Using the past to create the future with Davide Ravasi

How do organizations use their history to understand and reform identity to support transformation?   Radical change can often be destructive so it is interesting to note how organizations look back to their history to create continuity in org identity while changing. Davide’s more recent research identifies the variety of historical mechanisms that organizations use to shape identity. One way is using collective memory – the shared memories of communities that get passed down, the rituals of remembrance, and symbolic objects and places to embody collective memory. For example, corporate museums are places that give quite a bit of evidence of how an org may be engaging in their history and identity.   Davide studied a set of these museums in his research. What were the variety of forms of engagement with history and memory in these museums? There were three different processes: Identity Stewardship: who we are is answered by looking for connections to the past; looking for patterns and continuity; emotionality is admiration and awe; Identity Evangelizing: who we are is answered by looking for distinctive features; looks to other groups and compares and creates pride and passion. Heritage Mining: answers the question of who we are by looking back to find meaningfulness in past; creates aesthetic excitement and intuitive re-contextualization. Some big takeaways are that objects and “material memory” are sources of inspiration for future-oriented activities for orgs. Organizational memory is not storied in “bins” is socially constructed using material memory. And this material memory can be boundary objects – shared with other stakeholders and communities to build shared understandings. As More »

Organizational Identity, Culture & Change with Davide Ravasi

If org identity is a self-reflective relatively mindful answer to the question of who we are as a org, were does this come from? Davide work into organizational identity has examined various aspects of an org such as the emotional conceptualization, what is central and distinctive, deeply held beliefs, and claims and narratives that are reflective in the commitments.  Interestingly, he has found that identity is revealed through conflict – when resources are scarce, when there is urgency, when there is some event that causes disruption.   Also, foundational traits are acquired at the beginning of the organization: they are early imprints.   I wonder: how can we use crises as a way to understand and reinforce who we are?   Organizational identity serves functions that get in the way of change. Identities give: Sensemaking: sense of stability and stability. Change creates confusion. Enhancement: members feel good about themselves. Change creates loss. Political: gives status and resources. Change creates fear.   And one can see similar dynamics in political changes, such as Brexit in the UK.   But how are organizational identities created? Davide laid out some basics of organizational identity formation. Who we are (identity) comes from interactions among who others say we are (image), the way we do things (culture), and who we have been (memory).   Culture is widely understood as relatively shared assumptions and values, embodied and manifested in a web of formal and informal practices, and discursive and material artifacts. It has ideational and material components. Culture is a referent for determining who we are. And identity, particularly organizational identity, More »

Who are we? Organizational Identity content and its effect on members’ identification.

Shelley Brickson – University of Illinois-Chicago   Shelley shared her work on organizational identity, which is a member shared understanding of what is central to an organizational character, distinct and relatively enduring about the organization. These can be “what we do” and/or “who we are.” The latter is more character-based and describes commitments, values, etc.   How does identity shape patterns of behavior? This is a driving question of her research.   First we should understand, “who is the organization?” This involves identity orientation. I key idea is that people have different senses of self: individualistic, relational, and collectivist.   Shelley’s work examines how these senses can also be extended to organizations. That is, organizations can have individualistic, relational or collectivist orientations.   Individualistic– salient traits distinguish it from others, primary motivation is self-interest, and self evaluate in comparison to other orgs.   Relational – salient traits are connecting people, motivated by other’s interest, evaluate with roles to others.   Collectivist – salient traits are connecting to larger whole, motivated by greater collective interests, evaluated in contribution.   To test this Shelly did field research to see how organizational members describe their organizations. She found evidence that these orientations existed and, more interestingly, that there were correlations between individual and organizational orientations. That is, if you’re individualistic you also tend to be in an individualistic organization.   While hybrids of these orientation exist, but they vary in sectors. For example, Law firms had 13% of individualistic-relational orientations, while beverage companies had 0%.   Based on this information, she wondered what predicts purity vs. hybridity in organizational orientations? Some of it is sector More »

Can we measure collective intelligence in teams?

Until recently, organizations thought that if they wanted to create “smart” teams, they just had to hire smart individuals and put them together. But researchers have discovered that is not the case. Other explanatory factors account for the performance of teams more than simply the combined intelligence of individual team members. Anita Woolley has specifically focused on examining if there is an underlying collective intelligence (CI) that lets some teams perform better than others and, if so, can we measure it, use it to predict team future performance, and reliably create More »

Towards Collective Mindfulness – Michael Pirson

The world is full on complex problems, ranging from global warming to economic disparities, to ongoing ethnic conflicts. Michael reminded us that mindfulness approaches involve contemplative action, restoring harmony, and questioning status quo. Mindlessness approaches are easier and involves apathy and actionism, questioning harmony and resorting status More »