pathways for positive identity construction at...

PATHWAYS FOR POSITIVE IDENTITYCONSTRUCTION AT WORK: FOUR TYPES OFPOSITIVE IDENTITY AND THE BUILDING OF

SOCIAL RESOURCES

JANE E. DUTTONUniversity of Michigan

LAURA MORGAN ROBERTSGeorgia State University

JEFFREY BEDNARUniversity of Michigan

In this paper we organize research on work-related identities into a four-perspectivetypology that captures different ways identities can be “positive.” Each perspectiveon positive identity—virtue, evaluative, developmental, and structural—highlights adifferent source of positivity and opens new avenues for theorizing about identityconstruction. We use these four perspectives to develop propositions about howdifferent forms of positive work-related identity construction can strengthen employ-ees through building social resources.

Work is a pervasive life domain and a salientsource of meaning and self-definition for mostindividuals (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Carlsen,2008; Gini, 1998; Stryker & Serpe, 1994). Individ-uals form, transform, and modify how they de-fine themselves and others in the context ofwork-based situations and activities (Ibarra,1999; Pratt, 2000; Pratt, Rockmann, & Kaufmann,2006). As Butler remarked, “Every man’s [or wom-an’s] work, whether it be literature or music orpictures or architecture or anything else, is al-ways a portrait of him [or her]self” (1998: 70). Forexample, chefs describe their roles using rhetor-ical narratives—like artist, business person, orprofessional—that imbue their self-definitions

with worth (Fine, 1996); knowledge engineersnarrate their identities in ways that infuse theiridentities with a sense of doing adventurousand important work (Carlsen, 2006); and hospitalcleaners pick and choose from their interactionswith nurses, doctors, and patients to constructself-definitions that foster a sense of value andmeaning in doing cleaning work (Wrzesniewski,Dutton, & Debebe, 2003).

These studies, as well as others focused onwork-related identities (i.e., occupational iden-tity, professional identity, organizational iden-tity, etc.), assume that individuals wish to con-struct positive identities in their work domain(Gecas, 1982; Turner, 1982). While this core as-sumption from psychology has remained consis-tent in organizational research, the word “posi-tive” has been defined and applied to identitiesand identity construction processes in a varietyof ways (Roberts & Dutton, 2009). As a result, onepurpose of this paper is to answer the question,“What makes a work-related identity positive?”To answer this we use the current identity liter-ature in organizational studies and other disci-plines to develop four distinct theoretical per-spectives that capture the positive aspects ofwork-related identities and identity constructionprocesses.

We appreciate the Ross School of Business at the Univer-sity of Michigan, Harvard Business School, and GeorgiaState University for their support of this research. We alsothank Dianne Haft and Jennifer Huntington for their carefulattention to details. We benefited from the comments ofparticipants in the May Meaning Meeting and the PositiveOrganizational Scholarship Research Incubator when pre-paring this paper. Specific thanks to Arne Carlsen, KevinCorley, Martha Feldman, Barb Fredrickson, Quita Keller,Glen Kreiner, Gerardo Okhuysen, Nancy Rothbard, andthree anonymous reviewers for their comments on earlierdrafts. Earlier versions of this paper were presented at RiceUniversity and the Academy of Management meeting inAnaheim, California.

� Academy of Management Review2010, Vol. 35, No. 2, 265–293.

265Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyrightholder’s express written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.

We use our typology of positive identity per-spectives to answer a second question: “How dothese four perspectives on positive identity re-veal new insights into how employees gainstrength through defining themselves in partic-ular ways?” By applying core ideas from conser-vation of resources theory (Hobfoll, 1989, 2002),we show how the four different perspectives onpositive work-related identity uncover differentpathways through which identity constructioncan build social resources for individuals. Bysocial resources we mean the number, diversity,and quality of relationships that an individualhas at work. As do social network theorists (e.g.,Baker, 2000; Burt, 2000) and developmental pro-cess researchers (e.g., Higgins & Kram, 2001; Ra-gins & Kram, 2007), we assume that employeeswho have more social resources acquire otherresources (e.g., information, access, trust) thatstrengthen them to endure stress and hardshipand/or to take on new and more demandingchallenges. Together, the typology of positiveidentity perspectives and the propositions link-ing positive identity construction to social re-sources open up new questions and offer newinsights for scholars interested in identity, so-cial relationships, and positive organizationalscholarship.

STARTING ASSUMPTIONS

Our quest to deepen understanding aboutpositive identity construction at work builds onseveral core assumptions about work-relatedidentity. First, we define “identity” as the mean-ings that individuals attach to themselves(Gecas, 1982). These meanings might be repre-sented as self-schemas that capture features orattributes that individuals associate with them-selves (Markus, 1977), or they might be repre-sented in a narrative form (McAdams, 1993), asindividuals story who they are in interactionwith others (Gergen & Gergen, 1988) and overtime (Carlsen, 2008; Ibarra & Barbulescu, 2010).Further, we acknowledge that people’s identi-ties are multiple (Cooley, 1902), multifaceted(Gergen, 1991), and dynamic (Sveningsson &Alvesson, 2003), making identity a complex andchanging representation of self-knowledge(Kihlstrom & Klein, 1994) and self-understandingthat is associated with a broad range of self-relevant feelings and attitudes (Ashmore,Deaux, & McLaughlin-Volpe, 2004). The modifier

“work-related” is important because it focusesthis paper on the aspects of identity and self-definition that are tied to participation in theactivities of work (i.e., a job) or membership inwork-related groups, organizations, occupa-tions, or professions. Thus, when we talk aboutwork-related identities, we are interested in theway that individuals construe themselves intheir work domain. This conception is intention-ally broad to encompass the variety of activities,tasks, roles, groups, and memberships that indi-viduals can use to compose a work-related self.

WHY FOCUS ON POSITIVE WORK-RELATEDIDENTITIES?

Work as a life domain is important for self-construction. Most people will spend large por-tions of their adult lives at work. As Gini put it,“As adults there is nothing that more preoccu-pies our lives. From the approximate ages of 21to 70—we will spend our lives working. We willnot sleep as much, spend time with our familiesas much, eat as much or recreate and rest asmuch as we work” (1998: 707). In addition, re-search assumes that identities are created inrelationships with others (Gecas, 1982; Gergen,1994), and the large number of work-basedfriendships (Berman, West, & Richter, 2002) anddaily work interactions (Dutton & Ragins, 2007)make work a central domain for the constructionof the self. As a result, organizational research-ers have begun to examine how individuals con-struct identities that are positive in a variety ofways (e.g., Roberts & Dutton, 2009). Four obser-vations motivate our focus on developing theoryabout positive work-related identities.

First, researchers have conducted a variety ofstudies to understand how employees createand maintain a positive self-definition (i.e., aself-definition that is favorable or valuable insome way), but little consensus exists aboutwhat constitutes a positive work-related iden-tity. For example, research on stigmatized occu-pations and work roles (e.g., Kreiner, Ashforth, &Sluss, 2006) demonstrates how workers over-come physical, moral, or social taints to create apositively evaluated sense of self at work (Ash-forth & Kreiner, 1999). Researchers have alsodemonstrated the ways that individuals claim apositive identity at work when their member-ship is ambiguous (e.g., Bartel & Dutton, 2001) orcontested (Alvesson, 1998). Further, research on

266 AprilAcademy of Management Review

occupational and career development (e.g.,Ibarra, 1999), diversity (e.g., Bell & Nkomo, 2001;Roberts, 2005; Thomas & Gabarro, 1999), andgrowth at work (e.g., Carlsen, 2008; Kreiner &Sheep, 2009; Maitlis, 2009; Roberts, Dutton,Spreitzer, Heaphy, & Quinn, 2005) demonstrateshow individuals construct a positive work-related identity as they develop in a career, oc-cupation, profession, or organization. While inall of this research scholars are interested inexplaining the processes and antecedents lead-ing to a positive work-related identity, the defi-nitions and assumptions underlying this con-struct are highly variable. Thus, one reason tofocus on positive work-related identities is tocreate a more nuanced and systematic under-standing of what can be conceptualized as pos-itive about a work-related identity.

Second, positive work-related identities aretheoretical mechanisms in both micro andmacro organizational theories. That is, positivework-related identities are an important “cog”in the theoretical set of “wheels,” providing ex-planations for relationships between variables(Davis & Marquis, 2005; Hedstrom & Swedberg,1998). For example, researchers at the microlevel have explained individual adjustment toorganizations (e.g., Pratt, 2000) as a process thatis motivated by the desire to construct an iden-tity that is privately and/or publicly evaluatedas worthwhile or significant in some way. At theother end of the micro-macro spectrum, certainmacro theories use positive work-related iden-tity construction as a core mechanism drivinginstitutional change. For example, in their studyof a social movement within the field of Frenchgastronomy, Rao, Monin, and Durand (2003)found that the social construction of a positivework-related identity was an important causalforce in accounting for the movement of culinarychefs away from classical cuisine toward nou-velle cuisine. Thus, a better understanding ofpositive work-related identities should enableresearchers to articulate more accurate theoret-ical mechanisms that will help explain both mi-cro and macro phenomena.

Third, researchers have paid significant at-tention to how individuals construct a positiveidentity in response to negative identity threatsat work, but they have given far less attention topositive identity construction more generally.The focus on stained or stigmatized roles (Boyce,Ryan, Imus, & Morgeson, 2007), occupations

(Kreiner, Ashforth, & Sluss, 2006), and organiza-tions (Elsbach & Kramer, 1996; Hudson, 2008), aswell as episodes of identity threat (Breakwell,1986; Caza & Bagozzi, 2009), creates importantbut incomplete understandings of the processesand outcomes related to positive identity con-struction in organizational research. Becausenegative states and processes tend to commandmore attention in psychological processes(Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Finkenauer, & Vohs,2001), the relative emphasis on negative overpositive work-related identity processes is un-derstandable. However, if individuals, dyads,and collectives need a disproportionate experi-ence of positive over negative states to experi-ence individual or collective flourishing (e.g.,Fredrickson & Losada, 2005), then extending ourunderstanding of positive identity constructionbeyond responses to negative identity threatmay be particularly important.

Fourth, there is ample evidence in a variety oforganizational studies that different kinds ofpositive identities are linked with favorable out-comes. For example, positive work-related iden-tities can provide individuals with an enhancedcapacity to deal with adversity and stress (Caza& Bagozzi, 2009; Hobfoll, 1989), facilitate individ-uals’ access to different knowledge domains,foster creativity (Cheng, Sanchez-Burks, & Lee,2008), provide a vehicle for learning from differ-ent cultural experiences to enhance work pro-cesses (Ely & Thomas, 2001), and promote adap-tation to new work settings (Beyer & Hannah,2002). Positive identities also motivate individu-als to take actions that promote positive out-comes in organizations. For example, when hos-pital cleaners took on the identity of healer orcare provider as part of their work identity, theywere motivated to provide interpersonal helpingto patients, visitors, nurses, and doctors. Theseidentity-consistent behaviors contributed to per-sonal satisfaction and enjoyment on the job, andthey provided a sense of meaningfulness atwork (Wrzesniewski et al., 2003). As a result, it isboth theoretically and practically important tofurther specify the sources of positivity in work-related identities.

These four observations motivate our investi-gation of the different ways that work-relatedidentities can be positive. In response, we offera typology of positive identity construction thathighlights the multifaceted ways in which work-related identities can be positive. These per-

2010 267Dutton, Roberts, and Bednar

spectives also invite deeper exploration of howdifferent forms of identity construction canstrengthen employees, focusing particularly onhow different kinds of positive identities facili-tate or motivate the building of social resources.Through this exploration we generate a set ofpropositions that create the foundation for amodel of social strengthening via positive iden-tity construction. Our propositions lay thegroundwork for new research questions onwork-related identity construction and uncoverpractical insights about the cultivation of posi-tive work-related identities.

FOUR THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES ONPOSITIVE WORK-RELATED IDENTITY

A review of the identity literature reveals amyriad of ways that researchers have conceptu-alized the positivity of work-related identities. Insome studies the conceptualization of the con-struct positive identity has been very explicit,while in most the conceptualization has beenmore implicit. We have organized these concep-tualizations into a four-part typology. All fourperspectives on positive identity assume thatidentity construction processes involve individ-uals’ taking on and/or modifying some aspect ofan identity, or self-definition. Further, the fourperspectives have their foundations in a rangeof identity theories, including social identitytheory (Tajfel, 1978), structural identity theory(Stryker & Burke, 2000), and optimal distinctive-ness theory (Brewer, 1991; Brewer & Gardner,1996). Each approach illuminates differentsources of positivity in work-related identitiesand reveals a spectrum of opportunities for con-structing a positive identity in work-related con-texts. Below we detail each theoretical perspec-tive, elaborate on its core assumptions, andillustrate the approach’s use in organizationalresearch (see Table 1).

The Virtue Perspective

The virtue perspective posits that a work-related identity is positive when the identitycontent is infused with virtuous qualities orcharacter strengths that correspond to the qual-ities that distinguish people of good characterand that are defined as inherently good. As itslabel implies, the virtue perspective has a richhistory in virtue ethics (e.g., Aristotle, 1984;

MacIntyre, 1981). Researchers who exemplifythis perspective have usually focused on theconstruction of identities with certain “mastervirtues” (Park & Peterson, 2003; Peterson &Seligman, 2004), such as wisdom, courage, hu-manity, justice, temperance, and transcendence.Researchers have identified a classification sys-tem for the set of twenty-four character strengthsthat represent evidence of the master virtues(Peterson & Seligman, 2004). These master vir-tues have been identified and discussed by phi-losophers and religious leaders as morally goodqualities that distinguish people of good char-acter (Dahlsgaard, Peterson, & Seligman, 2005;Peterson & Seligman, 2004). Religious and schol-arly thought together suggests that these virtuesare important in explaining the survival of thespecies (Peterson & Seligman, 2004) and in help-ing individuals construct a well-lived life(Weaver, 2006). The universal significance ofthese virtues within and/or across societies overtime is evidence of their inherent goodness andpositivity. Thus, when individuals constructwork-related identities that have the strengths,characteristics, or qualities that are instantia-tions of these master virtues, those particularidentities are considered positive.

Within organizational studies there has beensporadic interest in individuals or collectiveswhose identities are infused with particular vir-tues, and some virtues seem to have drawn moreattention than others (e.g., Weaver, 2006; Wright& Goodstein, 2007). In addition, within organiza-tional studies there is less emphasis on the uni-versal significance of virtues and more focus onhow certain virtues are important in specificorganizational contexts. For example, research-ers have examined how individuals who actcourageously contribute to principled organiza-tional dissent (Graham, 1986) and the preventionor correction of ethical transgressions (e.g.,whistle-blowing; Miceli & Near, 1985). Whenpeople at work see someone act with bravery inwhat appear to be dangerous but important cir-cumstances, they often infer that the person iscourageous (Worline, Wrzesniewski, & Rafaeli,2002). However, these approaches have not con-sidered whether individuals who act this way orare viewed this way by others actually definethemselves in courageous terms. It would belogical to assume that employees in work orga-nizations could act in ways that lead them tobelieve that their self-definition includes quali-


TABL

E1

Com

pari

ngFo

urPe

rspe

ctiv

eson

Posi

tive

Wor

k-R

elat

edId

enti

ty

Base

sfo

rC

ompa

riso

nV

irtu

eEv

alua

tive

Dev

elop

men

tal

Stru

ctur

al

Prog

ress

ive

Ada

ptiv

eBa

lanc

edC

ompl

emen

tary

Ba

sis

for

pos

itiv

ity

ofid

enti

ty

Vir

tuou

sid

enti

tyco

nte

nt

Fa

vora

ble

reg

ard

for

iden

tity

con

ten

tC

ha

ng

ein

iden

tity

con

ten

tto

wa

rda

mor

ed

evel

oped

orid

eal

iden

tity

Ch

an

ge

inid

enti

tyco

nte

nt

tow

ard

ab

ette

rfi

tw

ith

inte

rna

lor

exte

rna

lst

an

da

rds

Ba

lan

cein

iden

tity

con

ten

tb

etw

een

incl

usi

ona

nd

dif

fere

nti

ati

on

Bu

ild

ing

lin

kag

esor

con

nec

tion

sb

etw

een

the

vari

ous

face

tsof

the

self

Cor

ea

sser

tion

sC

erta

invi

rtu

esa

nd

cha

ract

erst

ren

gth

sa

rein

her

entl

yg

ood

.W

hen

ind

ivid

ua

lsco

nst

ruct

an

iden

tity

tha

tco

nta

ins

ma

ster

virt

ues

an

d/o

rch

ara

cter

stre

ng

ths,

the

iden

tity

isp

osit

ive.

Ind

ivid

ua

lsd

eriv

ese

lf-e

stee

mfr

omsu

bje

ctiv

eev

alu

ati

ons

ofth

eir

iden

tity

cha

ract

eris

tics

an

did

enti

tyg

rou

ps.

Iden

titi

esth

at

are

favo

rab

lyre

ga

rded

by

the

self

orb

yot

her

sa

rep

osit

ive.

Ind

ivid

ua

lsn

atu

rall

yp

rog

ress

tow

ard

the

“id

eal”

self

thro

ug

hst

ag

esov

erti

me

an

d/o

rth

rou

gh

cha

ng

esth

at

ind

ica

teg

row

th.

Ind

ivid

ua

lscr

eate

pos

sib

lese

lves

an

dse

lect

thos

eth

at

ali

gn

wit

hin

tern

al

an

dex

tern

al

sta

nd

ard

s.

Th

est

ruct

ure

oror

ga

niz

ati

onof

iden

tity

con

ten

tm

inim

izes

ten

sion

bet

wee

nh

um

an

nee

ds

for

incl

usi

ona

nd

dif

fere

nti

ati

onb

yb

ala

nci

ng

per

son

al

iden

tity

wit

hso

cia

lid

enti

ty.

Mu

ltip

leid

enti

ties

are

view

eda

sco

mp

ati

ble

wit

hon

ea

not

her

,in

tha

tth

ep

osse

ssio

nof

one

iden

tity

(e.g

.,ro

le,

cult

ura

lb

ack

gro

un

d)

can

faci

lita

teth

eex

ecu

tion

ofex

pec

tati

ons

rela

ted

toth

eot

her

iden

tity

(e.g

.,ta

skp

erfo

rma

nce

,en

ga

gem

ent)

.Il

lust

rati

vest

ud

ies

ora

pp

roa

ches

Aq

uin

o&

Ree

d(2

002)

Fin

e(1

996)

,R

ober

ts(2

005)

Su

per

(195

7),H

all

(200

2),C

arl

sen

(200

6)Ib

arr

a(1

999)

,P

ratt

(200

0)K

rein

er,H

olle

nsb

e,&

Sh

eep

(200

6)E

ly&

Th

oma

s(2

001)

,R

oth

ba

rd(2

001)

Cor

ep

rop

osit

ion

Aw

ork-

rela

ted

iden

tity

bec

omes

mor

ep

osit

ive

wh

enit

isim

bu

edw

ith

virt

uou

sa

ttri

bu

tes.

Aw

ork-

rela

ted

iden

tity

bec

omes

mor

ep

osit

ive

wh

enin

div

idu

als

reg

ard

the

iden

tity

mor

efa

vora

bly

.

Aw

ork-

rela

ted

iden

tity

bec

omes

mor

ep

osit

ive

as

its

con

ten

tch

an

ges

inth

ed

irec

tion

ofa

nid

eal

orm

ore

dev

elop

edid

enti

ty.

Aw

ork-

rela

ted

iden

tity

bec

omes

mor

ep

osit

ive

as

itd

evel

ops

ab

ette

rfi

tw

ith

inte

rna

la

nd

/or

exte

rna

lst

an

da

rds.

Aw

ork-

rela

ted

iden

tity

bec

omes

mor

ep

osit

ive

by

ba

lan

cin

gco

llec

tive

iden

tity

an

dp

erso

na

lid

enti

ty.

Aw

ork-

rela

ted

iden

tity

bec

omes

mor

ep

osit

ive

as

mu

ltip

leid

enti

ties

are

view

eda

sco

mp

lem

enta

ry.


ties associated with courage (e.g., bravery,valor).

Beyond courage, other virtue-laden identitiesthat have been studied by organization re-searchers include integrity (Prottas, 2008), com-passion (as a form of humanity; Frost, Dutton,Worline, & Wilson, 2000), humility (as a form oftemperance; Delbecq, 2008; Owens, 2009), andwisdom (Kessler & Bailey, 2007). Leadershipscholars have also focused on leaders who areendowed with character strengths and virtues(e.g., Manz, Manz, Marx, & Neck, 2001). For exam-ple, in their article about transcendent leader-ship, Crossan and Mazutis (2008) recommendthat leaders focus on developing characterstrengths like wisdom, courage, humanity, jus-tice, temperance, and transcendence. In addi-tion, researchers interested in authentic leader-ship study the development of leaders who areoptimistic, confident, hopeful, resilient, and ofhigh moral character (e.g., Avolio, Gardner,Walumbwa, Luthans, & May, 2004; Michie &Gooty, 2005; Sparrowe, 2005). While there hasbeen significant recent attention paid to orga-nizational and individual virtuousness (e.g.,Cameron, 2003; Manz, Cameron, Manz, & Marx,2008), there has been far less attention paid tovirtues as a focus of work-related identities.

One notable exception has been research us-ing a construct called “moral identity.” Re-searchers doing this work are typically inter-ested in identity and its implications for moralaction (e.g., Reynolds & Ceranic, 2007; Weaver,2006). A moral identity is a self-schema that con-tains a set of moral traits or characteristics(Aquino & Reed, 2002; Blasi, 1984). Researchersstudying moral identity argue that peoplemeaningfully vary in the degree to which theirmoral identity is internalized or rooted deeply inthe self-concept (Aquino & Reed, 2002). Traitssuch as being caring, compassionate, honest,kind, hardworking, and generous are typicallyassociated with the prototype of a moral person,and people who have a stronger moral identitytend to characterize themselves as having thesetraits.

In sum, the virtue perspective on positivework-related identities claims that the positivityof the identity is in the virtuous content of self-definitions. If the identity contains qualities thatare associated with universal virtues orstrengths like courage, compassion, or integrity,the identity is considered positive. Some re-

search on individual virtues and characterstrengths asserts that these identities representstable self-constructions (e.g., Peterson & Selig-man, 2004), whereas other research theorizesthat this kind of self-construction is more fluidand based on how individuals narrate or definethemselves in interactions with others (Spar-rowe, 2005).

The Evaluative Perspective

While the virtue perspective focuses on iden-tity content, the evaluative perspective focuseson the regard that people associate with theirwork-related identities. In general, people liketo feel good about themselves (Baumeister, 1999;Gecas, 1982) and are motivated to claim identitycharacteristics and/or groups that favorably dis-tinguish them from others (Branscombe, Ellem-ers, Spears, & Doosje, 1999; Hogg & Terry, 2000;Lynn & Snyder, 2005). As a result, the evaluativeperspective captures subjective feelings of self-regard as an individual at work (i.e., personalidentity), as a member of work relationships (i.e.,relational identity), and as a member of work-based social identity groups (i.e., social iden-tity). It assumes that identities serve an impor-tant purpose for enhancing and/or maintaininga sense of self-worth (Gecas, 1982). Based onthese premises, the evaluative perspective as-serts that an identity is positive when it is re-garded favorably.

People often make positive evaluations oftheir personal identity at work—that is, thework-relevant traits, characteristics, and compe-tencies that differentiate them as an individual.This type of positive regard is captured in re-search on global self-esteem and generalizedself-efficacy, in which people with positive iden-tities evaluate their personal characteristics fa-vorably (e.g., seeing themselves as competent,capable, accepted, and valued by others; seeRosenberg, 1979, and Stets & Burke, 2003). Forexample, Judge and colleagues’ theory of coreself-evaluations examines positive self-regardas the evaluations that people make aboutthemselves and their worthiness, competence,and capability (Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen,2002).

Individuals also make positive evaluations oftheir collective identities. For example, collec-tive self-esteem research examines how posi-tively an individual feels about the social cate-


gories and groups to which he or she belongs(Luhtanen & Crocker, 1992). As a form of collec-tive self-esteem, organizational researcherscapture members’ evaluations of occupationaland organizational identity groups (e.g., Pratt,2000; Sluss & Ashforth, 2007). Research on orga-nization-based self-esteem examines “the de-gree to which an individual believes him/herselfto be capable, significant and worthy as an or-ganizational member” (Pierce & Gardner, 2004:601; see also Pierce, Gardner, Cummings, &Dunham, 1989). For example, cooks’ identitiesbecome more positive when they construct andevaluate the meaning of their membership inthe occupational group of chefs as desirableand valuable (Fine, 1996).

A third stream of identity research examinesthe tactics that individuals use to restore ormaintain positive self-evaluations when theyface conditions of identity devaluation. For ex-ample, Elsbach and Kramer (1996) found thatbusiness school affiliates used cognitive re-framing tactics in response to Business Weekrankings that threatened members’ perceptionsof valued core identity attributes. Similarly,studies of people who perform “dirty work”(work that is considered to involve physical, so-cial, or moral taint) reveal the use of strategiesthat deny or devalue the negative attributes thatothers associate with such occupations (seeAshforth & Kreiner, 1999, and Kreiner, Ashforth,& Sluss, 2006), allowing individuals to maintaina sense of positive self-regard for an otherwisemaligned identity. Managers in such stigma-tized occupations also confront negative publicperceptions by extolling the value of the work(Ashforth, Kreiner, Clark, & Fugate, 2007). An-other line of research explains how and whyprofessionals who belong to negatively stereo-typed social identity groups may attempt to re-store positive regard by downplaying the sa-lience of the devalued group membership (e.g.,avoid stereotypical behavior) or attempting toeducate and advocate on behalf of their socialidentity group in work contexts (Chattopadhyay,Tluchowska, & George, 2004; Clair, Beatty, &MacLean, 2005; Roberts, 2005).

Taken together, the research deploying anevaluative lens on positive identity highlightshow individuals evaluate the content and mean-ing of their work-related identities. This per-spective highlights the ongoing dynamic ap-praisal that is part of the identity construction

process. This perspective also highlights the on-going work involved in evaluating identity con-tent when taking into account one’s own assess-ments and others’ assessments, suggesting thatpositive identity construction can be an effortfulprocess. The evaluative lens captures how thesense of worth or regard applied to one’s self-definition (by the self or others) can imbue anidentity with positivity.

The Developmental Perspective

While the previous two approaches focus onidentity content and its evaluation, the develop-mental perspective focuses on the change in anidentity or self-definition over time. Implicit inthis perspective is the assumption that the iden-tity is dynamic and capable of progress andadaptation. We separate our description of thedevelopmental perspective into two approaches:the progressive approach and the adaptiveapproach.

Progressive identity development. We call thefirst approach to positive identity developmentthe progressive approach. According to this lenson identity, the positivity of an identity is evi-denced in its progression toward a higher-orderstage of development. Several influential theo-rists have sought to explain physical, physiolog-ical, and psychological development in individ-uals over time. Levinson (1986), for example,viewed the “life course” as a cycle composed of“qualitatively different stages,” which he called“seasons.” Although he asserted that each per-son passes through the same general stages, aperson’s experience in each developmentalstage is unique. Each stage is associated with aset of developmental tasks designed to build theself, and each stage is separated by a period oftransition that corresponds to the changing ofthe self. Over time, attitudes and behaviors arebrought into alignment with the structure of theself, ever progressing toward the life dream orthe ideal view of what the person hopes to be-come. Erikson (1968), Kohlberg (1969, 1984), andKegan (1982) also developed theories of devel-opment corresponding to different life stages.

A similar line of thinking has been appliedexplicitly and implicitly in organizational re-search on work-related identities. For example,in the career development literature, theoristshave examined work-related identity develop-ment as an identity passes through age-related


stages. Hall (2002) has suggested that most lead-ers progress through distinct career stages thatcan be viewed as passages from one role toanother and one identity to another. For exam-ple, a leading engineer might progress throughthe distinct career stages of high school student,college student, company trainee, engineer, andthen manager. As individuals pass throughthese stages, they pass through three phases ofdevelopment: establishment, advancement, andmaintenance (Hall & Nougaim, 1968). In the es-tablishment stage (usually year 1) the employee“does not have a strong identity relevant to theparticular organization and [he or she] is strug-gling to define more clearly his [or her] environ-ment and his [or her] relationship to it” (Hall &Nougaim, 1968: 26–27). In the advancement stageindividuals become most concerned with movingup in the organization, and they eventually reacha stage of maintenance where their desires forfurther advancement level off and they experiencea development plateau (see Hall, 2002, for a re-view). Super’s (1957) model of career developmentalso suggests that within each particular careerstage employees progress through a cycle of trial,establishment, maintenance, and decline.

Implicit in these theories is the assumptionthat as an employee progresses through a ca-reer stage, his or her identity changes and de-velops. When individuals enter a new stage,their identity tends to be malleable and impres-sionable. However, over time they gain experi-ence that solidifies their self-concept as an em-ployee, professional, and/or organizationalmember. Accordingly, career development isequivalent to identity development (Hall, 2002).In this process elements of old identities arediscarded, new elements are added, and theemployee progresses toward the career dreamor the ideal view of what he or she hopes toachieve in his or her career. In these stage mod-els of development, the key mechanisms drivingdevelopment are experience and time.

The progressive approach is also evident inresearch examining how individual growthleads to changes in identity content over time.While researchers don’t normally talk aboutstages, they assume that individuals progressfrom one construction of self toward another thatis typically construed as improvement, growth,or progress in some way. For example, Maitlis(2009) studied how people reconstruct their pro-fessional identities after encountering career-

related trauma in ways that represent growth.Other researchers have studied how everydaynarratives of growth at work are actually epi-sodes where employees narrate plots of positiveself-change (Sonenshein, Dutton, Grant,Spreitzer, & Sutcliffe, 2009). Carlsen (2006) de-picts how individuals alter self-constructions atwork in ways that enable seeing themselves asprogressing in their overall life narrative. Allthree examples affirm the malleability of iden-tity construction and the importance that indi-viduals construe the content of an identitychange in a way that indicates progress orgrowth toward some ideal. This pattern of iden-tity change is central to the progressive ap-proach to identity development and illustratesan important way that a work-related identitycan be positive.

Adaptive identity development. Researchershave also used a more adaptive approach toexplain the development of work-related identi-ties over time. At a general level the adaptiveapproach suggests that individuals systemati-cally alter the content of the identity to achievea more appropriate fit with a set of internal orexternal standards. According to this view,some event, such as leader “crucibles” (Bennis,2002) or role transitions (Ibarra, 1999), helps in-dividuals see the need for identity change andencourages the creation of new identities or“possible selves” (Yost, Strube, & Bailey, 1992).According to Ibarra, “Once our possible selves arein play, what ensues can be likened to a fierceDarwinian competition taking place within our-selves. . . . The time comes to reduce variety, todiscard some possibilities, and to select amongthem, a new favorite” (2003: 61). Accordingly, indi-viduals select possible selves that are consistentwith both internal and external standards as theyinteract with the environment.

Ibarra’s (1999) model of “provisional selves” isan example of positive identity constructionfrom an adaptive perspective. Ibarra proposedthat professionals adapt to new roles by exper-imenting with provisional selves as they de-velop toward ideal possible selves. According toher model, professionals identify role models assources of provisional identities, experimentwith these provisional identities, and evaluatethese provisional selves based on both internaland external standards. Thus, role transitionspresent professionals with an opportunity tochange their identity, and they winnow provi-


sional selves to achieve an appropriate fit withinternal and external perceptions and standards.

Other organizational researchers have alsoapplied an adaptive view to studies of identitydevelopment. For example, in studying organi-zational newcomers, Pratt (2000) proposed amodel explaining the process by which individ-uals come to identify with their organization. Hismodel of identity adaptation asserts that indi-viduals first undergo a period of sensebreakingwhen they experience discontent with their cur-rent sense of self in relation to their ideal self.Because of this identity discrepancy, the individ-uals are motivated to construct a new identity thatincorporates their new organizational member-ship. However, the extent to which the individualswill ultimately identify with the organization de-pends on the relationships surrounding the indi-viduals. Thus, transitioning into an organizationprovides newcomers with an opportunity to estab-lish a new identity that is consistent with bothinternal and external standards.

In each of these studies, a change in the con-text or situation encourages the creation of newidentity content or possible selves. Individualsthen choose which identity content or possibleselves survive based on a variety of differentstandards. Whereas the progressive approach toidentity development focuses mainly on the nat-ural progression that occurs as individuals passthrough career stages, the adaptive approachfocuses more on agentic adaptation to changinginternal and external standards that are maderelevant in specific situations or environments.From this perspective, an individual developsby constructing, experimenting with, discard-ing, and adapting current identities to achieve asense of authenticity, coherence, meaning, dis-tinctiveness, assimilation, maturity, or any com-bination of such attributes. When there is agreater fit between the identity content and in-ternal or external standards, then a work-related identity is considered more positive.

The Structural Perspective

The structure of an identity, or the way anindividual’s identity content or self-concept isorganized (Campbell, Assanand, & Di Paula,2003: 116), constitutes another means throughwhich individuals can construct a positive iden-tity. Given the multifaceted nature of identity,an individual’s identity structure is more posi-

tive when the multiple facets of the identity arein a balanced and/or complementary relation-ship with one another. Multiple identities canfoster a “sense of meaningful, guided existence”created through the “reciprocal role relations”(Thoits, 1983: 176) that sustain the identitiesmaking up the self in groups (see also Linville,1985, 1987). Yet potential conflicts between thevarious facets of identity must be resolved inorder to generate important psychological andperformance outcomes (Campbell et al., 2003;Edwards & Rothbard, 2000; Rothbard, 2001). Ac-cordingly, the structural perspective on positiveidentity calls attention to the different ways thatindividuals attempt to organize and structuretheir multifaceted identity content to reduceidentity conflict. Two primary processes are fea-tured in the literature on positive identity struc-tures: optimal balance and complementarity.

Balanced identity structure. Some researchsuggests that the positivity of a person’s identitylies in the relationship between personal iden-tities and social identities. According to this ap-proach, the personal identity is that part of anidentity that is composed of the “characteristicsof the self that . . . [set] one apart from all others”(Ashmore et al., 2004: 82). In contrast, the socialidentity is a self-categorization into inclusivesocial groups or units requiring “a shift towardsthe perception of self as an interchangeable ex-emplar of some social category and away fromthe perception of self as a unique person”(Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell,1987: 50). These two types of identities createstructural “torsion” or tensions that require indi-viduals to balance inherent desires for inclusionand belonging against the desire for unique-ness and differentiation (Branscombe et al.,1999; Kreiner, Hollensbe, & Sheep, 2006). Individ-uals who have identity structures that achieve abalance between assimilation and differentia-tion are said to be optimally distinct (Brewer,1991), and this state of optimal balance is por-trayed as positive because it allows the individ-ual to fulfill competing identity needs (Kreiner &Sheep, 2009).

Brewer (1991) asserted that people choose toidentify with social identity groups that will en-hance their optimal distinctiveness by clearlyand favorably differentiating them from mem-bers of other groups. Organizational researchsupports the prevalence of this desire for opti-mal balance among various professionals, in-


cluding filmmakers (Alvarez, Mazza, Pedersen,& Svejenova, 2005), entrepreneurs (Shepherd &Haynie, 2009), and priests (Kreiner, Hollensbe, &Sheep, 2006).

One illustration of the structural relationshipbetween personal and social identities can befound in the work of Kreiner, Hollensbe, andSheep (2006), documenting how Episcopalpriests structure their identities to achieve opti-mal balance in a profession that produces sig-nificant identity torsion between personal andsocial identities. Specifically, priests are drawnto identify strongly with their vocation and toenact the responsibilities associated with theprofession, but they also need to protect theirpersonal identity from being overpowered bytheir vocation. Using qualitative data, these re-searchers demonstrate how identities can be re-structured to balance these seemingly paradox-ical demands for inclusion and distinctiveness.According to their model of optimal balance,individuals facing identity demands toward thecollective will respond with differentiation tac-tics, placing greater emphasis on their personalidentities. In contrast, individuals facing iden-tity demands toward individuation will respondwith integration tactics, placing greater empha-sis on their social identities. Thus, individualsare in a constant process of working to structuretheir identities to achieve optimal balance.Achieving greater balance between collectiveand personal identities implies that a work-related identity is more positive.

Complementary identity structure. A secondstream of research on identity structure focuseson the perceived complementarity between dif-ferent social or role identities as an indicator ofpositivity. Studies that examine complementar-ity highlight how competing demands and val-ues that are associated with various facets ofidentity can generate internal tension or iden-tity conflict (see also Downie, Koestner,ElGeledi, & Cree, 2004; Settles, 2004: 487). Peoplewho experience this dissonance within theiridentity structures employ a variety of copingstrategies to reduce the conflict (e.g., Ashforth,Harrison, & Corley, 2008), providing evidencethat they are motivated to increase complemen-tarity between identities. Coping strategiesrange from disidentification (e.g., denying ordiscarding a lower-status identity and embrac-ing a higher-status identity) to segmentation(e.g., creating firm boundaries between identity

domains but remaining committed to both iden-tities) to integration (e.g., merging the identitiestogether so they are no longer viewed as sepa-rate). It is important to reduce identity conflictbecause when the pressures of one identity in-terfere with the performance of another identity,this can threaten one’s sense of self (Thoits,1991), overtax cognitive resources (Fried, Ben-David, Tiegs, Avital, & Yeverechyahu, 1998), leadto role overload (Biddle, 1986), undermine coping(Cooke & Rousseau, 1984), and promote inconsis-tent action or inaction (Merton, 1957). Althoughindividuals may choose to segment their identi-ties, much of the recent organizational literaturehas illustrated the benefits of increasing comple-mentarity through building linkages or connec-tions among the various facets of the self, withoutallowing one facet of identity to subsume or over-take another. Thus, as individuals structure theiridentities in ways that are complementary, theidentity structure becomes more positive.

Research on complementary identity struc-tures is illustrated by work-family studies show-ing how individuals cope with identity conflictemerging from the attempt to meet family andwork obligations (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006).For example, Rothbard and Ramarajan (2009)have noted that complementary identity struc-tures allow individuals to successfully navigatepotential conflicts that may emerge when theirnonwork identities become activated at work.Similarly, diversity scholars have studied theidentity conflicts that arise when cultural minor-ity workers are discouraged from sharing theirunique cultural backgrounds, expressing cul-tural values that differ from the organization’s,or drawing on cultural experience and insight toinform the organization’s strategy, work pro-cesses, or climate (Bell, 1990; Cox, 1993; Ely &Thomas, 2001; Thomas, 1993). For example, Elyand Thomas (2001) revealed that groups whoseminority members activate their cultural andprofessional identities at work may be more suc-cessful at contributing valuable ideas andlearning from differences than groups whosemembers segment or suppress aspects of theircultural background while at work. In addition,research on cultural diversity suggests that it ispsychologically healthy for people to view theircultural and professional identities as compati-ble rather than oppositional (Bell, 1990; Bell &Nkomo, 2001). And, finally, Cheng et al. (2008)found that identity integration (i.e., the degree to


which individuals reconcile different socialidentities) allows individuals to access differentknowledge structures and enhances individualcreativity.

Taken together, this research suggests thatmore complementarity among multiple identityfacets is a more optimal identity structure.Complementarity indicates that an identitystructure contains both complexity and compat-ibility; individuals distinguish among differentfacets of their identities (i.e., the identity struc-ture is complex; Linville, 1985) but also generatelinkages among those facets. This allows indi-viduals to activate various identities in a givencontext (i.e., the identity structure is also com-patible; Chattopadhyay et al., 2004; George &Chattopadhyay, 2005; Hornsey & Hogg, 2000). Agreater degree of complementarity betweenidentities is a positive psychological conditionthat enables people to make connections andderive meaning from the disparate elements oftheir lives (Caza & Wilson, 2009; Ibarra & Bar-bulescu, in press; McAdams, 1993; Sanchez-Burks & Lee, 2009) while producing a more co-herent sense of self that promotes well-being(Downie et al., 2004; Ryan & Deci, 2001). Thus, thepositivity of a work-related identity is greater asindividuals organize their identities in waysthat emphasize more complementarity (ratherthan conflict).

These four perspectives on positive identityilluminate four different pathways throughwhich individuals cultivate self-definitions thatare positive in some way. The four perspectivescapture a broad range of theoretical assumptionsregarding sources of positivity for identity con-struction (e.g., virtues, evaluations, development,and structure) and increase the precision withwhich scholars can examine the nature, anteced-ents, and consequences of positive identities. Inthe next section of the paper, we illustrate onepotential consequence of positive identity con-struction—employee strengthening—by demon-strating how the four perspectives on positiveidentity illuminate different mechanisms forbuilding social resources.

PUTTING THE FOUR PERSPECTIVES TOWORK: POSITIVE WORK-RELATED IDENTITIES

AND EMPLOYEE STRENGTHENING

The value of the four-part typology is revealedby using each perspective to build illustrative

propositions about how positive identitiesstrengthen employees at work. As defined in theintroduction, we view employee strengtheningas a process of increasing individuals’ capacityto endure stress and hardship and/or increasingtheir capacity to take on new demands and chal-lenges. Central to the process of employeestrengthening is the building or creating ofresources. Consistent with conservation of re-sources theory (Hobfoll, 1989, 2002), we assumethat individuals strive to “retain, protect andbuild” (Hobfall, 1989: 516) key social and psycho-logical job-relevant resources and that these re-sources help to strengthen individuals by en-hancing their functioning and well-being atwork.

Resources are defined broadly as “entitiesvalued in their own right” or “entities that act asa means to obtain centrally valued ends” (Hob-foll, 2002: 307). In particular, we are interested inhow different forms of positive work-relatedidentities increase or build social resources. So-cial resources include the number, breadth, di-versity, and quality of relationships employeeshave at work. Social resources are the valuableassets that inhere in the structure, content, andquality of the connections individuals have withothers at work. Accordingly, social resourcescan be thought of as a subset of social capital(Coleman, 1988; Putnam, 2000) or relationalwealth (Leana & Rousseau, 2000). While in manyperspectives on social resources sociologistsview these resources as a property of the rela-tionship between two individuals, some psy-chologists view these social resources as per-sonal assets that are part of a reserve that helpsindividuals cope and adapt (e.g., Fredrickson,2001). We assume that individuals at work havesome discretion over how and with whom theyform connections. This personal discretionmakes the building of social resources particu-larly sensitive to how employees think aboutand define themselves (identity construction).One could imagine that identity constructionwould have less impact on the building of otherless discretionary, more fixed resources, such asascribed status or immutable individual-levelcharacteristics.

Building social resources is particularly im-portant for strengthening individuals in organi-zational contexts, because having additional,broader, more diverse, or higher-quality rela-tionships with others is associated with desir-


able outcomes, such as better physical and psy-chological health (Heaphy & Dutton, 2008; Ryff &Singer, 2001), greater job involvement (Chiaburu& Harrison, 2008), more creativity (Atwater &Carmeli, 2009), and better coordination and per-formance in interdependent work (Gittell, 2003).Creating and sustaining social resources is alsocritical to core processes that promote individ-ual functioning at work, such as employee so-cialization (Ashforth, Saks, & Lee, 1998), proac-tivity (Grant & Ashford, 2008), adaptation (Tsui &Ashford, 1994), learning through participation incommunities of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991),sensemaking (Weick, 1995), and thriving at work(Carmeli & Spreitzer, in press; Spreitzer, Sut-cliffe, Dutton, Sonenshein, & Grant, 2005).

We see how social resources strengthen em-ployees at work in a variety of research studies,including the importance of social support andmentoring at work (Higgins & Kram, 2001; Ra-gins & Kram, 2007), the impact of individuals’networks for career progress (Burt, 1992), thepower of psychological safety (Carmeli, Bruel-ler, & Dutton, 2009; Creed & Scully, 2000; Ed-mondson, 1999) and attachments at work (Kahn,2007), and links between respectful connectionsand mindful organizing (Vogus & Sutcliffe, 2007;Weick & Roberts, 1993). These studies suggest avariety of ways that social resources strengthenindividuals at work, increasing their capacityto deal with adversity and/or increasing theircapacity to take advantage of opportunities.Next, we present several claims that inviteresearchers to consider positive identity con-struction as a mechanism that may help tobuild and sustain the social resources that arecritical to employee and organizational func-tioning.

We present a series of illustrative proposi-tions connecting the content and structure ofemployees’ work-related identities to their so-cial resources at work. These propositions as-sume that identity construction is relational:changes in an individual’s self-definition affectsocial resources, in part, through how an audi-ence or partner responds to the identity con-struction efforts. In the propositions below weassume that the partner or audience to an indi-vidual’s identity work efforts is receptive to theidentity claims of the focal individual. The prop-ositions vary in the degree to which they as-sume that an increase in social resources iscontingent on a partner’s reactions. As noted

later, future research will need to consider morefully the relational dynamics that undergird thisprocess of strengthening through social re-sources. The propositions are summarized inFigure 1.

Virtue Perspective and Social Resources

Links between an individual’s virtuous iden-tity and social resources can be seen by focus-ing on research studying particular kinds of vir-tuous identities—that is, a moral identity and acompassionate or caring identity. This researchuncovers two paths that link this form of positiveidentity construction and the building of socialresources.

First, a more virtuous work-related identitycan alter individuals’ preferences for buildingconnections to others, facilitating the cultivationof social resources. Prior research suggests thatvirtuous identity content can shape an individ-ual’s perception of ingroup and outgroup bound-aries. For example, research on individuals’moral identity suggests that having virtuous at-tributes that are central to one’s self-schema isassociated with a breakdown of the normal in-group-outgroup preferences. More specifically,Reed and Aquino (2003: 1271) demonstrated in aseries of four experiments that when a moralidentity becomes more salient, people expandtheir “circle of moral regard,” suggesting thatone effect of having a more central moral iden-tity is that it minimizes ingroup-outgroup dis-tinctions and increases sympathy toward out-groups. As a result, one might expect thatindividuals who define themselves with at-tributes consistent with a moral identity (e.g.,more caring, compassionate, fair, friendly, gen-erous, hardworking, honest, and kind) will bemore open to interacting with members of out-groups in their work organizations. In work or-ganizations members of outgroups might in-clude people who are in other units ordepartments, as well as people who are at dif-ferent organizational levels. In addition, indi-viduals who have a highly self-important moralidentity are more likely to care about the well-being and suffering of others, including out-group members (Detert, Trevino, & Sweitzer,2008), making them more conscious of the harmthey cause other people (Aquino, Reed, Thau, &Freeman, 2007). This openness to interactionswith members of outgroups and concern for their


welfare facilitates building relationships withoutgroup members, leading to our first proposi-tion.

Proposition 1: The more an individu-al’s work identity is imbued with vir-tuous qualities (that are part of amoral identity), the greater the num-ber of relationships the individual willform with members of outgroups in thework organization.

Second, constructing one’s identity with par-ticular types of virtuous attributes (e.g., caringand compassionate) can lead to actions that fur-ther foster the building of social resources. Inparticular, individuals who define themselvesas caring or compassionate (often called a“prosocial identity”; Grant, Dutton, & Rosso,2008) are likely to build higher-quality relation-ships with others at work because this form ofvirtuous identity is associated with identity-consistent behaviors of helping and acting be-nevolently toward others. Research on compas-sionate work units (Dutton, Worline, Frost, &Lilius, 2006; Worline et al., 2009) suggests that

people in these units who take on a compassion-ate identity frequently engage in spontaneousacts of helping and giving to others. Researchon giving and generosity at work suggeststhat employees who give more earn more trustand respect from their colleagues (Flynn,2003). Because trust and respect are markercharacteristics of high-quality connections atwork (Dutton & Heaphy, 2003), having an iden-tity that is defined by compassion may leadto higher-quality relationships with others(Baker & Dutton, 2007).

Proposition 2: The more an individu-al’s work identity is imbued with com-passion or caring, the higher the qual-ity of relationships the individual willform with others at work.

Evaluative Perspective and Social Resources

From the evaluative perspective, positive self-regard is an important component of positiveidentity. Since positive regard is related to theaffective component of identity, it is likely that

FIGURE 1Positive Identity Perspectives and the Building of Social Resources

Virtuous qualities

High regard

Fit with internaland/or external

standards

Complementary identities

Promotes identity-consistent behaviors; increases trust and respect in relationships

Changes perceptions of ingroup/outgroup boundaries; increases openness to relationships with outgroup members

Generates positive emotions; increases understanding of others, including outgroups

Generates positive emotions; makes individuals more popular and attractive as relational partners

Increases desire for affirmation of new identity; encourages the formation of new relationships

Increases cultural alignment; increases attraction due to perceptions of similarity

Enables engagement in multiple domains; increases exposure to diverse contacts; creates brokering opportunities

between contacts

Builds social resources

P1

Vir

tue

Eval

uati

veD

evel

opm

enta

lSt

ruct

ural

Type of positive identity Illustrative mechanisms

Increases access to self-affirmational resources; enables more open responses to threat

P2

P3

P4

P5

P6

P7

P8

P9 Individuals disclose more information, discover shared perspectives, are more authentic, and build intimacy


an individual whose identity is imbued withhigh esteem and high self-worth will experiencemore positive emotions (e.g., pride or content-ment). Research on positive emotions indicatesthat people who experience pleasant affectivestates such as pride and contentment are betterequipped to build social resources. First, an in-dividual’s experience of positive emotion atwork makes the person more attractive to others(i.e., coworkers or customers; Fredrickson, 2000).In support of this, research shows that peoplewith more positive self-regard are more popular(i.e., regarded as one with whom others wish toform relationships) and receive more help fromcolleagues at work (Scott & Judge, 2009). Peoplewith more positive self-regard are also moremotivated to engage in prosocial behaviors atwork (Grant, 2008). However, it is important toqualify that this affective link is likely activatedfor people who have genuine self-esteem, notthose who have an inflated but inaccurate senseof self-worth and are more likely to be anxiousand insecure (Baumeister, Smart, & Boden, 1996;Crocker, 2006). Based on these studies of positiveemotions and self-regard, we propose the fol-lowing.

Proposition 3: The more favorably anindividual regards his or her workidentity, the more that individual willexperience positive emotions, whichwill increase the number of relation-ships the individual will form withothers at work.

Second, positive emotions broaden cogni-tions, increase perceptions of self-other overlap(or interconnectedness), and lead to more com-plex understandings of other people (Waugh &Fredrickson, 2006). For example, Waugh andFredrickson (2006) integrated the broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions with Aron andAron’s (1996) self-expansion theory and foundthat new college roommates who experiencedmore positive emotions were more likely to ex-pand their self-concept to include the roommate.That is, they were more likely to characterizetheir relationship with their roommate in termsof “us” and “we” instead of “you” versus “me.”One month later, roommates who experiencedpositive emotions also had more complex under-standings of their roommates’ identity. Thesepatterns also hold with respect to ingroup-outgroup interactions. In diverse groups positive

emotions increase feelings of oneness, whichinspire people to construct inclusive group iden-tities (whereby “us” includes “all of us”) insteadof holding to divisive group identities (Dovidio,Gaertner, Isen, & Lowrance, 1995; Fredrickson,2009).

When positive emotions broaden the scope ofattention, this also improves facial recognition.The impact of positive emotions is strongenough to override racial biases in facial recog-nition so that people are just as accurate inrecognizing the faces of different racial groupmembers as they are their own group members(Johnson & Fredrickson, 2005). Improved facialrecognition indicates an increased ability to seepeople as unique individuals, which can en-hance people’s ability to build more diverse re-lationships at work.

These findings suggest that the positive emo-tions generated by high self-regard may helpindividuals build higher-quality relationshipswith others.

Proposition 4: The more favorably anindividual regards his or her workidentity, the more positive emotionsthe individual will experience, whichwill increase the quality of relation-ships the individual will form withothers at work.

Third, positive self-evaluations can be partic-ularly important for strengthening individualswho face identity-threatening experiences byincreasing access to self-affirmational re-sources (Jordan, Spencer, Zanna, Hoshino-Browne, & Correll, 2003). Self-affirmation theory(Steele & Berkowitz, 1988) claims that individu-als are able to protect the perceived integrityand worth of the self by focusing on importantvalues and competence in a domain that is un-related to a threat. As a result, individuals whohave high regard for a particular identity in onedomain respond more openly and less defen-sively to identity-threatening situations in an-other (see Sherman & Cohen, 2006, for a review).In turn, this openness can strengthen them byenabling them to build higher-quality relation-ships.

First, people who engage in self-affirmingprocesses are more open to compromise and tohearing opinions that differ from their own (Cor-rell, Spencer, & Zanna, 2004). They are also lesslikely to use stereotypes or to disparage out-


group members (Fein & Spencer, 1997), morelikely to view authority figures (e.g., teachersand administrators) as trustworthy and fair,even if they are of a different racial group thanone’s own (Cohen, Garcia, Apfel, & Master, 2006),and more likely to look to others to provide mod-els for growth and inspiration, rather than mak-ing downward comparisons in order to protecttheir own self-esteem (Spencer, Fein, & Lomore,2001). All of these findings suggest a positiverelationship between self-evaluations and so-cial resources.

Proposition 5: The more positively anindividual evaluates his or her work-related identity, the greater his or heraccess to self-affirmational resourcesthat will increase the quality of rela-tionships the individual forms at work.

Developmental Perspective and SocialResources

According to the adaptive approach to posi-tive identity development, the positivity of iden-tity increases as the identity content achieves abetter fit with some combination of internal andexternal standards (Ibarra, 1999, 2003; Pratt, 2000;Pratt et al., 2006). When individuals at work ex-perience identity change that better fits thestandards of their organization, the individuals’work selves become more aligned with the re-quirements and goals of a particular organiza-tional or occupational setting. This type of cul-tural alignment process helps individuals seethemselves as more similar to others who havealso adjusted themselves to fit with the context.Because people who see themselves as moresimilar are attracted to one another and have aneasier time relating (Byrne, 1961, 1971), we pro-pose the following.

Proposition 6: The more an individu-al’s work identity changes to better fitexternal standards, the greater thenumber and quality of relationshipsthat individual will form with othersat work.

Ibarra’s (1999, 2003) research on identity devel-opment suggests a different pathway by whichpositive identity adaptation facilitates thebuilding of social resources. Her work suggeststhat identity construction is a social process and

that individuals seek to forge new connectionswith others who affirm identities as they de-velop and transform over time (Ibarra, 1999, 2003;Swann, 1987). When individuals’ identities areaffirmed by others, they feel more connected tothe group and perform more creatively (Swann,Milton, & Polzer, 2000). Accordingly, we offer thefollowing.

Proposition 7: The more an individual’swork identity changes to fit externalstandards, the more that individualwill seek relationships with addi-tional others to verify the new iden-tity.

Structural Perspective and Social Resources

According to the complementary approach,having multiple compatible identities is an im-portant feature of positive identity structures.People who maintain complex yet compatibleidentity structures are likely to engage in mul-tiple corresponding life domains (e.g., be deeplyengaged in work, family, and community ser-vice; Rothbard, 2001). Given this engagement inmultiple domains, a person with a complemen-tary identity structure may also have more fre-quent interactions with a diverse group of oth-erwise unconnected people (e.g., workcolleagues, extended family, and neighbors;Bell, 1990). Bell (1990) found that black womenwho are career oriented and do not constructimpermeable boundaries between their workworld and their personal (cultural) world havegreater access to social resources. Specifically,flexibility in managing multiple roles allowsthese women to build larger networks and toform more interracial friendships than womenwho compartmentalize their work and culturalidentities and therefore often experience socialisolation, alienation, and estrangement. Accord-ing to social network theorists, the most re-sourceful social networks are composed of manyties with different people who represent differ-ent social groups and life domains (see Ibarra,Kilduff, & Wenpin, 2005, and Podolny & Baron,1997). Those who bridge structural holes in so-cial networks by brokering relationships be-tween otherwise disconnected individuals pos-sess a greater amount of social capital thanthose whose networks are more dense (i.e., hav-ing multiple ties between people; Burt, 1992).


Having relationships with a diverse group ofpeople is important for identifying and access-ing career opportunities (Burt, 1992; Higgins &Kram, 2001) and for gaining social support (Bell,1990). Thus, research on identity structures sug-gests that a complementary identity structurewill lead to the building of social resources.

Proposition 8: The more an individu-al’s work identity structure containscomplex yet compatible facets, themore that individual will form rela-tionships with diverse groups ofpeople.

Finally, research also suggests that a comple-mentary identity structure can influence thebuilding of social resources by affecting thequality of interpersonal relationships. Two dif-ferent takes on social resources lend support tothis claim. One view is grounded in research onsocial networks. When individuals are able todraw on different facets of their identity at work,they may also disclose more information andexpand opportunities for discovering shared in-terests or perspectives. This disclosure may thushelp them to form multiplex (Burt, 1983) relation-ships with coworkers (i.e., links that incorporatemore than one type of relationship—e.g., co-worker, neighbor, friend—and therefore allowfor greater exchanges of resources).

The second view also builds on the assump-tion that complementarity may increase thedepth and breadth of self-disclosure. Accordingto Kahn, a complementary identity structure isimportant for increasing psychological pres-ence, in which people “employ and expressthemselves physically, cognitively and emotion-ally during role performances” (1990: 694). Ac-cording to Kahn’s (1992) study of personal en-gagement, when people draw connectionsbetween different facets of their self-concepts,their increased sense of wholeness or intimacywith self also translates into building intimacywith others. Complementarity promotes authen-ticity and trust, which help people safely workthrough differences and difficult conversations.Given the increased likelihood of forming inti-mate, multiplex relationships at work, we pro-pose the following.

Proposition 9: The more an individu-al’s work identity structure containscomplex yet compatible facets, the

higher the quality of relationshipsthat individual will form with othersat work.

These propositions demonstrate how the fourpositive identity perspectives can facilitate thebuilding of social resources. They provide anexciting opening for scholars to research newmeans by which positive identity constructionmatters in work organizations—in this case, bystrengthening individuals through the cultiva-tion of social resources.

DISCUSSION

The typology of positive identity perspectivesand the links to employee strengthening createa scaffolding of propositions that have value toorganizational researchers. Our four-part typol-ogy of positive identity perspectives brings newprecision to understanding the mechanisms thataccount for how and why work-related positiveidentities are functioning in any particular the-ory. We see this effort as consistent with themechanisms movement in the social sciencesmore generally (Hedstrom & Swedberg, 1998)and in the organizational sciences more specif-ically (Anderson et al., 2006).

First, while existing organizational researchhas conceptualized identity as a mechanism innumerous theoretical accounts (Ashforth et al.,2008), our typology helps organizational re-searchers recognize that there are four distinctways in which positive identity construction caninfluence important outcomes: through the vir-tuous content of an identity (virtue perspective),through the regard an individual has for anidentity (evaluative), through the path or trajec-tory of developing the identity (which includestwo types—progressive and adaptive), andthrough the structure of the identity (which alsoincludes two types—balanced and complemen-tary). By linking identity construction to impor-tant outcomes, such as employee strengthening,we see that these different types of positiveidentity construction have their effect throughchanging perceptions (e.g., ingroup-outgroupboundaries), emotions (e.g., pride, contentment),and behaviors (e.g., helping). For example, inPropositions 1 through 9 we suggest that culti-vating a more virtuous work-related identity ex-pands an individual’s circle of moral regard(cognitive), that enhancing regard for an identity


generates positive emotions (emotional), andthat individuals who engage in identity adapta-tion will actively seek out individuals who willaffirm and verify this new self-view (behav-ioral). Future research can also explore and testother means through which work-related identi-ties have their impact on additional outcomesthat matter at the micro and macro levels. Forexample, micro theorists studying commitment,engagement, and involvement at work who treatidentity as a mediating mechanism (Ashforth &Mael, 1989; Dutton, Dukerich, & Harquail, 1994;Pierce & Gardner, 2004; Pratt, 2000) could con-sider whether the content, structure, develop-ment, or evaluation (or some combination of thefour) are working together to account for theeffects of identity on attachment to or identifica-tion with a social entity like an organization orprofession.

Second, at the macro level there is the poten-tial to deepen our understanding of how microprocesses of identity construction motivate andbuild social resources that help to explain pat-terns of change in network structures. For exam-ple, as community or city leaders celebrate andmake claims about a region’s compassionate orcourageous actions, this collective identitychange could spawn the cultivation of more pos-itive (virtuous) identities for regional members.Based on the arguments developed here, wewould expect to see corresponding changes inthe cultivation of social resources by regionalmembers, which could change the pattern of theregion’s social networks. This hypothetical sce-nario illustrates how deepening our under-standing of positive identity construction re-veals new insights about how micro processesrelate to macro patterns. Thus, our typologydeepens our current understanding of how pos-itive identity construction can be a causal forcein theoretical explanations, allows for greatertheoretical precision when using identity as amechanism, and opens up many new avenuesfor future research.

New Questions and Future Research

The typology we have created opens up im-portant new questions for identity researchersconsidering (1) the antecedents to identity con-struction (e.g., the importance of context and“jolts” that activate identity construction), (2) dif-ferent types of identity threats, and (3) the link-

ages among various types of positive identityconstruction. At the same time, the propositionswe have generated about employee strengthen-ing invite consideration of (4) an expandedrange of outcomes that could be linked to posi-tive identity construction at work. Further, boththe typology of positive identity constructionand the propositions about strengthening spawnnew questions for (5) macro organizational schol-ars and (6) researchers interested in positiveorganizational scholarship. We consider each ofthese extensions below.

First, our framework invites consideration ofthe antecedents to positive identity construction.In particular, organizational researchers mightconsider how the organizational context en-hances positive identity construction. For exam-ple, how do organizational practices (i.e., regu-lar activities engaged in by employees in aparticular unit or organization; Orlikowski, 2002)shape employees’ self-constructions in waysthat make employees’ identity more positive?Research suggests that individuals are morelikely to take on an organization’s identity char-acteristics if they engage in organizationalpractices that enact these identity qualities(Dutton, Roberts, & Bednar, in press). Severalfield studies support this claim. In a study ofemployee attachment to a Fortune 500 retailer,results indicated that employees took on a moreprosocial (i.e., caring, humane) identity afterparticipating (via financial contribution) in anemployee support program (Grant et al., 2008). Ina different study employees of a Fortune 500company participated in a corporate-sponsoredcommunity service initiative, which promptedmembers to view the organizational identity asdistinctive and positively valued, increasingmembers’ regard for their work organization asa collective identity (Bartel, 2001). Other re-search has shown that practices that create andsustain hope help people to see themselves asprogressing or moving forward in their life story(Carlsen, 2008; Carlsen & Pitsis, 2009). Finally,research shows that multicultural organizationsthat promote the practice of learning from cul-tural differences (Cox, 1993; Ely & Thomas, 2001)can facilitate positive structuring of identities.

In each of these studies, organizational prac-tices helped to cultivate different types of posi-tive identity construction, opening new researchdomains for linking the organizational contextand employees’ work-related identities. Future


research might also consider how differentkinds of institutionalized practices, such as so-cialization practices, shape positive identityconstruction (Michel, 2007), as well as how ev-eryday conversational practices (LeBaron,Glenn, & Thompson, 2009) affect the differentroutes to positive identity construction in workorganizations.

A focus on positive identity construction in-vites consideration of different kinds of cata-lysts for positive identity construction. For ex-ample, it prompts consideration of jolts that areappreciative (Roberts, Dutton, Spreitzer,Heaphy, & Quinn, 2005) rather than threatening.Appreciative jolts arise when the experience ofaffirmation changes an individual’s sense ofwho he or she can be or desires to be. In thiscase the prompt to alter one’s self-definitioncomes from movement toward the positive ordesired state instead of movement away fromthe negative or undesired state. Identity schol-ars would do well to consider the full range ofprompts to identity work or identity change thatdisrupt self-understanding. The nature and im-pact of such prompts may differ depending onwhat form of positive identity construction isbeing studied (e.g., role models may impactidentity development, prosocial acts maystrengthen virtuous identity content, and posi-tive feedback may jolt evaluations of identityand increase self-regard).

Second, our typology also offers new direc-tions for refining how we think about threats toindividual identities. Research on identitythreat presents an opportunity to link the prom-inent scholarly emphasis on repairing identitiesto the four-part typology of positive identity con-struction. The virtue perspective suggests thatidentity threats arise when the content of anindividual’s self-definition moves away from oris inconsistent with strengths or virtues. Theevaluative perspective, which places the mostemphasis on identity threat, suggests that iden-tity threat stems from decrements in self-regard,often triggered by external perceptions. Accord-ing to the developmental perspective, identitythreats may arise when identities stagnate (e.g.,career plateaus; Elsass & Ralston, 1989) or whenthe identity does not fit with internal or externalstandards (Pratt et al., 2006). Finally, the struc-tural perspective suggests that identity threatsmay arise when the structure of multiple identi-ties becomes unbalanced or misaligned.

By considering each of these different sourcesof identity threat, we open up new ways to studyhow individuals experience and respond toidentity threats in the quest to construct a posi-tive identity. Future research should examinethe relative impact of different types of identitythreats, as well as the tactics that can facilitatecoping with these threats in order to constructidentities that are more positive. One model ofthis type of research can be found in Kreiner andSheep’s (2009) discussion of identity work tacticsthat transform identity challenges into opportu-nities for positive identity growth. Another ex-ample is Maitlis’s (2009) description of the pro-cess through which musicians renarratethemselves in expanded and empowering waysfollowing professional traumas.

Third, the typology also prompts consider-ation of the interrelationships among the differ-ent forms of positive work-related identities. Forexample, it may be that some virtuous identityattributes are evaluated more positively thanother kinds of identity attributes. It is also pos-sible that a virtuous identity may cause greatertension for an individual’s identity structure, asthe individual struggles to live up to such noblequalities across multiple identities. Alterna-tively, future research may explore how an iden-tity structure affects the progress and adapta-tion of an identity over time. Finally, as thedifferent sources of positivity for a particularidentity increase simultaneously, we would ex-pect the identity to become more positive over-all. However, it is not clear whether the differentforms of positivity are additive, compensatory,hierarchical, or interactive (Ashforth, 2009).These are the kinds of questions that we hopewill spawn further theoretical and empiricalconsideration.

Fourth, our positive identity typology and thelink to employee strengthening also invite con-sideration of outcomes other than the cultivationof social resources. We began with the link be-tween identity construction and social resourcesbecause of the mutually constitutive nature ofidentity and relationships. Both identity and so-cial resources are linked closely to how individ-uals locate themselves and are located by oth-ers in a social structure. While many identitytheorists make this point, Burke says it quitesuccinctly: “Identities thus define us in terms ofpositions in society, and these positions in soci-ety are relational in the sense that they tie indi-


viduals together. . . . Therefore, an inherent linkexists between identity and social structure”(2004: 6). Future research will need to determinehow identity construction might be related to thebuilding (or destroying) of other forms of indi-vidual resources (e.g., financial, cultural, knowl-edge resources) that are less relational in na-ture. For example, research on communities ofpractice (Brown & Duguid, 1991; Lave & Wenger,1991) suggests that different forms of positiveidentity construction might be related to the cul-tivation of and access to knowledge resources.

Fifth, new questions and research opportuni-ties also arise by applying the four perspectiveson positive identity construction at a moremacro level of analysis. For example, at the or-ganizational unit of analysis, organizationshave been construed as ethical (Verbos, Gerard,Forshey, Harding, & Miller, 2007), sustainabilityfocused (Hamilton & Gioia, 2009), and compas-sionate (Dutton et al., 2006). Likewise, research-ers have suggested that organizations have ca-pacities for “self-regard” (Dutton & Dukerich,1991), adopt narratives of becoming (Carlsen,2006, 2008; Corley & Harrison, 2009), and strive tobalance the multiple facets of their identity(Pratt & Foreman, 2000; Pratt & Kraatz, 2009). Inaddition, researchers working at the organiza-tional level of analysis suggest that positiveorganizational identities can foster similar re-sourcing dynamics that create desirable orga-nizational-level outcomes (Brickson & Lemmon,2009; Glynn & Walsh, 2009). It might even bepossible to examine the utility of the typologyfor considering meaningful differences in thetypes of positive identity construction at thecommunity level (Marquis & Davis, 2009). Wehope researchers will take up these possibilitiesin future research.

Finally, the typology of positive identity per-spectives builds on the efforts of organizationalscholars to expand the domain of inquiry in or-ganizational studies through explicit applica-tion of a positive lens, and it unearths new re-search questions for researchers interested inidentity (Cameron, Dutton, & Quinn, 2003; Caza& Caza, 2008; Giacalone, Jurkiewicz, & Dunn,2005; Luthans, 2002; Nelson & Cooper, 2007; Rob-erts, 2006; Turner, Barling, & Zacharatos, 2002;Wright, 2003). Our propositions linking differentforms of positive identity to social resources area beginning move in exploring how positiveidentities (or identity construction more gener-

ally) could contribute to the development of so-cial resources, as well as other critical resourcessuch as optimism, efficacy, resilience, or psy-chological capital (Luthans, Youssef, & Avolio,2007). A more concerted effort to link identityconstruction to employee strengthening opensup important research questions for organiza-tional scholars about how identity-related pro-cesses can be psychologically or physiologi-cally building or depleting. At the same time,this paper opens up a critical new domain forresearchers interested in positive psychology(e.g., Fredrickson, 2009; Seligman & Csikszent-mihalyi, 2000; Snyder & Lopez, 2002) who havenot explicitly considered how positive identitycontent, evaluation, structure, and developmentcontribute to individual flourishing.

Practical Implications

Our typology offers new insights about thepotential agency of individuals in constructingpositive work-related identities—even individu-als embedded in contexts not conducive to theseprocesses. For example, individuals can beginto discover, embody, and then incorporatestrengths and virtues into their work-relatedidentities. Self-assessments (e.g., Values in Ac-tion Inventory, Strengthsfinder) and feedbackexercises (e.g., Reflected Best-Self Exercise; Rob-erts, Spreitzer, Dutton, Quinn, Heaphy, & Barker,2005) are assessments and interventions explic-itly designed to help individuals attend to andsee themselves as having more virtuous identi-ties. Cognitive reframing of the self can enhanceregard by helping people focus on the ways inwhich their identities favorably distinguishthem from others (Hogg & Terry, 2000). Renarrat-ing the self in interaction with others affords anadditional means of constructing a more posi-tive work-related identity that can have impor-tant implications in the context of negotiationsand other conflictual interpersonal interactions(Kopelman, Chen, & Shoshana, 2009). Paying at-tention to different role models (Ibarra, 1999) andsensemaking (Ashforth et al., 2008; Maitlis, 2009;Pratt et al., 2006) can facilitate adaptive identitydevelopment, while proactive feedback seeking(Ashford & Tsui, 1991) can facilitate progressionthrough identity stages. Intentional efforts to en-gage in boundary work can increase comple-mentarity among the various facets of one’sidentity (Bartel, 2001), while proactive manage-


ment of when nonwork identities become salientat work can enhance compatibility (Rothbard &Ramarajan, 2009).

Thus, this paper underlines the potential ofindividuals to act agentically so as to shapeover time who they can become both inside andoutside work organizations. At the same time, itis important to be cautious in interpreting thesepractical implications until there is empiricalsupport substantiating how these different pos-itive identity processes interact with one an-other to affect outcomes like the building of so-cial resources.

Our typology also reveals a variety of ways inwhich organizations can facilitate positive iden-tity construction by focusing on the differentpathways to positivity. We mentioned studiesthat suggest important links between organiza-tional practices and positive identity construc-tion. In addition, policy makers and leadersmight also consider how organizational culture(e.g., shared values, beliefs, norms) shapes theways individuals define themselves, by provid-ing them with the cultural “toolkits” (Swidler,1986) necessary to construct the self as virtuous,worthy, progressing, or harmonious (balancedor complementary). For example, Verbos andcolleagues (2007) suggested that authentic lead-ers, positive organizational processes, and anethical organizational culture can encourage in-dividuals to construct themselves in more virtu-ous ways. Future research must continue to pro-vide evidence for these claims.

We do offer a word of caution, however, withrespect to the role that organizations might playin effecting positive identity construction. Orga-nizations must use this more complex under-standing of the pathways to positive identitywith care. For example, Pratt (2000) documentedhow Amway tried to “manage” newcomers’identification with the organization. Accordingto Pratt’s research, Amway was able to manip-ulate newcomers’ evaluations of their work-related identity by creating identity discrepan-cies between their current and desired selves.These discrepancies created a motivation foridentity change, and identification with Amwaywas the proposed bridge to a new self. Whenindividuals faced “nonmembers” who were notsupportive of their membership in the organiza-tion (e.g., family or friends who did not buy theirproducts), they were encouraged to disengagefrom such relationships. As a result, construct-

ing a “positive” identity at Amway generatedsocial resources for individuals at work whilesometimes destroying potentially meaningfulfamily relationships and friendships outside ofwork. Thus, organizations should carefullyweigh the ethicality of practices and culturesdesigned to encourage or discourage certaintypes of self-construction.

Limitations and Boundary Conditions

The expansive view of positive identities andwork organizations should be tempered by con-sideration of limitations and boundary condi-tions that are necessary for this research do-main to move forward. One important variableto consider is the centrality of a particular work-related identity, which can influence the po-tency of the relationships that we propose (Ash-more et al., 2004). Individuals differ in the extentto which they consider particular identities to becentral to their self-concept. For instance, mem-bers of the same occupation vary in terms ofhow important that occupation is to their self-concept—for example, nurse-midwives (Caza,2009), chefs (Fine, 1996), and woman scientists(Settles, 2004). Likewise, the centrality or impor-tance of an identity that has virtuous attributes(i.e., moral identity; Aquino & Reed, 2002) maymoderate the relationship between virtuousidentity construction and resource generation.Future research should consider the moderatingrole of identity centrality when examining rela-tionships between positive work-related iden-tity construction and employee strengthening.

Second, our typology asserts that constructinga more positive work-related identity involvesviewing oneself as more virtuous, holding one’sidentity in higher regard, adapting to or pro-gressing toward an ideal state, or balancingidentity tensions. Yet the process of positiveidentity construction increases in complexitywhen considering the iterative, dynamic natureof identity construction. Individuals put forthidentity claims, which are then accepted or de-nied by others based on their expectations andperceptions of the credibility of such claims(Baumeister, 1999; Gergen, 1994; Goffman, 1959;Swann, 1987). The importance of studying thismutual process is evident in studies explaininghow negative or neutral identities become morepositive, as in the case of temporary workers(Bartel & Dutton, 2001), negatively stereotyped


professionals (Roberts, 2005), leaders (DeRue,Ashford, & Cotton, 2009; Roberts, Cha, Hewlin, &Settles, 2009), team members (MacPhail, Roloff,& Edmondson, 2009; Milton, 2009; Polzer, Milton,& Swann, 2002), and mentors (Ragins, 2009). Inall of these cases, the process of identity changeis best captured by simultaneously consideringthe focal individual and the relational partnerswho affirm or deny that individual’s self-definition so that it can become more positive. Inaddition, because individuals are often im-mersed in a complex set of relationships withothers, who may not always be receptive to theiridentity construction efforts, the links betweenpositive identity construction and the cultiva-tion of social resources will be more complexand nuanced than what we have presentedhere. The propositions that we offer in this papercan serve as a springboard for future researchthat captures the iterative relationship betweenseeing oneself in more positive ways and hav-ing the identity granted, affirmed, or verified byothers.

Third, it is important to consider the culturallimitations of the identity processes implied byour approach. Research in cultural psychologysuggests that individuals in different culturesmay have different construals of the self(Markus & Kitayama, 1991) and different needsfor positive self-regard (Heine, Lehman, Markus,& Kitayama, 1999). As a result, the motivation toconstruct a positive identity and the way indi-viduals go about constructing a positive identitymay vary depending on the culture in whichthey are embedded.

Fourth, some organizational researchers havecautioned against adopting an overly sunnyview of positivity (Hackman, 2009) and haveeven suggested that “there is an unarticulateddark side to positiveness” (Fineman, 2006: 281) inwork organizations. These cautions have impor-tant implications for a “positive” perspective onwork-related identities. As noted previously, thedesire to create a positive identity is viewed bymost researchers as a fundamental humanneed, yet it may lead to behaviors with negativeconsequences. For example, this fundamentalneed may contribute to self-deceptions thathave negative consequences for individuals, re-lationships, and organizations. Some researchsuggests that individuals who have a tendencyto adopt unrealistically positive self-images ex-perience less personal growth, learn less, and

engage in behaviors that are detrimental to so-cial interactions (Brookings & Serratelli, 2006;Colvin, Funder, & Block, 1995; Lee & Klein, 2002;Martocchio & Judge, 1997). At the extreme, in-flated self-views may lead to a sense of per-sonal impunity, resulting in discrimination to-ward others (Sherman & Cohen, 2006), or evenviolent behavior toward others (Baumeister etal., 1996). Thus, it must be acknowledged thatconstructing a positive identity without a basisin reality may result in potentially negative con-sequences.

Finally, although identity has a long historyas a construct of interest across multiple disci-plines, a focus on positive identity has gener-ated more recent excitement (Roberts & Dutton,2009). As a result, the novelty of this positiveapproach to the construct of identity is subject tothe “kumbaya effect”—the temptation to glossover necessary questions about the inner work-ings, limits, trade-offs, boundaries, and poten-tial drawbacks of a new construct (Ashforth,2009). Thus, researchers interested in pursuingthis course of research must continue to uncoverthe limits, boundaries, relationships, and con-tradictions of the four perspectives we have out-lined in our typology.

CONCLUSION

This paper opens up new possibilities for see-ing and appreciating the different pathways topositivity in work-related identity construction.Given the vibrancy and breadth of interest inand importance of identity research in our field(Ashforth et al., 2008; Bartel, Blader, &Wrzesniewski, 2006; Corley, Harquail, Pratt,Glynn, & Fiol, 2006; Hatch & Schultz, 2004),frameworks that help to organize and bring co-herence to the growing diversity of theory makethis paper particularly timely. In this paper wedeveloped the logic for four different pathwaysfor positive identity construction, and we pro-vided illustrative propositions for seeing howpositive identities can strengthen individualsthrough the cultivation of social resources. In aworld where workplaces leave their marks onemployees through a variety of means, we hopeto open up consideration of and investment inhow organizations can be sites of positive iden-tity construction in ways that add value to theindividual and beyond.


REFERENCES

Alvarez, J. L., Mazza, C., Pedersen, J. S., & Svejenova, S. 2005.Shielding idiosyncrasy from isomorphic pressures: To-wards optimal distinctiveness in European filmmaking.Organization, 12: 863–888.

Alvesson, M. 1998. Gender relations and identity at work: Acase study of masculinities and femininities in an ad-vertising agency. Human Relations, 51: 969–1005.

Anderson, P. J. J., Blatt, R., Christianson, M. K., Grant, A. M.,Marquis, C., Neuman, E. J., Sonenshein, S., & Sutcliffe,K. M. 2006. Understanding mechanisms in organization-al research: Reflections from a collective journey. Jour-nal of Management Inquiry, 15: 102–113.

Aquino, K., & Reed, A. 2002. The self-importance of moralidentity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,83: 1423–1436.

Aquino, K., Reed, A., II, Thau, S., & Freeman, D. 2007. Agrotesque and dark beauty: How moral identity andmechanisms of moral disengagement influence cogni-tive and emotional reactions to war. Journal of Experi-mental Social Psychology, 43: 385–392.

Aristotle. 1984. The complete works of Aristotle. Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press.

Aron, A., & Aron, E. N. 1996. Self and self-expansion in rela-tionships. In G. J. O. Fletcher & J. Fitness (Eds.), Knowl-edge structures in close relationships: A social psycho-logical approach: 325–344. Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Associates.

Ashford, S. J., & Tsui, A. S. 1991. Self-regulation for manage-rial effectiveness: The role of active feedback seeking.Academy of Management Journal, 34: 251–280.

Ashforth, B. E. 2009. Commentary: Positive identities and theindividual. In L. M. Roberts & J. E. Dutton (Eds.), Explor-ing positive identities and organizations: Building a the-oretical and research foundation: 171–187. New York:Routledge.

Ashforth, B. E., Harrison, S. H., & Corley, K. G. 2008. Identifi-cation in organizations: An examination of four funda-mental questions. Journal of Management, 34: 325–374.

Ashforth, B. E., & Kreiner, G. 1999. How can you do it? Dirtywork and the challenge of constructing a positive iden-tity. Academy of Management Review, 24: 413–434.

Ashforth, B. E., Kreiner, G., Clark, M., & Fugate, M. 2007.Normalizing dirty work: Managerial tactics for counter-ing occupational taint. Academy of Management Jour-nal, 50: 149–174.

Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. 1989. Social identity theory and theorganization. Academy of Management Review, 14: 20–39.

Ashforth, B. E., Saks, A. M., & Lee, R. T. 1998. Socialization andnewcomer adjustment: The role of organizational con-text. Human Relations, 51: 897–926.

Ashmore, R., Deaux, K., & McLaughlin-Volpe, T. 2004. Anorganizing framework for collective identity: Articula-tion and significance of multidimensionality. Psycholog-ical Bulletin, 130: 80–114.

Atwater, L., & Carmeli, A. 2009. Leader-member exchange,feelings of energy, and involvement in creative work.Leadership Quarterly, 20: 264–275.

Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W., Walumbwa, F. O., Luthans, F., &May, D. 2004. Unlocking the mask: A look at the processby which authentic leaders impact follower attitudesand behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 15: 801–823.

Baker, W. 2000. Achieving success through social capital. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Baker, W., & Dutton, J. E. 2007. Enabling positive social cap-ital in organizations. In J. E. Dutton & B. Ragins (Eds.),Exploring positive relationships at work: Building a the-oretical and research foundation: 325–345. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bartel, C., Blader, S., & Wrzesniewski, A. 2006. Identity andthe modern organization. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erl-baum Associates.

Bartel, C., & Dutton, J. E. 2001. Ambiguous organizationalmemberships: Constructing organizational identities ininteractions with others. In M. A. Hogg & D. J. Terry (Eds.),Social identity processes in organizational contexts: 115–130. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.

Bartel, C. A. 2001. Social comparisons in boundary-spanningwork: Effects of community outreach on members’ orga-nizational identity and identification. AdministrativeScience Quarterly, 46: 379–414.

Baumeister, R. F. 1999. The self. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, &G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4thed.): Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs,K. D. 2001. Bad is stronger than good. Review of GeneralPsychology, 5: 323–370.

Baumeister, R. F., Smart, L., & Boden, J. M. 1996. Relation ofthreatened egotism to violence and aggression: Thedark side of high self-esteem. Psychological Review,103: 5–33.

Bell, E. 1990. The bicultural life experience of career-orientedblack women. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11:459–477.

Bell, E., & Nkomo, S. M. 2001. Our separate ways: Black andwhite women and the struggle for professional identity.Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Bennis, W. 2002. Geeks and geezers: How era, values, anddefining moments shape leaders. Cambridge, MA: Har-vard Business School Press.

Berman, E., West, J. P., & Richter, M. N. 2002. Workplacerelations: Friendship patterns and consequences (ac-cording to managers). Public Administration Review, 62:217–230.

Beyer, J. M., & Hannah, D. R. 2002. Building on the past:Enacting established personal identities in a new worksetting. Organization Science, 13: 636–652.

Biddle, B. J. 1986. Recent developments in role theory. AnnualReview of Sociology, 12: 67–92.

Blasi, A. 1984. Moral identity: Its role in moral functioning. InW. Kurtines & J. Gewirtz (Eds.), Morality, moral behaviorand moral development: 128–139. New York: Wiley.


Boyce, A. S., Ryan, A. M., Imus, A. L., & Morgeson, F. 2007.Temporary worker, permanent loser? A model of thestigmatization of temporary workers. Journal of Man-agement, 33: 5–29.

Branscombe, N. R., Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. 1999.The context and content of social identity threat. InN. Ellemers & R. Spears (Eds.), Social identity: Context,commitment, content: 35–58. Oxford: Blackwell.

Breakwell, G. 1986. Coping with threatened identities. NewYork: Metheum.

Brewer, M. B. 1991. The social self: On being the same anddifferent at the same time. Personality and Social Psy-chology Bulletin, 17: 475–482.

Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. 1996. Who is this “we”? Levelsof collective identity and self-representations. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 71: 83–93.

Brickson, S. L., & Lemmon, G. 2009. Organizational identityas a stakeholder resource. In L. M. Roberts & J. E. Dutton(Eds.), Exploring positive identities and organizations:Building a theoretical and research foundation: 411–434.New York: Routledge.

Brookings, J. B., & Serratelli, A. J. 2006. Positive illusions:Positively correlated with subjective well-being, nega-tively correlated with a measure of personal growth.Psychological Reports, 98: 407–413.

Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. 1991. Organizational learning andcommunities-of-practice: Toward a unified theory ofworking, learning and innovation. Organization Sci-ence, 2: 40–57.

Burke, P. J. 2004. Identities and social structure: The 2003Cooley-Mead Award address. Social Psychology Quar-terly, 67: 5–15.

Burt, R. S. 1983. Distinguishing relational contents. In R. S.Burt & M. J. Minor (Eds.), Applied network analysis: 35–74.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Burt, R. S. 1992. The social structure of competition. InN. Nohria & R. Eccles (Eds.), Networks and organizations:Structure, form, and action: 57–91. Boston: Harvard Busi-ness School Press.

Burt, R. S. 2000. The network structure of social capital. Re-search in Organizational Behavior, 22: 345–423.

Butler, S. 1998. The way of all flesh. New York: RandomHouse.

Byrne, D. 1961. Interpersonal attraction and attitude similar-ity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62: 713–715.

Byrne, D. 1971. The attraction paradigm. New York: AcademicPress.

Cameron, K. S. 2003. Organizational virtuousness and per-formance. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn(Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: Foundationsof a new discipline: 48 – 65. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Cameron, K. S., Dutton, J. E., & Quinn, R. E. (Eds.). 2003.Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of anew discipline. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Campbell, J. D., Assanand, S., & Di Paula, A. 2003. The struc-ture of the self-concept and its relation to psychologicaladjustment. Journal of Personality, 71: 115–140.

Carlsen, A. 2006. Organizational becoming as dialogic imag-ination of practice: The case of the indomitable Gauls.Organization Science, 17: 132–149.

Carlsen, A. 2008. Positive dramas: Enacting self-adventuresin organizations. Journal of Positive Psychology, 3: 55–75.

Carlsen, A., & Pitsis, T. 2009. Experiencing hope in organiza-tional lives. In L. M. Roberts & J. E. Dutton (Eds.), Explor-ing positive identities and organizations: Building a the-oretical and research foundation: 77–98. New York:Routledge.

Carmeli, A., Brueller, D., & Dutton, J. E. 2009. Learning behav-iours in the workplace: The role of high-quality interper-sonal relationships and psychological safety. SystemsResearch & Behavioral Science, 26: 81–98.

Carmeli, A., & Spreitzer, G. In press. Trust, connectivity, andthriving: Implications for innovative behaviors at work.Journal of Creative Behavior.

Caza, B. B. 2009. Experiences of adversity at work: Toward anidentity-based theory of resilience. Unpublished doc-toral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Caza, B. B., & Bagozzi, R. 2009. Testing a professional identity-based theory of resilience at work. Working paper, Uni-versity of Illinois, Champaign.

Caza, B. B., & Caza, A. 2008. Positive organizational scholar-ship. Journal of Management Inquiry, 17: 21–33.

Caza, B. B., & Wilson, M. G. 2009. Me, myself, and I: Thebenefits of work-identity complexity. In L. M. Roberts &J. E. Dutton (Eds.), Exploring positive identities and or-ganizations: Building a theoretical and research founda-tion: 99–123. New York: Routledge.

Chattopadhyay, P., Tluchowska, M., & George, E. 2004. Iden-tifying the ingroup: A closer look at the influence ofdemographic dissimilarity on social identity. Academyof Management Review, 29: 180–202.

Cheng, C., Sanchez-Burks, J., & Lee, F. 2008. Connecting thedots within: Creative performance and identity integra-tion. Psychological Science, 19: 1178–1184.

Chiaburu, D. S., & Harrison, D. A. 2008. Do peers make theplace? Conceptual synthesis and meta-analysis of co-worker effects on perceptions, attitudes, OCBs, and per-formance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93: 1082–1104.

Clair, J. A., Beatty, J., & MacLean, T. 2005. Out of sight but notout of mind: How individuals manage invisible socialidentities in the workplace. Academy of ManagementReview, 30: 78–95.

Cohen, G. L., Garcia, J., Apfel, N., & Master, A. 2006. Reducingthe racial achievement gap: A social-psychological in-tervention. Science, 313: 1307–1310.

Coleman, J. S. 1988. Social capital in the creation of humancapital. American Journal of Sociology, 94: 95–120.

Colvin, C. R., Funder, D. C., & Block, J. 1995. Overly positiveself-evaluations and personality: Negative implicationsfor mental health. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology, 68: 1152–1162.


Cooke, R. A., & Rousseau, D. M. 1984. Stress and strain fromfamily roles and work-role expectations. Journal of Ap-plied Psychology, 69: 252–260.

Cooley, C. H. 1902. Human nature and the social order. NewYork: Scribner.

Corley, K. G., Harquail, C. V., Pratt, M. G., Glynn, M. A., &Fiol, C. M. 2006. Guiding organizational identity throughaged adolescence. Journal of Management Inquiry, 15:85–99.

Corley, K. G., & Harrison, S. H. 2009. Generative organiza-tional identity change: Approaching organizational au-thenticity as a process. In L. M. Roberts & J. E. Dutton(Eds.), Exploring positive identities and organizations:Building a theoretical and research foundation: 361–384.New York: Routledge.

Correll, J., Spencer, S. J., & Zanna, M. P. 2004. An affirmed selfand an open mind: Self-affirmation and sensitivity toargument strength. Journal of Experimental Social Psy-chology, 40: 350–356.

Cox, T. H. 1993. Cultural diversity in organization: Theoryresearch and practice. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Creed, W. E., & Scully, M. A. 2000. Songs of ourselves: Em-ployees’ deployment of social identity in workplace en-counters. Journal of Management Inquiry, 9: 391–412.

Crocker, J. 2006. Having and pursuing self-esteem: Costs andbenefits. In M. H. Kernis (Ed.), Self-esteem issues andanswers: A sourcebook on current perspective: 274–280.New York: Psychology Press.

Crossan, M., & Mazutis, D. 2008. Transcendent leadership.Business Horizons, 51(2): 131–139.

Dahlsgaard, K., Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. 2005. Sharedvirtue: The convergence of valued human strengthsacross culture and history. Review of General Psychol-ogy, 9: 202–213.

Davis, G. F., & Marquis, C. 2005. Prospects for organizationtheory in the early twenty-first century: Institutionalfields and mechanisms. Organization Science, 16: 332–343.

Delbecq, A. L. 2008. The spiritual challenges of power, hu-mility and love as offsets to leadership hubris. In C. C.Manz, K. S. Cameron, K. P. Manz, & R. D. Marx (Eds.), Thevirtuous organization: Insights from some of the world’sleading management thinkers: 97–112. Hackensack, NJ:World Scientific.

DeRue, D. S., Ashford, S. J., & Cotton, N. C. 2009. Assuming themantle: Unpacking the process by which individualsinternalize a leader identity. In L. M. Roberts & J. E.Dutton (Eds.), Exploring positive identities and organi-zations: Building a theoretical and research foundation:217–236. New York: Routledge.

Detert, J. R., Trevino, L. K., & Sweitzer, V. L. 2008. Moraldisengagement in ethical decision making: A study ofantecedents and outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychol-ogy, 93: 374–391.

Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., Isen, A. M., & Lowrance, R. 1995.Group representations and intergroup bias: Positive af-fect, similarity, and group size. Personality and SocialPsychology Bulletin, 21: 856–865.

Downie, M., Koestner, R., ElGeledi, S., & Cree, K. 2004. Theimpact of cultural internalization and integration onwell-being among tricultural individuals. Personalityand Social Psychology Bulletin, 30: 305–314.

Dutton, J. E., & Dukerich, J. M. 1991. Keeping an eye on themirror: Image and identity in organizational adaptation.Academy of Management Journal, 34: 517–554.

Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V. 1994. Organi-zational images and member identification. Administra-tive Science Quarterly, 39: 239–263.

Dutton, J. E., & Heaphy, E. D. 2003. The power of high qualityconnections. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn(Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: Foundationsof a new discipline: 263–278. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Dutton, J. E., & Ragins, B. 2007. Exploring positive relation-ships at work: Building a theoretical and research foun-dation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Dutton, J. E., Roberts, L. M., & Bednar, J. S. In press. Prosocialpractices, positive identity, and flourishing at work. InS. I. Donaldson, M. Csikszentmihalyi, & J. Nakamura(Eds.), Applied positive psychology: Improving everydaylife, schools, work, health, and society. New York: Rout-ledge.

Dutton, J. E., Worline, M. C., Frost, P. J., & Lilius, J. 2006.Explaining compassion organizing. Administrative Sci-ence Quarterly, 51: 59–96.

Edmondson, A. 1999. Psychological safety and learning be-havior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly,44: 350–383.

Edwards, J. R., & Rothbard, N. P. 2000. Mechanisms linkingwork and family: Clarifying the relationship betweenwork and family constructs. Academy of ManagementReview, 25: 178–199.

Elsass, P. M., & Ralston, D. A. 1989. Individual responses tothe stress of career plateauing. Journal of Management,15: 35–47.

Elsbach, K., & Kramer, R. 1996. Members’ responses to orga-nizational identity threats: Encountering and counteringthe business week rankings. Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 41: 442–476.

Ely, R., & Thomas, D. A. 2001. Cultural diversity at work: Theeffects of diversity perspectives on work group pro-cesses and outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly,46: 229–273.

Erikson, E. H. 1968. Identity: Youth and crisis. New York:Norton.

Fein, S., & Spencer, S. J. 1997. Prejudice as self-image main-tenance: Affirming the self through derogating others.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73: 31–44.

Fine, G. A. 1996. Justifying work: Occupational rhetorics asresources in restaurant kitchens. Administrative Sci-ence Quarterly, 41: 90–115.

Fineman, S. 2006. On being positive: Concerns and counter-points. Academy of Management Review, 31: 270–291.

Flynn, F. 2003. How much should I give and how often? Theeffects of generosity and frequency of favor exchange on


social status and productivity. Academy of ManagementJournal, 46: 539–553.

Fredrickson, B. 2000. Special issue: Positive psychology andits implications for the psychologist-manager. Psychol-ogist-Manager Journal, 4: 131–142.

Fredrickson, B. 2001. The role of positive emotions in positivepsychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positiveemotions. American Psychologist, 56: 218–226.

Fredrickson, B. 2009. Positivity. New York: Crown.

Fredrickson, B., & Losada, M. 2005. Positive affect and thecomplex dynamics of human flourishing. American Psy-chologist, 60: 678–686.

Fried, Y., Ben-David, H. A., Tiegs, R. B., Avital, N., &Yeverechyahu, U. 1998. The interactive effect of role con-flict and role ambiguity on job performance. Journal ofOccupational and Organizational Psychology, 71: 19–27.

Frost, P., Dutton, J. E., Worline, M., & Wilson, A. 2000. Narra-tives of compassion in organizations. In S. Fineman(Ed.), Emotions in organizations: 25–45. London: Sage.

Gecas, V. 1982. The self-concept. Annual Review of Sociol-ogy, 8: 1–33.

George, E., & Chattopadhyay, P. 2005. One foot in each camp:The dual identification of contract workers. Administra-tive Science Quarterly, 50: 68–99.

Gergen, K. J. 1991. The saturated self: Dilemmas of identity incontemporary life. New York: Basic Books.

Gergen, K. J. 1994. Realities and relationships: Soundings insocial construction. Boston: Harvard University Press.

Gergen, K. J., & Gergen, M. M. 1988. Narrative and the self asrelationship. Advances in Experimental Social Psychol-ogy, 21: 17–55.

Giacalone, R. A., Jurkiewicz, C. L., & Dunn, C. 2005. Positivepsychology in business ethics and corporate responsibil-ity. Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

Gini, A. 1998. Work, identity and self: How we are formed bythe work we do. Journal of Business Ethics, 17: 707–714.

Gittell, J. H. 2003. The Southwest Airlines way: Using thepower of relationships to achieve high performance.New York: McGraw-Hill.

Glynn, M. A., & Walsh, I. J. 2009. Commentary: Finding thepositive in positive organizational identities. In L. M.Roberts & J. E. Dutton (Eds.), Exploring positive identitiesand organizations: Building a theoretical and researchfoundation: 479–493. New York: Routledge.

Goffman, E. 1959. The presentation of self in everyday life.New York: Anchor Books.

Graham, J. W. 1986. Principled organizational dissent: A the-oretical essay. Research in Organizational Behavior, 8:1–52.

Grant, A. M. 2008. Does intrinsic motivation fuel the prosocialfire? Motivational synergy in predicting persistence,performance, and productivity. Journal of Applied Psy-chology, 93: 48–58.

Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. 2008. The dynamics of proactiv-ity at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28:3–34.

Grant, A. M., Dutton, J. E., & Rosso, B. D. 2008. Giving com-mitment: Employee support programs and the prosocialsensemaking process. Academy of Management Jour-nal, 51: 898–918.

Greenhaus, J. H., & Powell, G. N. 2006. When work and familyare allies: A theory of work-family enrichment. Academyof Management Review, 31: 72–92.

Hackman, J. R. 2009. The perils of positivity. Journal of Orga-nizational Behavior, 30: 309–319.

Hall, D. T. 2002. Careers in and out of organizations. Thou-sand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hall, D. T., & Nougaim, K. 1968. An examination of Maslow’sneed hierarchy in an organizational setting. Organiza-tional Behavior and Human Performance, 3: 12–35.

Hamilton, A., & Gioia, D. 2009. Fostering sustainability-focused organizational identities. In L. M. Roberts & J. E.Dutton (Eds.), Exploring positive identities and organi-zations: Building a theoretical and research foundation:435–460. New York: Routledge.

Hatch, M. J., & Schultz, M. 2004. Organizational identity: Areader. London: Oxford University Press.

Heaphy, E. D., & Dutton, J. E. 2008. Positive social interactionsand the human body at work: Linking organizations andphysiology. Academy of Management Review, 33: 137–162.

Hedstrom, P., & Swedberg, R. 1998. Social mechanisms: Ananalytical approach to social theory. Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press.

Heine, S. J., Lehman, D. R., Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. 1999.Is there a universal need for positive self-regard? Psy-chological Review, 106: 766–794.

Higgins, M., & Kram, K. 2001. Reconceptualizing mentoring atwork: A developmental network perspective. Academyof Management Review, 26: 264–288.

Hobfoll, S. E. 1989. Conservation of resources: A new attemptat conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44:513–524.

Hobfoll, S. E. 2002. Social and psychological resources andadaptation. Review of General Psychology, 6: 307–324.

Hogg, M., & Terry, J. 2000. Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts.Academy of Management Review, 25: 121–140.

Hornsey, M. J., & Hogg, M. A. 2000. Assimilation and diversity:An integrative model of subgroup relations. Personalityand Social Psychology Review, 4: 143–156.

Hudson, B. A. 2008. Against all odds: A consideration ofcore-stigmatized organizations. Academy of Manage-ment Review, 33: 252–266.

Ibarra, H. 1999. Provisional selves: Experimenting with im-age and identity in professional adaptation. Adminis-trative Science Quarterly, 44: 764–791.

Ibarra, H. 2003. Working identity: Unconventional strategiesfor reinventing your career. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.

Ibarra, H., & Barbulescu, R. 2010. Identity as narrative: Prev-alence, effectiveness, and consequences of narrative


identity work in macro work role transitions. Academy ofManagement Review, 35: 135–154.

Ibarra, H., Kilduff, M., & Wenpin, T. 2005. Zooming in and out:Connecting individuals and collectivities at the fron-tiers of organizational network research. OrganizationScience, 16: 359–371.

Johnson, K. J., & Fredrickson, B. L. 2005. “We all look the sameto me”: Positive emotions eliminate the own-race bias inface recognition. Psychological Science, 16: 875–881.

Jordan, C. H., Spencer, S. J., Zanna, M. P., Hoshino-Browne, E.,& Correll, J. 2003. Secure and defensive high self-esteem.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85: 969–978.

Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. 2002. Aremeasures of self-esteem, neuroticism, locus of control,and generalized self-efficacy indicators of a commoncore construct? Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology, 83: 693–710.

Kahn, W. A. 1990. Psychological conditions of personal en-gagement and disengagement at work. Academy ofManagement Journal, 33: 692–724.

Kahn, W. A. 1992. To be fully there: Psychological presence atwork. Human Relations, 45: 321–349.

Kahn, W. A. 2007. Meaningful connections: Positive relation-ships and attachments at work. In J. E. Dutton &B. Ragins (Eds.), Exploring positive relationships atwork: Building a theoretical and research foundation:189–207. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kegan, R. 1982. The evolving self: Problem and process inhuman development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer-sity Press.

Kessler, E. H., & Bailey, J. R. 2007. Handbook of organizationaland managerial wisdom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kihlstrom, J. F., & Klein, S. B. 1994. The self as knowledgestructure. In R. S. Wyer & T. K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook ofsocial cognition: 153–208. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erl-baum Associates.

Kohlberg, L. 1969. Stage and sequence: The cognitive-developmental approach to socialization. In D. Goslin(Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research:347–480. New York: Rand McNally.

Kohlberg, L. (Ed.). 1984. The psychology of moral develop-ment: The nature and validity of moral stages. Essays onmoral development, vol. 2. San Francisco: Harper & Row.

Kopelman, S., Chen, L., & Shoshana, J. 2009. Renarratingpositive relational identities in organizations: Self-narration as a mechanism for strategic emotion man-agement in interpersonal interactions. In L. M. Roberts &J. E. Dutton (Eds.), Exploring positive identities and or-ganizations: Building a theoretical and research founda-tion: 265–287. New York: Routledge.

Kreiner, G., Ashforth, B., & Sluss, D. 2006. Identity dynamicsin occupational dirty work: Integrating social identityand system justification perspectives. Organization Sci-ence, 17: 619–636.

Kreiner, G., & Sheep, M. 2009. Growing pains and gains:Framing identity dynamics as opportunities for identity

growth. In L. M. Roberts & J. E. Dutton (Eds.), Exploringpositive identities and organizations: Building a theoret-ical and research foundation: 23–46. New York: Rout-ledge.

Kreiner, G. E., Hollensbe, E. C., & Sheep, M. L. 2006. Where isthe “me” among the “we”? Identity work and the searchfor optimal balance. Academy of Management Journal,49: 1031–1057.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. 1991. Situated learning: Legitimateperipheral participation. Cambridge, MA: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Leana, C. R., & Rousseau, D. M. (Eds.). 2000. Relationalwealth. New York: Oxford University Press.

LeBaron, C., Glenn, P., & Thompson, M. P. 2009. Identity workduring boundary moments: Managing positive identi-ties through talk and embodied interaction. In L. M.Roberts & J. E. Dutton (Eds.), Exploring positive identitiesand organizations: Building a theoretical and researchfoundation: 119–215. New York: Routledge.

Lee, S., & Klein, H. J. 2002. Relationships between conscien-tiousness, self-efficacy, self-deception, and learningover time. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 1175–1182.

Levinson, D. J. 1986. A conception of adult development.American Psychologist, 41: 3–13.

Linville, P. W. 1985. Self-complexity and affective extremity:Don’t put all of your eggs in one cognitive basket. SocialCognition, 3: 94–120.

Linville, P. W. 1987. Self-complexity as a cognitive bufferagainst stress-related illness and depression. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 52: 663–676.

Luhtanen, R., & Crocker, J. 1992. A collective self-esteemscale: Self-evaluation of one’s social identity. Personal-ity and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18: 302–318.

Luthans, F. 2002. The need for and meaning of positive or-ganizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behav-ior, 23: 695–706.

Luthans, F., Youssef, C. M., & Avolio, B. J. 2007. Psychologicalcapital: Developing the human competitive edge. NewYork: Oxford University Press.

Lynn, M., & Snyder, C. R. 2005. Uniqueness seeking. In C. R.Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychol-ogy: 395–410. New York: Oxford University Press.

MacIntyre, A. 1981. After virtue. South Bend, IN: Notre DamePress.

MacPhail, L. H., Roloff, K. S., & Edmondson, A. 2009. Collab-oration across knowledge boundaries within diverseteams: Reciprocal expertise affirmation as an enablingcondition. In L. M. Roberts & J. E. Dutton (Eds.), Exploringpositive identities and organizations: Building a theoret-ical and research foundation: 319–340. New York: Rout-ledge.

Maitlis, S. 2009. Who am I now? Sensemaking and identity inposttraumatic growth. In L. M. Roberts & J. E. Dutton(Eds.), Exploring positive identities and organizations:Building a theoretical and research foundation: 47–76.New York: Routledge.

Manz, C. C., Cameron, K. S., Manz, K. P., & Marx, R. D. 2008.


The virtuous organization: Insights from some of theworld’s leading management thinkers. Hackensack, NJ:World Scientific.

Manz, C. C., Manz, K. P., Marx, R. D., & Neck, C. 2001. Thewisdom of Solomon at work: Ancient virtues for livingand leading today. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Markus, H. 1977. Self-schemas and social information pro-cessing about the self. Journal of Personality and Psy-chology, 35: 38–50.

Markus, H., & Kitayama, S. 1991. Culture and the self: Impli-cations for cognition, emotion and motivation. Psycho-logical Review, 98: 224–253.

Marquis, C., & Davis, G. F. 2009. Organizational mechanismsunderlying positive community identity and reputation.In L. M. Roberts & J. E. Dutton (Eds.), Exploring positiveidentities and organizations: Building a theoretical andresearch foundation: 461–478. New York: Routledge.

Martocchio, J. J., & Judge, T. A. 1997. Relationship betweenconscientiousness and learning in employee training:Mediating influences of self-deception and self-efficacy.Journal of Applied Psychology, 82: 764–773.

McAdams, D. 1993. The stories we live by. New York: WilliamMonroe.

Merton, R. K. 1957. Social theory and social structure. Glen-coe, IL: Free Press.

Miceli, M., & Near, J. P. 1985. Characteristics of organization-al climate and perceived wrongdoing associated withwhistle-blowing decisions. Personnel Psychology, 38:525–544.

Michel, A. A. 2007. A distributed cognition perspective onnewcomers’ change processes: The management of cog-nitive uncertainty in two investment banks. Administra-tive Science Quarterly, 52: 507–557.

Michie, S., & Gooty, J. 2005. Values, emotions and authentic-ity: Will the real leader please stand up? LeadershipQuarterly, 16: 441–457.

Milton, L. P. 2009. Creating and sustaining cooperation ininterdependent groups: Positive relational identities,identity confirmation, and cooperative capacity. In L. M.Roberts & J. E. Dutton (Eds.), Exploring positive identitiesand organizations: Building a theoretical and researchfoundation: 289–318. New York: Routledge.

Nelson, D. L., & Cooper, C. L. 2007. Positive organizationalbehavior. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Orlikowski, W. J. 2002. Knowing in practice: Enacting a col-lective capability in distributed organizing. Organiza-tion Science, 13: 249–273.

Owens, B. 2009. Humility in organizations: Establishing con-struct, nomological, and predictive validity. Paper pre-sented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Man-agement, Chicago.

Park, N., & Peterson, C. 2003. Virtues and organizations. InK. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positiveorganizational scholarship: Foundations of a new disci-pline: 33–47. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. 2004. Character strengths and

virtues: A handbook and classification. Washington, DC:American Psychological Association.

Pierce, J. L., & Gardner, D. G. 2004. Self-esteem within thework and organizational context: A review of the orga-nization-based self-esteem literature. Journal of Man-agement, 30: 591–622.

Pierce, J. L., Gardner, D. G., Cummings, L. L., & Dunham, R. B.1989. Organization-based self-esteem: Construct defini-tion, measurement, and validation. Academy of Man-agement Journal, 32: 622–648.

Podolny, J. M., & Baron, J. N. 1997. Resources and relation-ships: Social networks and mobility in the workplace.American Sociological Review, 62: 673–693.

Polzer, J. T., Milton, L. P., & Swann, W. B. 2002. Capitalizing ondiversity: Interpersonal congruence in small workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47: 296–324.

Pratt, M. G. 2000. The good, the bad, and the ambivalent:Managing identification among Amway distributors.Administrative Science Quarterly, 45: 456–493.

Pratt, M. G., & Foreman, P. O. 2000. Classifying managerialresponses to multiple organizational identities. Acad-emy of Management Review, 25: 18–42.

Pratt, M. G., & Kraatz, M. 2009. E pluribus unum: Multipleidentities and the organizational self. In L. M. Roberts &J. E. Dutton (Eds.), Exploring positive identities and or-ganizations: Building a theoretical and research founda-tion: 385–410. New York: Routledge.

Pratt, M. G., Rockmann, K. W., & Kaufmann, J. B. 2006. Con-structing professional identity: The role of work andidentity learning cycles in the customization of identityamong medical residents. Academy of ManagementJournal, 49: 235–262.

Prottas, D. J. 2008. Perceived behavioral integrity: Relation-ships with employee attitudes, well-being, and absen-teeism. Journal of Business Ethics, 81: 313–322.

Putnam, R. 2000. Bowling alone: Collapse and revival ofAmerican community. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Ragins, B. 2009. Positive identities in action: A model ofmentoring self-structures and the motivation to mentor.In L. M. Roberts & J. E. Dutton (Eds.), Exploring positiveidentities and organizations: Building a theoretical andresearch foundation: 237–264. New York: Routledge.

Ragins, B., & Kram, K. 2007. The handbook of mentoring atwork: Theory, research and practice. Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Rao, H., Monin, P., & Durand, R. 2003. Institutional change inToque Ville: Nouvelle cuisine as an identity movementin French gastronomy. American Journal of Sociology,108: 795–843.

Reed, A., II, & Aquino, K. F. 2003. Moral identity and theexpanding circle of moral regard toward out-groups.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84: 1270–1286.

Reynolds, S. J., & Ceranic, T. L. 2007. The effects of moraljudgment and moral identity on moral behavior: An em-pirical examination of the moral individual. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 92: 1610–1624.


Roberts, L. M. 2005. Changing faces: Professional image con-struction in diverse organizational settings. Academy ofManagement Review, 30: 695–711.

Roberts, L. M. 2006. Shifting the lens on organizational life:The added value of positive scholarship. Academy ofManagement Review, 31: 292–305.

Roberts, L. M., Cha, S. E., Hewlin, P. F., & Settles, I. H. 2009.Bringing the inside out: Enhancing authenticity and pos-itive identity in organizations. In L. M. Roberts & J. E.Dutton (Eds.), Exploring positive identities and organi-zations: Building a theoretical and research foundation:149–170. New York: Routledge.

Roberts, L. M., & Dutton, J. E. 2009. Exploring positive identi-ties and organizations: Building a theoretical and re-search foundation. New York: Routledge.

Roberts, L. M., Dutton, J. E., Spreitzer, G. M., Heaphy, E. D., &Quinn, R. E. 2005. Composing the reflected best-self por-trait: Building pathways for becoming extraordinary inwork organizations. Academy of Management Review,30: 712–736.

Roberts, L. M., Spreitzer, G., Dutton, J., Quinn, R., Heaphy, E.,& Barker, B. 2005. How to play to your strengths. HarvardBusiness Review, 83(1): 74–80.

Rosenberg, M. 1979. Conceiving the self. New York: BasicBooks.

Rothbard, N. P. 2001. Enriching or depleting: The dynamics ofengagement in work and family roles. AdministrativeScience Quarterly, 46: 655–684.

Rothbard, N. P., & Ramarajan, L. 2009. Checking your identi-ties at the door: Positive relationships between non-work and work identities. In L. M. Roberts & J. E. Dutton(Eds.), Exploring positive identities and organizations:Building a theoretical and research foundation: 125–148.New York: Routledge.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. 2001. On happiness and humanpotential: A review of research on hedonic and udai-monic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52: 141–166.

Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. H. 2001. Emotion, social relationships,and health. New York: Oxford University Press.

Sanchez-Burks, J., & Lee, F. 2009. Commentary: The elusivesearch for a positive relational identity: Grappling withmultiplicity and conflict. In L. M. Roberts & J. E. Dutton(Eds.), Exploring positive identities and organizations:Building a theoretical and research foundation: 341–358.New York: Routledge.

Scott, B. A., & Judge, T. A. 2009. The popularity contest atwork: Who wins, why, and what do they receive? Journalof Applied Psychology, 94: 20–33.

Seligman, M., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. 2000. Positive psychol-ogy: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55: 5–14.

Settles, I. H. 2004. When multiple identities interfere: The roleof identity centrality. Personality and Social PsychologyBulletin, 30: 487–500.

Shepherd, D., & Haynie, J. M. 2009. Birds of a feather don’talways flock together: Identity management in entrepre-neurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 24: 316–337.

Sherman, D. K., & Cohen, G. L. 2006. The psychology ofself-defense: Self-affirmation theory. Advances in Exper-imental Social Psychology, 38: 183–242.

Sluss, D., & Ashforth, B. 2007. Relational idenity and identi-fication: Defining ourselves through work relationships.Academy of Management Review, 32: 9–32.

Snyder, C. R., & Lopez, S. J. 2002. Handbook of positive psy-chology. New York: Oxford University Press.

Sonenshein, S., Dutton, J. E., Grant, A. M., Spreitzer, G. M., &Sutcliffe, K. 2009. Narrating positive self-change: Thecontextual embedding of growing stories at work. Work-ing paper, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Sparrowe, R. 2005. Authentic leadership and the narrativeself. Leadership Quarterly, 16: 419–439.

Spencer, S. J., Fein, S., & Lomore, C. D. 2001. Maintainingone’s self-image vis-a-vis others: The role of self-affirmation in the social evaluation of the self. Motiva-tion and Emotion, 25: 41–65.

Spreitzer, G. M., Sutcliffe, K., Dutton, J. E., Sonenshein, S., &Grant, A. M. 2005. A socially embedded model of thrivingat work. Organization Science, 16: 537–549.

Steele, C. M., & Berkowitz, L. 1988. The psychology of self-affirmation: Sustaining the integrity of the self. Ad-vances in Experimental Social Psychology, 2: 261–302.

Stets, J. E., & Burke, P. J. 2003. A sociologial approach to selfand identity. In M. R. Leary & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Hand-book of self and identity: 128–152. New York: GuilfordPress.

Stryker, S., & Burke, P. J. 2000. The past, present, and future ofan identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63: 284–297.

Stryker, S., & Serpe, R. T. 1994. Identity salience and psycho-logical centrality: Equivalent, overlapping, or comple-mentary concepts? Social Psychology Quarterly, 57: 16–35.

Super, E. 1957. The psychology of careers. New York: Harper.

Sveningsson, S. F., & Alvesson, M. 2003. Managing manage-rial identities: Organizational fragmentation, discourseand identity struggle. Human Relations, 56: 1163–1193.

Swann, W. B., Jr. 1987. Identity negotiation: Where two roadsmeet. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53:1038–1051.

Swann, W. B., Milton, L. P., & Polzer, J. T. 2000. Should wecreate a niche or fall in line? Identity negotiation andsmall group effectiveness. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 79: 238–250.

Swidler, A. 1986. Culture in action: Symbols and strategies.American Sociological Review, 51: 273–286.

Tajfel, H. 1978. Differentiation between social groups: Studiesin the social psychology of intergroup relations. NewYork: Academic Press.

Thoits, P. A. 1983. Multiple identities and psychological well-being: A reformulation and test of the social isolationhypotheses. American Sociological Review, 48: 174–187.

Thoits, P. A. 1991. On merging identity theory and stressresearch. Social Psychology Quarterly, 54: 101–112.

Thomas, D. A. 1993. Racial dynamics in cross-race develop-


mental relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly,38: 169–194.

Thomas, D. A., & Gabarro, J. J. 1999. Breaking through: Themaking of minority executives in corporate America.Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Tsui, A. S., & Ashford, S. J. 1994. Adaptive self-regulation: Aprocess view of managerial effectiveness. Journal ofManagement, 20: 93–121.

Turner, J. C. 1982. Toward a cognitive redefinition of thesocial group. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social identity and inter-group relations: 15–40. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-sity Press.

Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., &Wetherell, M. S. 1987. Rediscovering the social group: Aself-categorization theory. Cambridge: Blackwell.

Turner, N., Barling, J., & Zacharatos, A. 2002. Positive psychol-ogy at work. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Hand-book of positive psychology: 715–730. New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

Verbos, A., Gerard, J., Forshey, P., Harding, C., & Miller, J.2007. The positive ethical organization: Enacting a livingcode of ethics and ethical organizational identity. Jour-nal of Business Ethics, 76: 17–33.

Vogus, T. J., & Sutcliffe, K. M. 2007. The safety organizingscale: Development and validation of a behavioral mea-sure of safety culture in hospital nursing units. MedicalCare, 45: 46–54.

Waugh, C. E., & Fredrickson, B. L. 2006. Nice to know you:Positive emotions, self-other overlap, and complex un-derstanding in the formation of a new relationship. Jour-nal of Positive Psychology, 1: 93–106.

Weaver, G. 2006. Virtue in organizations: Moral identity as afoundation for moral agency. Organization Studies, 27:341–368.

Weick, K. E. 1995. Sensemaking in organizations. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Weick, K. E., & Roberts, K. H. 1993. Collective mind in orga-nizations: Heedful interrelating on flight decks. Admin-istrative Science Quarterly, 38: 357–381.

Worline, M., Lilius, J., Dutton, J. E., Kanov, J., Maitlis, S., &Frost, P. 2009. Understanding compassion capability.Working paper, University of California, Irvine.

Worline, M., Wrzesniewski, A., & Rafaeli, A. 2002. Courageand work: Breaking routines to improve performance. InR. Lord, R. Klimoski, & R. Kanfer (Eds.), Emotions in theworkplace: Understanding the structure and role of emo-tions in organizational behavior: 295–330. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Wright, T. A. 2003. Positive organizational behavior: An ideawhose time has truly come. Journal of OrganizationalBehavior, 24: 437–442.

Wright, T. A., & Goodstein, J. 2007. Character is not “dead” inmanagement research: A review of individual and or-ganizational-level virtue. Journal of Management, 33:928–958.

Wrzesniewski, A., Dutton, J. E., & Debebe, G. 2003. Interper-sonal sensemaking and the meaning of work. Researchin Organizational Behavior, 25: 93–135.

Yost, H. Y., Strube, M. J., & Bailey, J. R. 1992. The constructionof self: An evolutionary view. Current Psychology, 11:110–121.

Jane E. Dutton ([email protected]) is the Robert L. Kahn Distinguished UniversityProfessor of Business Administration and Psychology at the University of Michigan.She currently codirects the Center for Positive Organizational Scholarship at the RossSchool of Business, University of Michigan. She received her Ph.D. from NorthwesternUniversity. Her research includes compassion at work, positive identity processes,high-quality connections, and positive social change.

Laura Morgan Roberts ([email protected]) is a visiting assistant pro-fessor in the Department of Managerial Sciences at Georgia State University. Shereceived her Ph.D. from the University of Michigan. Her research examines howindividuals construct, sustain, and restore positive identities at work, with a specificfocus on the interplay among identity, diversity, and positive organizational scholar-ship.

Jeffrey Bednar ([email protected]) is a doctoral candidate in the Management andOrganizations Department at the University of Michigan. His research focuses onidentity construction, identity adaptation, and identity repair processes in organiza-tions and professions.


Copyright of Academy of Management Review is the property of Academy of Management and its content may

not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written

permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

pathways for positive identity construction at...

Documents