Construction of organizational identity claim and understanding in nonprofits: Evidence from Pakistan's voluntary organizations

• Date: 01 December 2019
• Author: Zunaira Saqib
• Published date: 01 December 2019
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21388

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Construction of organizational identity claim and

understanding in nonprofits: Evidence from

Pakistan's voluntary organizations

Zunaira Saqib

NUST Business School, National

University of Sciences and Technology,

Islamabad, Pakistan

Correspondence

Zunaira Saqib, NUST Business School,

National University of Sciences and

Technology, Islamabad, Pakistan.

Email: zunaira.saqib@nbs.nust.edu.pk

Abstract

There is a substantial research literature on nonprofits

identity claim and identity understanding but much less on

how these identities are constructed in the first place. This

article explores how identity claim and identity under-

standing are constructed in the nonprofits and reasons for

such constructions. Exploratory multiple case study analy-

sis was conducted with two voluntary organizations. The

results showed that three factors play a significant role in

construction of identity claim; founders, funding, and

power of stakeholders. The construction of identity under-

standing is influenced by the claim and is often in sync

until the funding source changes leading to a dissimilar

identity understanding. The members, however, showed

reluctance to embrace the new identity due to the power of

stakeholders and fear of mission drift. The unsynchronized

claim and understanding caused confusions among the

members as they juggled between adopting the new iden-

tity understanding and keeping a dissimilar claim. This

confusion hinders the nonprofits growth and they struggle

to answer what they want to be in future.

KEYWORDS

case study, nonprofit, organizational, research, theory

Organizational identity has become a significant area of research since Albert and Whetten's (1985)

seminal paper. The central, distinctive, and enduring attributes ask for a “self-referential meaning”

with organization communicating to itself about “who are we”(Albert & Whetten, 1985; Corley

Received: 13 February 2019 Revised: 17 July 2019 Accepted: 9 August 2019

DOI: 10.1002/nml.21388

Nonprofit Management and Leadership. 2019;30:233–254. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/nml © 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 233

et al., 2006). There are considerable disagreement around the construct of organizational identity

(Corley et al., 2006) inquiring if it is a stable property or a malleable one (Jäger & Schröer, 2014), a

collective-level concept referred to social actors (Whetten & Mackey, 2002) or collection of individ-

uals’understanding within an organization (Dutton, Dukerich, & Harquail, 1994). The social actor's

perspective, sense-giving, defines identity as the institutional claim proposed by organizational

leaders, whereas the social constructionist's perspective, sense-making, defines identity as collec-

tively shared belief and understanding between the members. The social actor's perspective refers to

identity as “identity claim,”whereas the social constructionists refers to it as “identity

understanding,”with a possibility that “claim”influences “understanding”(Czarniawska & Joerges,

1997; He & Brown, 2013; Kjaergaard, Morsing, & Ravasi, 2011; Ran & Golden, 2011; Ravasi &

Schultz, 2006). Considerable research exists on identity claim and understanding; however, little has

been said on how these identities are constructed? This study contributes to the literature of organiza-

tional identity construction by answering how and why “claim”and “understanding”are constructed

and if “claim”influences the “understanding”in the nonprofits.

1|ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTITY AND THE NON-PROFIT

SECTOR

Organizational identity is about central, enduring, and distinctive (CED) attributes of an organization.

The CED attributes are used by organization's members to answer “Who are we?,”“What kind of

business are we in?,”and “What do we want to be in future?”These attributes are considered the ref-

erence points for the members when they are representing the organization (Albert & Whetten, 1985;

Whetten, 2006; Young, 2001b). Over the years, several closely related constructs emerged including

intended image and constructed image (Brown, Dacin, Pratt, & Whetten, 2006). Nonetheless, within

the identity literature, there are two main theoretical schools of thoughts about how organizations

answer the identity question: social actor perspective and social constructionist perspective (Fiol,

1991; Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991; Gioia, Schultz, & Corley, 2000; Kjaergaard et al., 2011; Ran &

Duimering, 2007; Ran & Golden, 2011; Ravasi & Schultz, 2006). Pratt (2003) referred to social con-

structionist's perspective as an “aggregate”identity where collective identities are in the minds of

individual members of the organization. The shared understanding has been called problematic as it

is not clear if only organization's members are included in collective meaning or all stakeholde rs

(Albert & Whetten, 1985; Pratt, 2003). The perspective sees identity as residing in collectively

shared beliefs of the members (Gioia et al., 2000; Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991) with emphasis on

sense-making where members interrogate themselves on CED attributes (Dutton & Dukerich, 1991).

This has also been referred as “identity understanding”which can be occasionally renegotiated

among members (Ravasi & Schultz, 2006). On the other hand, the social actor's perspective sees

identity as embedded in the institutional claim (Whetten, 2003) with emphasis on sense-giving where

leaders provide members with consistent and legitimate account to construct a collective sense

(Whetten & Mackey, 2002). This has also been referred as “identity claim”which is resistant to

change (Ravasi & Schultz, 2006). Gioia and Chittipeddi (1991) suggested that it is only through the

interaction of sense-giving and sense-making that an abstract vision becomes a well-defined vision.

The perspectives have been called two interrelated dimensions of the identity. Ravasi and Schultz

(2006) similarly concluded that advocates of the two perspectives appreciate the influence of claim

on understanding and vice versa and suggest that one needs to account for both perspective to under-

stand the organizational identity.

234 SAQIB