Understanding the Spirit of the Sectors: Exploring Identity in a New Era of Organizing

• Author: Julie Langer
• DOI: 10.1177/00953997211041131
• Published date: 01 May 2022
• Date: 01 May 2022
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/00953997211041131

Administration & Society

2022, Vol. 54(5) 792 –827

© The Author(s) 2021

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/00953997211041131

journals.sagepub.com/home/aas

Article

Understanding the Spirit

of the Sectors: Exploring

Identity in a New Era of

Organizing

Julie Langer1

Abstract

While sector distinction debates often re-emerge during periods of cultural

and institutional upheaval, none have considered an identity-orientation

perspective. Identity orientation is a natural domain in which to address

these debates as it considers the individualistic, relational, and collectivistic

foundations of organizations. This study explores whether organizational

members across sectors view their organization’s identity orientation

differently. Findings suggest that member perceptions of identity orientation

are significantly different across sectors and align with traditional sector

values and motivations. However, no one sector can be defined solely as

individualistic, relational, or collectivistic. These findings are discussed and

future research paths laid out.

Keywords

sector identity, sector comparisons, public private distinction

1Northern Illinois University, Dekalb, USA

Corresponding Author:

Julie Langer, Department of Public Administration, Northern Illinois University, 1425 W.

Lincoln Highway, IASBO Building, Dekalb, IL 60115, USA.

Email: jlanger@niu.edu

1041131AAS0010.1177/00953997211041131Administration & SocietyLanger

research-article2021

Langer 793

Introduction

In periods of upheaval, when cultural and institutional environments chal-

lenge existing patterns of organizing, increased attention is focused on the

similarities and differences of organizations across sectors (public, for-profit,

and nonprofit) and their potential to both create and destroy value.1 In the

wake of industrialization, scholars and practitioners contemplated what the

impacts of bureaucratization and professionalization might be on the roles

that for-profit, nonprofit, and public organizations fulfilled in society

(DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Hwang & Powell, 2009). In a postindustrial

global economy, it was devolution, managerialism, and marketization that

sector debates centered on (Box et al., 2001; Eikenberry & Kluver, 2004).

Today, in an era defined by integration and hyper-organization,2 issues of

blurring and hybridity define discussions of sector distinctiveness (Bromley

& Meyer, 2015, 2017). While each different, all of these organizational revo-

lutions have prompted questions about the purpose, identities, and behaviors

of organizations within and across sectors and through what lens they can

best be understood.

While expectations of organizations across sectors have evolved over time

in response to changing institutional environments and cultural norms, for

much of the last century organizational “sector” has served as a powerful

symbol of identity, signaling to members appropriate values and legitimate

behaviors. For-profit organizations, birthed from early notions of the market

and private life, have historically been expected to act as efficient profit cre-

ators, focused on the actualization of economic self-interest and the amassing

of shareholder wealth (Coase, 1993; Friedman, 1970; Mill, 1871). In com-

parison, government organizations, an outgrowth of public life and the

nation-state, have been expected to act as social architects, effectively actual-

izing the public interest (Adams et al., 1988; Box et al., 2001; Hegel,

1820/1945; Rosenbloom & McCurdy, 2006; Stivers, 2000). Nonprofit orga-

nizations, a manifestation of the marriage between private life and the com-

mon good, have long been expected to serve the moral interests of individuals

gathering together in voluntary association (de Tocqueville, 1840/2016;

Soskis, 2020).

Despite these long-standing identities, today, thousands of for-profit com-

panies across hundreds of countries endorse agreements to act morally

(Donaldson & Walsh, 2015; Kettl, 2002). Nonprofits, now more organized

and professional than ever, act on behalf of the government and embrace the

market in their endeavors as socially responsible citizens (Bromley & Meyer,

2015; Eikenberry, 2009). Government organizations have embraced market-

based practices, devolving and contracting out public services in the name of

efficiency (Bryson et al., 2014; Hood, 1991; Kettl, 2000). Across all sectors,

794 Administration & Society 54(5)

organizations are now recognized as social actors with their own rights and

identities (Ashforth et al., 2020). These new realities have reignited debates

about whether organizations in the for-profit, nonprofit, and public sectors

have distinct and enduring identities or whether modern organizing processes

have made sector membership less relevant.

Sector distinctions have been approached in a number of different ways

over time. In the public and nonprofit universes, early research on sector dif-

ferences focused primarily on instrumental organizational features such as

goods produced, legal constraints, funding, internal procedures, and sources

of authority (Bozeman, 1987; Breton & Wintrobe, 1982; Chubb & Moe,

1988; Hansmann, 1987; Perry & Rainey, 1988; Wamsley & Zald, 1973;

Weisbrod, 1975). This research expanded our understanding of sector overlap

and dimensionality, highlighting the close connection between organizational

form and institutional environment (Bozeman, 1987; Frumkin &

Galaskiewicz, 2004; Perry & Rainey, 1988). However, sector distinctions

based on organizational form faded as the 20th century wore on (e.g., sector

blurring), leading to the assertion that form and function may not always

coincide (Powell, 2020).

While organizational forms may exhibit dimensionality and malleability

over time as they conform to institutionally legitimized structures and cul-

tural norms; function, or the purpose for which form is used, is more closely

tied to expressive organizational features such as values and motivations.

Given that values and motivations form the foundation of organizational

identity, which is a relatively enduring meta-level construct, it may be better

suited than form to capture similarities and differences both within and across

sectors. Albert and Whetten (1985) define organizational identity as those

features of an organization that are central (core), distinctive (different), and

enduring (long-term). More specifically, organizational identity refers to the

deepest values and commitments that organizations repeatedly commit to

through time and across circumstances (Whetten, 2006). The purpose of this

research is to explore the identity or spirit of the sectors through the lens of

organizational identity orientation (OIO). Identity orientation is a natural

domain to address sector distinction debates as it brings together enduring

values and motivations that define who organizations are in relationship to

others. More specifically, OIO asks, “who are ‘we’ as an organization” vis-à-

vis others? Do we see our organizations primarily as independent entities

motivated to be the best and outshine others (individualistic), as dyadic part-

ners focused on each other’s inherent well-being (relational), or as members

of a larger collective driven to advance the welfare of a group, cause, or com-

munity (collectivistic) (Brickson, 2005)? The comparative nature of identity

orientation makes it ideal for capturing both the similarities and differences

of organizations across sectors.