A relational view of identity in organizational dynamics

In a previous post, I used the slogan from Orange’s latest advert to introduce the nature of individual identity in organizations as seen from an informal coalitions viewpoint. A reader (signing himself GDA9) strongly dismissed this view, adding the following comment:

“‘I am who I am because of everyone’ - What a bloody wrong concept of identity. It shows that the person who made up the slogan can't place boundaries on his own identity - a sign of psychosis. A person is who they are because of their personality traits, memories, ideas, the sense of self, consciousness, etc. NOT because of external factors or others' identities. It doesn't take a philosophy professor to understand what identity is.”

This view of identity as an innate part of the individual is well established. So there will no doubt be many who will be reluctant to embrace a socially constructed and relational view of identity. I therefore thought it would be useful to take time out to say a bit more about this contrary perspective – as I see it - in this new post.

Identity emerging in relationship

The notion of identity as intrinsic to the individual provides the basis of much of the work that goes on in organizations around people and organizational development. However, this position is increasingly being contested by more recent perspectives on the dynamics of organizations. And, as someone who views everyday conversations and interactions as fundamental to the ways in which organizations work and that outcomes arise, I see a 'relational' understanding of identity as central to this.

The notion that a person’s identity is a function of their interactions with others, rather than something inborn or inherent, is a challenging one. Some aspects of our personalities might well be genetically based; that is, essentially ‘hard wired’ at conception and later expressed in the form of particular personality traits.  But we are fundamentally social beings. As a result, ‘who we are’ is largely shaped by the interactions that we have with other people – as, at the same time, ‘who we are’ shapes those interactions. A corollary of this, of course, is that who we are, and how we see the world, constantly shifts according to whom we are with at any particular time and in what context. 

When we come into the world, other people (and ‘things’ that have arisen from their and their predecessors' prior interactions) already exist. We have no choice but to interact with them. And, through these interactions, we begin to develop a sense of who we are and how best to navigate our way through life. This, I would maintain, is a life-long endeavour. Unless, of course, we are content to become isolated and alienated from other people and ‘society’ at large.

Re-membering the past

So what about the memories that form part of knowing who we are and how we have become who we are? Well, as I see it, our memories depend on the ways in which we make sense of past events. And we do this both through the internal conversations that we have with ourselves and those that we engage in externally with others. As we call our memories forward into the present, so to speak, our recollections affect the way that we think about and talk about ourselves in the here-and-now. At the same time, though, those memories are themselves “re-membered”, as Stacey and others would say. That is, they are put together afresh each time, from the standpoint of how we see ourselves today. 

In other words, the ways in which we perceive, interpret, evaluate and feel about past events are not fixed for all time. Instead, these are subject to reinterpretation and re-evaluation, as part of the ongoing process of becoming who we are.  And this “becoming” is, at one and the same time, both a uniquely personal and a communally social act.

Ideas and beliefs

I would similarly argue that the ideas and beliefs that a person holds about the world are necessarily products of their interactions – even those which they see as their own creations.  For example, for the past ten years or more I have used the term “informal coalitions” to describe the hidden, messy and informal dynamics of organizations. Using the term in this context is an original notion of mine, as are many of the specific ideas that flow from it. However, I have worked alongside a multitude of people over the years and, as I acknowledged in the preface to the book, “all of those interactions have, in some way or other, influenced the ideas and perspectives that are reflected in this book”.

It would also be true to say that many non-work-related insights will also have influenced what I believe to be true about organizations. These will have arisen from a mixture of ‘live’ relationships and my ‘interaction’ with other people through the texts they have written or other media that they have appeared in.

A sense of oneself – and other selves

As regards a person’s sense of self, I agree that this is unique and personal to the individual.  At the same time, it arises from their conscious and unconscious sensing of their own self in relation to specific and generalised ‘other selves’. It does not exist - indeed cannot exist in my view - in isolation from the specific relationships of which an individual sees themselves being part. Or from the more generalised social patterns of assumptions, beliefs and behaviours that reflect the broader communities to which they see themselves belonging.

The capacity to know what we are doing

Finally, the very idea of consciousness and self-consciousness relates to our capacity to know what we are doing, to be aware of ourselves and our surroundings, and to self-reflect on our existence.  This enables us to act, interact and transact etc with others (and they with us). And it also enables us to develop a sense of ourselves as unique beings in relation to how we see individual and collective others.

In sum

To sum up then, from an informal coalitions viewpoint our identity is developed though all of the interactions that we have with people and things throughout our lifetime. The ways in which we perceive, interpret and evaluate these experiences, in the moment of interaction and through self-reflection, determines who we currently are in the ongoing process of becoming who we will become.

So, it is for this reason that I see Orange’s “I am who I am because of everyone” slogan as neatly reflecting this relational view of identity and setting it apart from the more conventional, individual-centric perspective.

Comments

[GDA9]

Excellent post.

It really shines a light on the Orange slogan's campaign.

I suppose I had not looked at its inherent meaning from the same angle as yours, which is, indeed, refreshing.

The definition of identity which underlies my comment on your other post is based on an objectivistic view of identity, in which every object's identity is denoted by characteristics or boundaries that make each object or consciousness distinct from other objects within objective reality.

[Chris Rodgers]

Thanks again for your comments. I'm glad that what I said made sense to you.

Coincidentally, I picked up a new book earlier today (Servant-Leadership, edited by Lewis and Noble). In a chapter about servant-leadership in South Africa, author Lance Bloch identifies one of the basic concepts in the South African identity as "Ubuntu". He says that this is "... characterised by the saying in Zulu that 'Umuntu ngumuntu ngabuntu' - 'A person is a person through other people'."

It's a small world!