningsson and Alvesson, 2003).
The struggle metaphor becomes perhaps more interesting and offers a sharp reference
point when it indicates a social reality at odds with one’s self-view, where the individual
with skills, effort and luck may succeed in her efforts to construct a ‘positive’ identity.
From a poststructuralist view this places too much emphasis on the heroic individual,
reflecting Western conventional thinking. From another perspective it may also overem-
phasize the complexity and contradictory nature of the social world. Perhaps the contem-
porary world offers trajectories and means for identity constructions as often as, or more
often than, it raises obstacles to these.

Surfers: Identity as temporal positions

A third image also, similar to the self-doubter, draws attention to the radical openness
of the world, but this is not framed primarily in terms of insecurity and struggle, and
even less so in terms of anxiety. These existentialist characteristics of the subject are
decried as ‘essentialist’, or assuming some kind of (or hope for a) ‘core self’– with
some stable key characteristics. The surfer image is often based on poststructuralist
ideas, and so the subject is viewed as being constituted by discourse. Unstable language
implies unstable meanings and an unstable, decentred human subject, ‘a subject who is
multi-dimensional and without centre or hierarchical integration. It would give us a
process and a paradox, but never a beginning or an end’ (Sampson, 1989: 15). In this
view, the self is as much ‘out there’ – in the language and recipes being circulated
around in mass media – as inside the individual. Poststructuralism rejects the notion of
the autonomous, self-determining individual with a secure unitary identity as the centre
of the social universe. Although many other traditions have done so also (for example,
behaviourists, structuralists, role theorists and to some extent psychoanalysts), post-
structuralist authors have pushed this point strongly and in a sophisticated manner
(Deetz, 1992; Rosenau, 1992).
Sometimes this is backed up by postmodernist ideas about radical social changes
disrupting a coherent or stable sense of self (Shotter and Gergen, 1989). As society
becomes more fragmented and hyper-real or virtual (discourse and image become dis-
connected from any world reference, images reference other images) the identity-
stabilizing forces are lost. Gubrium and Holstein (2001), for example, talk about ‘the
almost dizzying array of institutions comprising the postmodern environment, a world
where selves are regularly decentered from their inner recesses and recentered in insti-
tutional life’ (p. 2). Based on this many authors have emphasized the role of language
and discourse in constituting an individual subject that does not exist outside language,
as ‘. . . identity is in flux, in a permanent state of becoming as various social and lin-
guistic constructs (or discourses) vie with another for supremacy’ (Thomas and
Linstead, 2002: 75).
Within this framework ‘identity’ is not necessarily the most appropriate term, but
many authors do use it. One compromise is to talk about ‘identity’, signalling the devia-
tion from most standard meanings. ‘Identity’ is seen as process, as an element in the flow
of events. Rather than to try to revise, integrate and reproduce ‘identity’, the important
thing is to let go and open up – engage in ’process subjectivity’ (Weedon, 1987), even
‘self-destruction’ (Roberts, 2005).
Process ideas are also expressed by people not inspired by poststructuralism. Ashforth
and Mael (1989), following social identity theory, claim that:
Individuals have multiple, loosely coupled identities, and inherent conflicts between their
demands are typically not resolved by cognitively integrating the identities, but by ordering,
separating, or buffering them. This compartmentalization of identities suggests the possibility
of double standards, apparent hypocrisy and selective forgetting.
(p. 154)

Alvesson 203
Compared with the other images mentioned, ‘identity’ is put in motion without much fric-
tion; it flows with the various forces and contingencies acting upon it. Pain and resis-
tance are less salient elements here, as the self – typically or at least ideally – is adaptable
and implicated by the discourses and varieties of social identities to which it is compli-
ant. The question is whether individuals are that fluid and sensitive to the discourses
calling upon them and, seemingly, triggering shifting subjectivities without much inertia.
Researchers guided by the surfer image may exaggerate the plasticity of humans (Cohen,
1994) and neglect the possibility that life history makes smooth adaptation difficult
(Handley et al., 2006).
Storytellers: A narrative self identity as stabilizer

Another image circles around a narrative self-identity that is associated with personal
history and orientations ‘outside’ the immediate work context, at least as conventionally
defined. McAdams (1996) talks about ‘personal myth’, a kind of ‘life story’ as a central
dimension in identity and something that potentially integrates the diversity of role
expectations common in modern life. It goes beyond role presentations (à la Goffman)
and discourse-driven subjectivity (à la poststructuralism) and points to a more integrated
and meaningfully created identity.
Following Giddens (1991), self-identity is then conceptualized as a reflexively orga-
nized narrative, derived from participation in competing discourses and various experi-
ences, which is productive of a degree of existential continuity and security. ‘Self-identity
is not a distinctive trait, or even a collection of traits, possessed by the individual. It is the
self as reflexively understood by the person . . . self-identity is continuity (across time
and space) as interpreted reflexively by the agent’ (p. 53). Self-identity is assembled out
of cultural raw material: language, symbols, sets of meanings, values, etc. These are
derived from countless numbers of interactions with others and exposure to messages
produced and distributed by agencies (schools, mass media), as well as early life experi-
ences and unconscious processes, all of which lead to ‘a coherent and vivifying life story
(which) provides the modern adult with that quality of selfhood that goes by the name of
identity’ (McAdams, 1996: 299). Such life stories or narratives have ‘the capacity to
integrate the individual’s reconstructed past, perceived present, and anticipated future,
rendering a life-in-time sensible in terms of beginnings, middles and endings’ (p. 298).
The impression is that this can be accomplished in a fairly autonomous way. Depending
on their capacities, individuals succeed or fail to create a narrative that gives meaning
and orientation in life.
There are two major problems here. First, the capacity of individuals to produce a
‘coherent and vivifying life story’ integrating experiences possibly pointing in diverse
directions. Second is whether a narrative, should one be created, has sufficient power
to accomplish a strong sense of continuity and security. Some critics doubt the pos-
sibility of crafting and maintaining a credible self-narrative. Roberts (2005) claims
that ‘such self-absorption is repeatedly problematized by the objectifications of self
by others’ (p. 637). Sims (2003) remarks that even though we create stories about our
selves and our situations, and try to live out some of them, these stories may be chal-
lenged, denied or simply ignored by others. Perhaps it is more common with a

plurality of diverse, even contradictory and disrupted life stories rather than a master
one creating temporal coherence? An emphasis on sets of organizational discourses
used for identity constructions would indicate this (Brown, 2006; Kuhn, 2006). This
critique would then point to an image of the identity constructor as a struggler, or pos-
sibly as a self-doubter, rather than a storyteller (or a combination of these images).
This is particularly true, Sims (2003) argues, for middle managers who are ‘com-
pelled to use a voice to make sense for others’, but ‘that sense may be carelessly
destroyed or ignored by your superiors, while being seen as self-serving and perhaps
weak witted by your subordinates’ (p. 1209) (see Beech, 2008, for an illustration).
Sometimes the emphasis on identity as narrative means a strong emphasis on process:
for example, Czarniawska-Joerges (1994) talks about ‘identity construction as a pro-
cess of narration where both the narrator and the audience formulate, edit, applaud,
and refuse various elements of the ever-produced narrative’ (p. 198). Often the idea of
identity as storytelling refers to a more established and lasting story. Critics thus want
to open up this perspective to take social interactions seriously, but at the core of most
illustrations of the storytelling view lies the idea that the individual, under normal
conditions, is the major author of the story of his or her life and that the interventions
of others are written into this narrative.
As we will see later, the images proposed here are not mutually exclusive, as the
theme of struggle or fairly frictionless shifts in identity can be ingredients in a story.
Also, the images addressed below can be incorporated and subsequently combined with
a storyteller metaphor. However, as a key image, storyteller emphasizes how the indi-
vidual narrates the situations, while the struggle and surfer metaphors emphasize a
broader set of forces and experiences at play, rather than ‘reducing’ them to episodes or
sources of inspiration for storytelling. In addition, most storytelling about identity does
not include any notion about (ongoing) struggle or surfing.
The storytelling image typically emphasizes a somewhat romantic view of the indi-
vidual as being fairly integrated and equipped with creativity and language skills, almost
like an artist. However, there are variations in how this image is used, as some authors
point to polyphony and touch upon issues of domination and power, putting their imprints
on the stories being produced (Brown, 2006; Humphries and Brown, 2002). The current
popularity of the narrative approach means that it is used in all sorts of, and sometimes
rather vague ways. ‘Story’ easily refers to everything and nothing. When applied in iden-
tity studies, it sometimes then does not reduce as much as reinforce the tendency to use
identity in an indistinct way.
Strategists: Crafting a functional identity

Another image of the individual in the context of identity construction suggests a subject
guided by interests and an ability to shape identity in accordance with an objective. An
individual might be eager to start a business or make a career as an executive, that might
engage in qualification acts, impression management, role-seeking and that might do
other things that serve to facilitate a specific identity. This goal or future-state oriented
project may also be a part of a collective enterprise. One way of capturing this is to think
about the individual as a strategist in relation to identity constructions.

Alvesson 205
Ibarra (1999), in a study of how young professionals develop their identities during
socialization, suggests that this is accomplished through three basic tasks: observing role
models, experimenting with provisional selves and evaluating results against internal
and external standards. People observe and build a repertoire of possible selves (Markus
and Nurius, 1986), which then are objects or themes of experimenting, for example,
through imitation of role models or ‘true-to-self strategies’. They then assess and modify
possible selves. This carving out of selves for work and career purposes means that, at
least to a degree, the entire process is active and strategic.
By rehearsing these clumsy, often ineffective, sometimes inauthentic selves, they learned more
about the limitations and potential of their repertoires and thus began to make decisions about
what elements to keep, refine, reject, or continue to search for.
(p. 779)
As people encounter new stages early identities need to be re-crafted or ‘revised with
experience’, requiring a ‘repertoire of resources from which they can construct diverse
self-presentation strategies’ (p. 783). Experiences of control and hope are part of the
identity strategy – this indicates a semi-rational crafting process that is often fairly
successful. Morgan Roberts (2005), for example, portrays professionals engaged in
impression management as reducing discrepancies between images and identities. The
identity strategy may, of course, fail or at least not be totally successful, for example,
if there is a shortage of good role models or demands call for inauthentic selves and
then the self-doubter or struggler images would in fact serve better in capturing any
seriously problematic efforts.
A different take on the identity subject as a strategist idea takes collective themes
more into account and places strategy in a political context. Individual and collective
identities are then intertwined in order to mobilize people for a social project. Dahler-
Larsen (1997) observed shifting identities in a study of Danish flight attendants on strike
in SAS (a Scandinavian airline firm). He found that people moved between seeing them-
selves as flight attendants, SAS members, veterans within the firm and Danes. These
shifts enabled them to create mobilization at various stages and in different situations.
This links with the surfer image, but is much more instrumental and strategic in nature.
It also places greater emphasis on how these people defined and redefined themselves on
the basis of politics and interests, rather than how other forces operated on them.
Examples of authors using the strategist-image include Koot (1997) who draws attention
to how ethnic identity can be mobilized in order to create competition and commitment, and
Humphries and Brown’s (2002) study of efforts to redefine organizational and professional
identities in a UK polytechnic trying to recreate itself as a forthcoming university.
The strategy image emphasizes the interest-driven, intentional aspects of identity. The
strategist can be part of either more personal projects (career, transitions, aspirations) or
political and conflict-laden contexts. It does not necessarily imply rationality or the sub-
ject being in control, as forces may operate on the subject being constructed in a way that
then informs the further construction efforts of a more strategic character. Career ideolo-
gies may, for example, operate on individuals trying to ‘strategize’ themselves in a
career-facilitating way (Grey, 1994). Conscious and active choices on the crafting of

identity for performativity based on objectives and interests are still seen as key aspects
of identity construction.
The use of this image tends to emphasize the individual as a master of identity con-
structions, which appears to exaggerate the level of control and the instrumentality
involved. Sometimes the view of identity becomes a bit shallow, fairly easily adjusted to
preferences and linked to a favoured image (e.g. Morgan Roberts, 2005). Some of the
writings drawing upon this image come close to self-help manuals or career advising
reports, while others show more similarities with political drama emphasizing how iden-
tity is invoked in political struggles.
Stencils: Identity bearing the imprints of discourse at work

A somewhat different take on identity, points to there being a standard or a template which
offers strong clues affecting how identity is constructed. The individual is assumed to sub-
ordinate him- or herself to this. Most uses of this image are inspired by Foucault. But also
institutional theory – emphasizing imitations and standardization tendencies – and critical
theory – pointing at the one-dimensionality associated with cultural domination (Marcuse,
1964) – are relevant here. Alternative terms for this image could be subjectified or scripted,
but I refer to this as the stencil image. The subject copies (or is copied by) a template in the
identity construction. As with the surfers, identity can here be used with quotation marks.
This image views the subject as mainly an effect of the Discourse (Alvesson and
Karreman, 2000) operating on it. It is not so much the individual being actively involved in
the construction of him- or herself as it is external powers doing this work. Foucauldians
and (other kinds of) poststructuralists reject the notion of the autonomous, self-determining
individual with a secure, unitary identity as the centre of the social universe. Discourses
produce subject positions – not that different from roles (but determined by institutional-
ized language rather than norms and expectations) – which individuals are located in
(locate themselves in). There is some overlap with the surfer image, which is also inspired
by poststructuralism, although by more language-focused versions than Foucault’s.
While the surfer image means an emphasis on the lightness of a multiple and fluid self,
the stencil view assumes a more ‘heavy’ and ‘fixed’ ‘self-identity’. This is typically con-
stituted and held in place by a single, dominant Discourse that essentially sets up an ideal
self for subjects to replicate, mainly as an effect of the forces operating on them. While
the surfer identity/identities is (are) fluid and, in a sense, ‘free’ or at least mobile, the
stencil identity is ‘productively repressed’ and put in place.
One of the most influential terms within this framework has been Foucault’s (1977)
concept of discipline. Training, work routines, appraisal systems, self-surveillance, and
experts are all exercising discipline in that they provide resources for normalization.
Through their operations, modern subjects are constituted whose sense of self-identity is
invested in the reproduction of these practices – not simply to achieve material rewards or avoid
punishment but to gain and confirm a (self-disciplining) sense of their own normality as sover-
eign subjects.
(Willmott, 1994: 106)

Alvesson 207
Normative experts, in particular, and the knowledge they create – or that creates (subjectifies)
them – provide a cover for the arbitrary and dominating discursive practices and facili-
tate normalization (Hollway, 1984, 1991). Collinson (2003) refers to this position as
assuming conformist selves, an outcome of regulatory practices. Arguably, identity regu-
lation is an important aspect of contemporary organizational control (Alvesson and
Willmott, 2002). Grey (1994), for example, explores how career structures and ambi-
tions can serve to structure and constrain how people define their selves – including their
future selves – along predictable and adaptable trajectories. Covaleski et al. (1998) high-
light the role of managerial techniques like mentoring and MBO in this regard.
Although Foucauldians, particularly in organization studies, frequently mention and
sometimes seem to exaggerate resistance (see Fleming and Spicer, 2003, for a critical
discussion), the key idea is that external powers are given priority in identity-defining
projects. There is no individual before Discourse works upon him or her. Sceptics raise
doubts about whether Discourse has such a strong impact. That subjects are ‘done to’
rather than ‘doing’ identity is not self-evident (Newton, 1998: 428). Critics also point out
that a lot of people’s experiences at work are ‘unmanaged’ and related to fantasies
(Gabriel, 1995). Arguably, quite a lot of identity constructions take place outside an axis
of (institutionalized) Discourse and resistance to it.
The stencil image paints a somewhat gloomy picture of identity, being tightly inter-
twined with and a product of the operations of power offering a hard-to-resist template.
For the self-doubter image researcher, however, the nightmare is produced by the uncer-
tainty and openness of the social world undermining identity security. In contrast, it is the
fixation and closure that represents the force of darkness for the stencil-focused scholar.
Soldiers: Identification with social units

Another image emphasizes how social categories are central for self-definition.
Belongingness to a social group or an organization is said to do the trick. It calls, how-
ever, for a high level of compliance and a willingness to refrain from strong claims
about individual unicity. In this sense it is similar to the stencil view. What may be
referred to as the soldier image is salient in many writings within the field of social
identity theory (SIT) (Haslam, 2004; Haslam and Reicher, 2006; Turner, 1984). As
mentioned in the section on surfers, parts of this stream emphasize process and situa-
tional variation of social identities contingent upon the presence of an outgroup mak-
ing the ingroup, and the associated social identity, salient and an important source of
identification. But most SIT-inspired work in organization studies has focused on more
static forms of identification – rather than on processes of identifying. Ashforth and
Mael (1989) define social identification as the ‘perception of oneness with or belong-
ingness to some human aggregate’ (p. 135). The interest here is in ‘the practices and
processes that are involved in aligning individual and organizational values’ (Pratt,
2000: 457). This implicates a fairly low degree of insistence on personal uniqueness.
Instead, the unit that one belongs to provides the source of identity (Brickson, 2000).
A key element here is ‘depersonalization, or seeing the self as an embodiment of the
in-group prototype’ (Stets and Burke, 2000: 231). Many students of organization view
organizational identification as significant:

When a person’s self-concept contains the same attributes as those in the perceived organiza-
tional identity, we define the cognitive connection as organizational identification.
Organizational identification is the degree to which a member defines him- or herself by the
same attributes that he or she believes define the organization.
(Dutton et al., 1994: 239)
Dutton et al. argue that ‘the perceived organizational identity – a member’s beliefs about the
distinctive, central, and enduring attributes of the organization – can serve as a powerful
image influencing the degree to which the member identifies with the organization’ (p. 244).
Advocates of the ‘loyal soldier’ view of identity share with the proponents of the
stencil image an emphasis on the conformist and adaptable nature of identity construc-
tions in organizations – although the former talk about the degree of identification and
the latter give some space for resistance – but they differ not least on the sources of iden-
tity and the consequences. The soldier image sees depersonalization and overlap between
perceived selves and organizations as key points and emphasizes mainly ‘positive fea-
tures’ (Dutton et al., 1994; Elsbach, 1999). In opposition to the ‘loyal soldier’ position of
perceived harmony between self-view and organizational identity, the stencil image
means a focus on power and, although its productive qualities are recognized, the tone is
gloomy and critical.
A critique of the organizational identification literature is that it tends to privilege the
organization as a source of identity and it operates with questionable assumptions about
individuals perceiving themselves, and their organizations, in similar and comparable
ways. One may question whether the typical individual, as for example Dutton et al. assume,
really defines ‘him – or herself by the same attributes that he or she believes define the
organization’ (Alvesson, 2003; Dahler-Larsen, 1997). The soldier image can, however,
also be used to illuminate occupational identities and other forms of social identification.
Some studies indicate that the use of collective categories and group belongingness for
the definition of oneself may not be so common (Siebers, 2009). The soldier image also
overemphasizes a static view of identification – one that frequently seems superficial and
misleading when closely scrutinized (Ashcraft and Alvesson, 2008).
In Table 1 and Figure 1 an overview of the seven positions and an effort to both relate
them to the two key dimensions and also to illustrate their internal relations are provided.
Comments on the framework

The aim of the framework is not to reflect on specific theories or texts, or on how indi-
viduals ‘actually’ construct identity (or are pre-constructed in self-definition). Rather, it
indicates central reference points (ideal types) for the conceptualization of the individual
as an identity constructor in the field of identity studies in organizations. There is seldom
a one to one relationship between a text and an image. One image (or root metaphor or
gestalt) does not capture everything in complex reasoning. Most authors would say that
there are securities and insecurities, identity constructions and the undermining of these,
things being done to and done by the subject whose identity is at stake. Scott et al. (1998)
for example, view identity as an anchor, but also emphasize the shifting targets for iden-
tification of individuals. Ashcraft (2007) too moves across some of the images suggested

Alvesson 209
Figure 1. The seven images in relation to each other. (To repeat, the domains indicated by the
figure only indicate some of the key aspects differentiating the images.)
above, in arguing that ‘occupational identity is an ongoing persuasive endeavour that

traverses time and space, across macro and micro messages, institutions and actors, that
serves to (re)organize work by mobilizing discourses of difference in response to lived
pressures and material circumstances’ (p. 15).
Differences between authors (texts) reflect which of these elements are privileged in
analysis and how the themes and their relationships are addressed. The image idea aims
to capture how the individual is conceptualized and portrayed in the identity construction
process. Some texts would express the view that there is a tendency towards coherence,
integration and distinctiveness easing uncertainty and fluidity, while others would see
the latter experiences as typically salient or lurking beneath the surface in contemporary
organizational life. Texts also vary in what they imagine the major source of this accom-
plishment or failure to be. Some would emphasize managerial regimes/other social
forces (e.g. post-bureaucratization, according to Sennett, 1998) while others view human
agency as central. In other words, the variation concerns whether it is contingency fac-
tors or the fragility or strength of human beings – as riddled with existential anxiety or as

creative storytellers – that drive individuals towards fixed/integrated or diverse/fragmented

identity constructions.
As pointed out above, an image includes a theoretical idea, but is not the same as a
theory. Image and theory are neither independent nor directly implied by each other. Images
can to some extent be linked with different theories, and vice versa, although some combi-
nations do not work. In parts of social identity theory there are also combinations of
dynamic and relational, as well as static and ‘trait-like’ ingredients, sometimes salient in
one and the same text. On the one hand, the definitions of others and the self are mainly
relational and comparative (Ashforth and Mael, 1989: 154) and it is assumed that ‘most
individuals slide fairly easily from one identity to another’ (p. 148); on the other hand,
ideas of group identification and ‘cognition of oneness’ between self and organization
implies something fairly stable and fixed. The latter view, which dominates applications of
social identity theory in organization studies, is illuminated by the soldier image, but as the
first citation suggests, a surfer image is also possible as a guideline for users of SIT.
Similarly, within research drawing upon organizational identification, most emphasize a
soldier version of positive identification, but there are also examples of researchers with a
stronger focus on disidentification and, in particular, ambivalence, which then come closer
to the struggler view (e.g. Humphries and Brown, 2002; Pratt, 2000). Writings of
Foucauldian theorists, while typically based on an image of identity as stencil, may also –
when resistance is emphasized – be viewed as being guided by an image of struggle.
The point is thus that the level of image adds a different level of understanding to how we
conceptualize individuals as identity constructers (or as targeted for identity constructions
by management, discourse, social structures), as well as to broader ‘paradigm-like’ distinc-
tions (e.g. constructionism versus essentialism) and specific theories (this text is then similar
to Morgan, 1980). Through the conscious use of images – and perhaps through varying and
confronting these – specific theories can be used differently, and possibly more creatively.
The images can, of course, also be used in empirical work, as sensitizing devices in
fieldwork. It is possible to see existential anxiety, identity struggle, switching of subject
position and storytelling being targeted for subordination to a Discursive regime and being
strongly identified with a social aggregate as theoretically guided empirical themes. The set
of images then can be seen as a resource for more sensitive and less reductionistic empiri-
cal work and as useful for thinking through what could be observed and what questions
could be asked. The images then inform the design of a checklist to be used in inquiries. In
addition to using a specific theory (social identity theory, psychoanalysis, etc.) and being
interested in an empirical topic (socialization, motives, leadership) in relationship to iden-
tity conceptualizing – before, during and/or after fieldwork – the suggested framework
may add imaginativeness and guidelines for inquiry. Looking at and confronting various
images with each other may open up for redirections and novelty in studies.
Conclusion
This article offers an interpretation and a re-presentation of some contemporary ideas on
identity (self-identity) in organization studies. The ambition is not so much to provide a
detailed and uncontroversial map or sorting-machine, as to trigger awareness of alternative
conceptualizations and facilitate clearer choices for identity researchers. This means that it

Alvesson 211
becomes more important to point out some interesting variations, rather than to cover and
plug in all possibly important works on a knowledge map. One can here perhaps add that
the map metaphor is misleading. The field is very messy and shifting; it is difficult to pro-
duce re-representations, different vocabularies constitute the field in various ways and the
overview will, if read, also trigger changes. The challenge is to provide an overview while
acknowledging ambiguity, tensions and dynamics, and to give a productive framework for
options without ‘boxing’ in ideas and lines of thinking in rigid categories.
This article gives a quite different overview of the field than the available literature
reviews, which are focused on paradigms, specific theoretical perspectives or research areas.
Authors typically point towards two or three broad, and general, theoretical orientations –
such as ‘essentialism’ or ‘non-essentialism’ (Cerulo, 1997) or ‘identification with a collec-
tive’ or ‘parts of the self’ (Stryker and Burke, 2000: 284). Alternatively, literature reviews
emphasize a sub-area and then concentrate on theories in this. For instance, Pratt et al.
(2006) review socialization, transition and identity work approaches to the understanding of
professional identity construction. Or reviews go through the relationships between identity
and various topics or research areas, for example, handicap, family, social movements, etc.
(Howard, 2000). This article adds to the literature through a) pointing to a wide set of theo-
retical reference points and conceptualizations of identity, and b) addressing this on the level
of image, with a broad relevance for addressing a multitude of work and organizational
phenomena. Hopefully, this clarifies and broadens options for identity research. Through the
pointing out of tensions and variations within literature drawing upon these images, the
article also attempts to encourage creativity in how we can think about identity constructions
in organizations. Considering the relations between the images may be helpful here.
Two basic dimensions (or constellations of themes that are seen to be related) surface
in this work. One is the degree of insecurity, fluidity and ambiguity versus the degree of
coherence, robustness and integration of self-identity. The other is whose wide or narrow
shoulders the burden and joy of identity construction work falls upon. One extreme view
is to see this as a matter of individual effort and capacity (or lack of it): struggling with
aligning diverse forces, existential and/or socially induced insecurity and anxiety. The
other view is to see this as an outcome of various social forms and discursive forces,
where the identification with a standard for being – a dominant Discourse or a corporate/
occupational identity – offers a response to the questions of ‘who am I?’
These dimensions offer quite wide fields of inquiry, leading to a rich variety of posi-
tions and lines of reasoning. Rather than bringing the dimensions together through a
two-by-two matrix and fixing everything into four boxes, seven key images are identi-
fied/constructed. Each of these includes a central idea that goes beyond the two broad
dimensions used to emphasize comparisons, for example, existential insecurity or the
power effects of Discourse. The individual, preoccupied with self-identity, can thus be
understood as a:
!" Self-doubter: identity is viewed as circling around the irreducible, but socially
reinforced quality of insecurity and anxiety, undermining identity constructions.
!" Struggler: identity is understood as a struggle, at times uphill, enacted in order to
construct a self-identity that at least provides a temporal sense of coherence and a
reduction of fragmentation and pain.
!" Surfer: the subject is viewed as processual and open, meaning that in a dynamic
and turbulent world, the moves made between those subject positions offering
temporary identities take place without all that much friction or contest between
forces and ‘interests’.
!" Storyteller: the reflexive construction and re-production of a narrative of oneself
is viewed as a potentially effective way of dealing with the openness and uncer-
tainties of life.
!" Strategist: the individual tries to craft a sense of self (collective identification) that is
then to be mobilized for the accomplishment of a personal or collective objective.
!" Stencil: identity is seen as an effect of the operations of regulatory forces creating
a docile and conformist self, eager to replicate the dominant templates for being.
!" Soldier: social entities (formal organizations, collectivities), often made appealing
through managerial means (e.g. constructions of organizational identities), offer
material for self-definition by functioning as sources of identification.
This set of images is based on, and targets, organization studies (and to a minor extent
social psychological literatures) on individual identity constructions, but does not pre-
vent it from being potentially useful when thinking about identity in relation to various
collectivities (occupational or organizational identities).
But how can we use the framework within the intended area? One possibility is to
view these positions as a smorgasbord, thereby encouraging a holistic view and sensitiv-
ity in empirical work. Images can enrich fieldwork by suggesting possible questions and
lines of inquiry. A second option is to assume empirical variation, and to use the frame-
work as a set of resources for mainly inductive work, where data are seen as pointing at
a particular image that is, in turn, invoked to develop and refine results.
A counterpoint would be that we can not understand cases ‘neutrally’ and then deter-
mine which perspective and vocabulary ‘fit’ best. The image used informs the construc-
tion of any empirical phenomenon and provides an antidote to being narrowly captured by
empirical surface manifestations. The idea in this article is thus to regard these images as
alternative positions, based on not altogether compatible, and in some cases different,
ontologies and epistemologies. It could be argued that depth and coherence call for choos-
ing, cultivating and sticking with a particular image, therefore implying some in-depth
knowledge, even though there are other ways of formulating images than the one pre-
sented here. A more interesting research approach than working with an easy and apparent
fit between theory and empirical material is often to use a theory based on data that at first
glance does not actually seem to allow space for interpretation by that particular theory.
This tactic/style calls for both ambitious unpacking efforts and creative interpretation.
Identity is a difficult theme to study and it can easily involve everything and nothing. It
calls for sensitive interpretations. This article aims to encourage the use of carefully thought
through images and to support reflexive studies where the researcher keeps more than one
image in mind and is prepared to challenge his/her conceptualizations and lines of inquiry.
Acknowledgement
The author is grateful to Karen Lee Ashcraft, Yvonne Billing and Jacqueline Colleary for
help in polishing the text. The work with the article was facilitated by a grant from the
Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research (FAS).
Alvesson 213
Note
1 In referring to various overall camps, one can be described by terms like integrated, robust,
sovereign, coherent and essentialism and the other by terms like insecurity, anxiety, fluidity and
incoherence. Of course, this categorization conceals that there are rather varied orientations,
alternative conceptualizations and ontological positionings that are framed also in other ways.
There are no necessary or automatic links between the phenomena referred to; insecurity and
fluidity do not always, or by definition, go together. A robust identity construction can be an
effect of the workings of power and is then not associated with sovereignty. Nevertheless, in
the literature as a whole, there are strong tendencies for researchers to work with sets of char-
acteristics as referred to above.
References
Albert S, Ashforth B, and Dutton J (2000) Organizational identity and identification. Academy of
Management Review 25: 13–17.
Alvesson M (2003) Interpretive unpacking: Moderately destabilizing identities and images in orga-
nization studies. In: Locke E (ed.) Research in the Sociology of Organizations. Amsterdam:
Elsevier, 3–27.
Alvesson M, Karreman D (2000) Varieties of discourse: On the study of organizations through
discourse analysis. Human Relations 53: 1125–49.
Alvesson M, Sköldberg K (2009) Reflexive Methodology, 2nd edn. London: SAGE.
Alvesson M, Thompson P (2005) Post-bureaucracy? In: Ackroyd S et al. (eds) Oxford Handbook
of Work and Organization Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 485–507.
Alvesson M, Willmott H (2002) Producing the appropriate individual. Identity regulation as orga-
nizational control. Journal of Management Studies 39: 619–44.
Alvesson M, Ashcraft K, and Thomas R (2008a) Identity matters: Reflections on the construction
of identity scholarship in organization studies. Organization 15: 5–28.
Alvesson M, Hardy C, and Harley B (2008b) Reflecting on reflexivity: Reappraising practice.
Journal of Management Studies 45: 480–501.
Ashcraft KL (2007) Appreciating the ‘work’ of discourse: Occupational identity and difference as
organizing mechanisms in the case of commercial airline pilots. Discourse & Communication
1: 9–36.
Ashcraft KL, Alvesson M (2008) The moving targets of dis/identification: Wrestling with the
reality of social construction. Manuscript, University of Utah, USA and Lund University,
Sweden.
Ashforth B, Mael F (1989) Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management
Review 14: 20–39.
Beech N (2008) On the nature of dialogic identity work. Organization 15: 51–74.
Brickson S (2000) The impact of identity orientation on individual and organizational outcomes in
demographically diverse settings. Academy of Management Review 25: 82–101.
Brown AD (2006) A narrative approach to collective identities. Journal of Management Studies
43: 731–54.
Brown AD, Starkey K (2000) Organizational identity and learning: A psychodynamic perspective.
Academy of Management Review 25: 102–20.
Burrell G, Morgan G (1979) Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis. London:
Heinemann.

Cerulo K (1997) Identity construction: New issues, new directions. Annual Review of Sociology 23:
385–409.
Cohen A (1994) Self Consciousness. An Alternative Anthropology of Identity. London: Routledge.
Collinson D (2003) Identities and insecurities. Organization 10: 527–47.
Costas J, Fleming P (2009) Beyond dis-identification: A discursive approach to self-alienation in
contemporary organizations. Human Relations 62: 353–78.
Covaleski M, Dirsmith M, Heian J, and Samuel S (1998) The calculated and the avowed: Techniques
of discipline and struggles over identity in Big Six public accounting firms. Administrative
Science Quarterly 43: 293–327.
Czarniawska-Joerges B (1994) Narratives of indvididual and organizational identities. In: Deetz S
(ed.) Communication Yearbook 17. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 193–221.
Dahler-Larsen P (1997) Organizational identity as ‘crowded category’: A case of multiple and
quickly shifting ‘we’ typifications. In: Sackmann S (ed.) Cultural Complexity in Organizations.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 367–89.
Deetz S (1992) Democracy in an Age of Corporate Colonization. Albany: SUNY Press.
Dunne J (1996) Beyond sovereignty and deconstruction: The storied self. In: Kearney R (ed.) Paul
Ricoeur. The Hermeneutics of Action. London: SAGE.
Dutton J, Dukerich J, and Harquail C (1994) Organizational images and member identification.
Administrative Science Quarterly 43: 293–327.
Elsbach K (1999) An expanded model of organizational identification. Research in Organizational
Behaviour 21: 163–200.
Ely R, Padavic I (2007) A feminist analysis of organizational research on sex differences. Academy
of Management Review 32: 1121–43.
Fleming P, Spicer A (2003) Working at a cynical distance: Implications for power, subjectivity and
resistance. Organization 10: 157–79.
Foucault M (1977) Discipline and Punish. New York: Vintage.
Foucault M (1980) Power/Knowledge. New York: Pantheon.
Gabriel Y (1995) The unmanaged organization: Stories, fantasies and subjectivity. Organization
Studies 16: 477–501.
Giddens A (1991) Modernity and Self-identity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Gioia D, Schulz M, and Corley K (2000) Organizational identity, image, and adaptive instability.
Grey C (1994) Career as a project of self and labour process discipline. Sociology 28: 479–97.
Grey C (2005) About Studying Organizations. London: SAGE.
Gubrium J, Holstein J (2001) Introduction. Trying times, troubled selves. In: Gubrium J and
Holstein J (eds) Institutional Selves. New York: Oxford University Press.
Habermas J (1972) Knowledge and Human Interests. London: Heinemann.
Handley K, Sturdy A, Fincham R, and Clark T (2006) Within and beyond communities of practice:
Making sense of learning through participation, identity and practice. Journal of Management
Studies 43: 641–54.
Haslam A (2004) Psychology of Organizations, 2nd edn. London: SAGE.
Haslam A, Reicher S (2006) Social identity and the dynamics of organizational life. In: Bartel C,
Blader S and Wrzesniewski A (eds) Identity and the Modern Organization. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.

Alvesson 215
Hollway W (1984) Gender difference and the production of subjectivity. In: Henriques J et al. (eds)
Changing the Subject. London: Methuen, 227–63.
Hollway W (1991) Work Psychology and Organizational Behaviour. London: SAGE.
Howard J (2000) Social psychology of identities. Annual Review of Sociology 26: 367–93.
Humphries M, Brown AD (2002) Narratives of organizational identity and identification: A case
study of hegemony and resistance. Organization Studies 23: 421–47.
Ibarra H (1999) Provisional selves: Experimenting with image and identity in professional adapta-
tion. Administrative Science Quarterly 44: 764–91.
Jackall R (1988) Moral Mazes. The World of Corporate Managers. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Jenkins R (2000) Categorization: Identity, social process and epistemology. Current Sociology 48:
7–25.
Knights D, Morgan G (1991) Corporate strategy, organizations, and subjectivity: A critique.
Organization Studies 12: 251–73.
Knights D, Willmott H (1989) Power and subjectivity at work. Sociology 23: 535–58.
Knights D, Willmott H (1999) Management Lives. London: SAGE.
Koot W (1997) Strategic utilization of ethnicity in contemporary organizations. In: Sackmann S
(ed.) Cultural Complexity in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 315–339.
Kreiner G, Hollensbe E, and Sheep M (2006) Where is the ‘me’ among the ‘we’? Identity work and
the search for optimal balance. Academy of Management Journal 49: 1031–57.
Kuhn T (2006) A ‘demented work ethic’ and a lifestyle firm. Discourse, identity and workplace
time commitments. Organization Studies 27: 1339–57.
Leonard N, Beauvais L, and Scholl R (1999) Work motivation: The incorporation of self-concept-
based processes. Human Relations 52: 969–98.
Locke K, Golden-Biddle K (1997) Constructing opportunities for contribution: Structuring inter-
textual coherence and ‘problematizing’ in organizational studies. Academy of Management
Journal 40: 1023–62.
Marcuse H (1964) One-Dimensional Man. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Markus H, Nurius P (1986) Possible selves. American Psychologist 41: 954–69.
Markus H, Wurf M (1987) The dynamic self-concept. A social psychological perspective. Annual
Review of Psychology 38: 299–337.
McAdams D (1996) Personality, modernity, and the storied self: A contemporary framework for
studying persons. Psychological Inquiry 7: 295–321.
McSweeny B (2006) Do we live in a post-bureaucratic époque? Journal of Organizational Change
Management 19: 22–37.
Morgan G (1980) Paradigms, metaphors, and puzzle solving in organization theory. Administrative
Science Quarterly 25: 605–22.
Morgan G (1997) Images of Organization. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Morgan Roberts L (2005) Changing faces: Professional image construction in diverse organiza-
tional settings. Academy of Management Review 30: 685–711.
Newton T (1998) Theorizing subjectivity in organizations. The failure of Foucauldian studies?
Organization Studies 19: 415–47.
Pratt M (2000) The good, the bad, and the ambivalent: Managing identification among Amway
distributors. Administrative Science Quarterly 45: 456–93.

Pratt M, Rockmann K and Kaufmann J (2006) Constructing professional identity: The role of
work and identity learning cycles in the customization of identity among medical residents.
Academy of Management Journal 49: 235–62.
Roberts J (2005) The power of the ‘imaginary’ in disciplinary processes. Organization 12: 619–42.
Rorty R (1989) Contingency, Irony and Solidarity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rosenau PM (1992) Post-Modernism and the Social Sciences. Insights, Inroads and Intrusions.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Sampson E (1989) Deconstruction of self. In: Shotter J and Gergen K (eds) Texts of Identity.
London: SAGE, 1–19.
Sarup M (1988) An Introductory Guide to Post-structuralism and Post-modernism. Hemel
Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Scott C, Corman S, and Cheney G (1998) Development of a structurational model of identification
in the organization. Communication Theory 8: 298–336.
Sennett R (1998) The Corrosion of Character. New York: Norton.
Shotter J, Gergen K (eds) (1989) Texts of Identity. London: SAGE.
Siebers HG (2009) Struggles for recognition: The politics of racioethnic identity among Dutch
national tax administrators. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 25: 73–84.
Sims D (2003) Between the millstones: A narrative account of the vulnerability of middle manag-
ers’ storying. Human Relations 56: 1195–211.
Stets J, Burke P (2000) Identity theory and social identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly 63:
224–37.
Stryker S, Burke P (2000) The past, present, and future of an identity theory. Social Psychology
Quarterly 63: 284–97.
Sveningsson S, Alvesson M (2003) Managing managerial identities. Human Relations 56: 1163–93.
Thomas R, Davies A (2005) Theorizing the micro-politics of resistance. Organization Studies
26: 683–706.
Thomas R, Linstead A (2002) Losing the plot? Middle managers and identity. Organization
9: 71–93.
Thompson P, Warhurst C (eds) (1998) Workplaces of the Future. London: Macmillan.
Townley B (1993) Foucault, power/knowledge, and its relevance for human resource management.
Turner J (1984) Social identification and psychological group formation. In: Tajfel H (ed.) The
Social Dimension, Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Watson T (1994) In Search of Management. London: Routledge.
Watson T (2008) Managing identity, identity work, personal predicaments and structured circum-
stances. Organization 15: 121–43.
Weedon C (1987) Feminist Practice & Poststructuralist Theory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Willmott H (1994) Theorizing human agency: Responding to the crises of (post)modernity. In: Hassard
J and Parker M (eds) Towards a New Theory of Organizations. London: Routledge, 44–60.

Alvesson 217
Mats Alvesson is Professor of Business Administration at the University of Lund, Sweden and at
University of Queensland Business School, Australia. He is Honorary Professor at University of
St Andrews and Visiting Professor at Exeter University. Research interests include critical theory,
gender, power, management of professional service (knowledge intensive) organizations, leadership,
identity, organizational image, organizational culture and symbolism, qualitative methods and phi-
losophy of science. Recent books include Oxford Handbook of Critical Management Studies (Oxford
University Press, 2009, edited with Todd Bridgman and Hugh Willmott), Understanding Gender and
Organizations (SAGE, 2009, 2nd edn with Yvonne Billing), Reflexive Methodology (Sage, 2009, 2nd
edn, with Kaj Skoldberg), Changing Organizational Culture (Routledge, 2008, with Stefan
Sveningsson), Knowledge Work and Knowledge-intensive Firms (Oxford University Press, 2004),
Postmodernism and Social Research (Open University Press, 2002), and Understanding
Organizational Culture (SAGE, 2002). [Email: mats.alvesson@fek.lu.se]

Struglers Storytellers Surfers Others Alvesson

Cargado por

Información del documento

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Struglers Storytellers Surfers Others Alvesson

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Human Relations

Self-doubters, strugglers, storytellers, surfers and others: Images of

The online version of this article can be found at:

The Tavistock Institute

Email Alerts: http://hum.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Downloaded from http://hum.sagepub.com at Univ Complutense de Madrid on June 15, 2010

Downloaded from http://hum.sagepub.com at Univ Complutense de Madrid on June 15, 2010

categories and organizational identification, so links to organizational identity certainly

Downloaded from http://hum.sagepub.com at Univ Complutense de Madrid on June 15, 2010

On ’method’: Modesty, irony and reflexivity

Downloaded from http://hum.sagepub.com at Univ Complutense de Madrid on June 15, 2010

Downloaded from http://hum.sagepub.com at Univ Complutense de Madrid on June 15, 2010

Downloaded from http://hum.sagepub.com at Univ Complutense de Madrid on June 15, 2010

Seven images on identity

Downloaded from http://hum.sagepub.com at Univ Complutense de Madrid on June 15, 2010

Image Key characteristics Theory Driver, challenge Examples

Strugglers: Identity as a possible accomplishment or an uphill battle

Downloaded from http://hum.sagepub.com at Univ Complutense de Madrid on June 15, 2010

Downloaded from http://hum.sagepub.com at Univ Complutense de Madrid on June 15, 2010

Surfers: Identity as temporal positions

Downloaded from http://hum.sagepub.com at Univ Complutense de Madrid on June 15, 2010

Storytellers: A narrative self identity as stabilizer

Downloaded from http://hum.sagepub.com at Univ Complutense de Madrid on June 15, 2010

Strategists: Crafting a functional identity

Downloaded from http://hum.sagepub.com at Univ Complutense de Madrid on June 15, 2010

Downloaded from http://hum.sagepub.com at Univ Complutense de Madrid on June 15, 2010

Stencils: Identity bearing the imprints of discourse at work

Downloaded from http://hum.sagepub.com at Univ Complutense de Madrid on June 15, 2010

Soldiers: Identification with social units

Downloaded from http://hum.sagepub.com at Univ Complutense de Madrid on June 15, 2010

Comments on the framework

Downloaded from http://hum.sagepub.com at Univ Complutense de Madrid on June 15, 2010

above, in arguing that ‘occupational identity is an ongoing persuasive endeavour that

Downloaded from http://hum.sagepub.com at Univ Complutense de Madrid on June 15, 2010

creative storytellers – that drive individuals towards fixed/integrated or diverse/fragmented

Downloaded from http://hum.sagepub.com at Univ Complutense de Madrid on June 15, 2010

Downloaded from http://hum.sagepub.com at Univ Complutense de Madrid on June 15, 2010

Downloaded from http://hum.sagepub.com at Univ Complutense de Madrid on June 15, 2010

Downloaded from http://hum.sagepub.com at Univ Complutense de Madrid on June 15, 2010

Downloaded from http://hum.sagepub.com at Univ Complutense de Madrid on June 15, 2010

Downloaded from http://hum.sagepub.com at Univ Complutense de Madrid on June 15, 2010

También podría gustarte