4-VanTonder.qxd


20

Organisations have become a taken for granted phenomenon in

contemporary society. Indeed they have steadily grown and

assumed centre stage in societal evolution and development,

with many latter day global corporations financially more

powerful than smaller nation states. Startling results produced

by a Royal Dutch/Shell study of enduring organisations (De

Geus, 1997) have however revealed that the life expectancy of

organisations is rapidly declining (currently between 40 and 50

years). Indeed, organisational decline and bankruptcy were

increasing at disturbing rates (Korten, 1995; Labich, 1994) with

wave upon wave of costly mergers, acquisitions, corporate

restructurings, and related organisational change events

adversely impacting on the workforce, their dependants and

ultimately society at large (Offerman & Gowing, 1990).

Various approaches and many attempts at accounting for the

premat ure demise of organisations have proposed that

environmental forces and economic and managerial reasons are

to blame. The popularity of these arguments have however

waned over time, with many a scholar now arguing that they are

over-simplistic, focus on symptoms and do not acknowledge the

more fundamental psychological nature of organisational

decline (cf. Levinson, 1994). 

Recent commentary in the business and scientific press have

suggested that an inadequate or neglected “identity” may be at the

root of the expensive path to corporate failure (Labich, 1994),

and indeed the high failure rate of mergers and acquisitions

(Balmer & Dinnie, 1999). This proposed relationship between

identity and organisational performance is however not a novel

idea, with some business leaders in the USA acknowledging this

linkage as early as the 1980s (Wathen, 1986). At the time it was

indicated in some quarters (Chajet, 1989) that US executives are

increasingly viewing corporate identity as a mainstream business

activity. More recently Balmer and Gray (2000) accounted for this

greater “identity” awareness among senior business managers by

arguing that environmental trends such as accelerating product

life cycles, deregulation, privatisation, an increasingly

competitive environment, and several others, were forcing

managers to view identity with greater importance. In the South

African business context, for example, the results of an opinion

poll among chief executive officers listed growth, identity and

entering new markets as the top strategic priority for the period

1999 to 2003, followed by global competitiveness and

productivity (Robertson, 1999). An equally plausible reason for

the salience of the identity issue in managerial quarters has been

suggested by Christensen and Askegaard (2001) when they stated

that marketing scholars and practitioners have worked

consistently at keeping identity on the managerial agenda.

Regardless of the reasons advanced however, an implicit

relationship between identity and organisational functioning

and performance is generally assumed.

The conclusions of, among other, the Royal Dutch/Shell study of

enduring organisations (De Geus, 1997), which emphasised a

strong sense of identity as one of four key survival factors for

organisations, further bolster the view that identity is an

important element in organisational performance. These views

are significant in the sense that identity (or corporate or

organisation identity) as a concept is beginning to surface in non-

advertising and non-marketing arenas as a possible “theory”

which could account for business failure (or success), and

suggests that “identity” as research subject, with the objective to

inform business practice, should receive more attention from

the scientific community. 

However, as the ensuing discussion will reveal, the root concept of

identity is difficult to define and consequently derivative concepts

such as corporate and/or organisation identity are prone to similar

ailments. A more integrated and precise articulation of the

organisation identity concept and hence of identity and related

concepts, are both necessary and urgent. This study briefly

considers the origins of the identity and organisation identity

concepts and juxtaposes different perspectives on identity in

order to establish more precise meaning parameters for the

organisation identity concept. An encapsulating theoretical

framework is used as context for articulating the role and purpose

of organisation identity in organisational functioning.  

The problematic of identity

The term identity is derived from the Latin word “idem”

meaning “the same” (Abend, 1974), with its first known use

dating back to approximately 1570 AD when it was used as an

CL VAN TONDER

BC LESSING
Department of Human Resources Management 

RAU University

ABSTRACT
The view that corporate and/or organisation identity is a contributing factor to organisational success, is

increasingly observed in the media. At the same time research interest in the concept appears to be on the increase.

While identity is not a novel concept and has presented in different forms, it remains shrouded in ambiguity and is

in need of more precise articulation. The present study revisited the origins of the identity concept and reviewed

various perspectives on identity. A specific meaning structure and theoretical framework for the organisation

identity concept is proposed and it is concluded that contemporary views of identity are increasingly embracing

earlier psychological perspectives. 

OPSOMMING
Die siening dat korporatiewe en/of organisasie-identiteit ’n bydraende faktor tot organisasiesukses is, word

toenemend in die media waargeneem. Navorsingsbelangstelling in die konsep skyn terselfdertyd toe te neem. Terwyl

identiteit geensins ’n nuwe konsep is nie en in verskillende vorme voorkom, bly dit in vaagheid gehul en word ’n

meer duidelike omskrywing daarvan benodig. Die huidige studie het die oorsprong van die indentiteitskonsep

nagespeur en verskeie perspektiewe op identiteit in oënskou geneem. ’n Bepaalde betekenisstruktuur en teoretiese

raamwerk word vir die identiteitskonsep voorgestel en die gevolgtrekking word gemaak dat kontemporêre sienings

van identiteit toenemend besig is om vroeëre psigologiese perspektiewe te omsluit.

FROM IDENTITY TO ORGANISATION IDENTITY: 

THE EVOLUTION OF A CONCEPT

Requests for copies should be addressed to: C van Tonder, Department of Human

Resource Management, RAU University, PO Box 524, Auckland Park, 2006

SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 2003, 29 (2), 20-28

SA Tydskrif vir Bedryfsielkunde, 2003, 29 (2), 20-28



expression to convey the quality or condition of being the same,

being absolutely or essentially similar and referring to a sense of

unity (Van Tonder, 1987). Erik Erikson who is generally credited

with popularising the concept as a consequence of his work in

the field of individual psychology (Westin, 1983) described it as

an inner sense of sameness and a continuity of character (Erikson,

1959). The term is however more frequently described in terms

of the uniqueness, solidarity, autonomy, continuity over time, and

the discreteness of the person (referred to as objective identity),

which is differentiated from the person’s sense of (having an)

identity or subjective identity (Van Tonder, 1987).

While identity is not a novel concept and, indeed, has presented in

different forms and contexts – notably as “corporate identity” in

the business environment – it remains a concept shrouded in

ambiguity. Evidence of the problematic nature of identity

abounds. Erikson (1959, p. 102) for example stressed that “…the

term itself retains some ambiguity”, while Albert and Whetten

(1985, p. 265) argued that identity is a profound and

consequential issue, but so difficult an issue that it is best avoided.

Following an in-depth exploration of the identity concept Van

Tonder (1987) for example concluded that the concept was ill-

defined and that the inconsistent interpretation and articulation

of identity was largely due to the abstract, unspecified, and

ambiguous nature of the phenomenon. The interpretation and

consequently the utility value of the concept was further

compromised by a variety of established semantic practices and

an abundance of personality concepts that do not clearly

differentiate identity from the self, the self-concept and self-image

(Bourne, 1978; Van Tonder, 1987). This in turn casts doubt on the

concept’s usefulness in theory development and empirical

research, which underscored the need for a more precise

articulation of the identity concept, and prompted the

reformulation and definition of the concept by Van Tonder (1987).

Turning to the notion of identity within an organisational context,

it is not entirely unexpected to find Albert and Whetten (1985)

commenting on the inherent ambiguity and abstract nature of

the organisation identity concept, and the absence of an

adequate theoretical framework to guide research and practice.

This ambiguity is further exacerbated by the practice of using

the concept interchangeably with concepts such as corporate

identity and corporate image. The interchangeable and imprecise

use of key concepts and terminology is in fact a common

criticism of the field (Stewart, 1991; Van Heerden, 1993; Van

Heerden & Puth, 1995). Moreover, very little scholarly research

has been conducted on the subject, with academics not devoting

adequate attention to the subject of corporate identity (Stewart,

1991). Most of the available literature is considered anecdotal in

nature and has been written by consultants who wish to

promote agencies and/or services rather than test or challenge

hypotheses (Melewar, Saunders, & Balmer, 2001). 

The upsurge in interest in the corporate identity phenomenon

has been echoed by contemporary research on the organisation

identity phenomenon, which culminated in a special issue of

The Academy of Management Review with six papers devoted to

the subject (Albert, Ashforth & Dutton, 2000). This upsurge of

interest in the perceived utility value of the concepts identity and

identification is attributed, in part, to the rediscovery of the

importance of “meaning” in organisational functioning (Albert

et al., 2000), and the insight into the character and behaviour of

organisations and their members, that are generated by the

concepts (Gioia, Shultz & Corley, 2000). Contemporary research

on the subject matter, however, still wrestle with essentially the

same limitations and problems observed more than a decade ago

and scholars are still debating the meaning parameters of a

complex, abstract and vague organisation identity concept (cf.

Albert et al., 2000; Hogg & Terry, 2000; Scott & Lane, 2000; Van

Tonder, 1987; 1999). Apart from the latter, and the abundant

public relations and advertising perspectives, scant attention has

been given, generally, to the notion of identity within an

organisational context. 

Given this context, several research questions were formulated

for the present study:

� Even though the concept of corporate identity has been

popularised by the public relations and advertising

disciplines, what essentially is organisation identity? Indeed,

does it exist and can it be differentiated from corporate

identity and corporate image?

� What would the role (purpose and function) of organisation

identity be, and can it be linked – theoretically – to

organisational functioning, as Labich (1994) would have the

reader believe? 

Research that provides answers to these questions (and indeed

the many more that could be phrased) should bring clarity to the

prevailing confusion around the use of the various identity

concepts and possibly provide alternative arguments to account

for the less than desirable levels of organisational performance

(and the premature demise of organisations).

The purpose of the study was consequently stated as to

investigate and determine the meaning parameters and

theoretical relevance of the organisation identity concept. More

specific research objectives derived from the latter, focused on

exploring and defining organisation identity from a theoretical

perspective – in relation to similar concepts in use such as

corporate identity, and to a lesser extent corporate image – and

articulating the role and contribution of organisation identity in

terms of organisational functioning. 

Identity or personal identity

The identity concept as applied in a psychological sense,

predates the emergence of the organisation identity concept

substantially. The prevailing consciousness of organisation

identity will consequently (and unavoidably) be immersed in

the meaning context created by the psychological use of the

identity concept and the common understanding arising from

the concept’s usage in colloquial language. For this reason it is

argued (Van Tonder, 1999) that a study of organisation identity

cannot commence without considering the “root” concept of

identity, or personal identity as it has also been known. 

As a result of the conceptual dilemmas observed with the

identity concept at the time, which hindered progress in terms

of theory development and consequently empirical testing of

theory, Van Tonder (1987) commenced with a systematic process

of conceptual purification that entailed an in-depth analysis of

the concept from several perspectives: 

� A historical semantic analysis of terminology such as soul,

spirit, psyche, self, ego, personality, character, individual, and

identity. The observed similarities and differences in the

meanings ascribed to these terms in colloquial language

usage, as well as changes observed over a period well in excess

of 470 years, served as basis for conceptually separating

identity from terminology such as personality, psyche, self,

and so forth. 

� An analysis of the personality theory and structures of several

notable scholars (personologists) with the objective of

isolating and demarcating a more exact psychological

meaning for the identity concept.

� An analysis of recent (at the time) theoretical perspectives on

the self, the self-concept and identity. 

� Given the preceding analyses, a final reconceptualisation of

the identity concept and its role and function within

personality theory, using systems and differentiation theories

as primary vehicles. 

While a review of the mentioned analyses is beyond the scope of

the current discussion, the key conclusions of the author are

noteworthy for several reasons. Firstly they offered a

consolidation of literature focused on the identity or personal

identity of the individual (as well as small group identity), and

as such established a platform for launching empirical research,

and secondly, provided a baseline for evaluating subsequent

ORGANISATION IDENTITY 21



contributions and/or pursuing related avenues of theoretical

interest. In essence this study concluded that identity:

� is a psychological construct which forms part of the

personality of the individual and is instrumental in the

identification and demarcation of the individual within and

against his/her environment;

� has the primary role of integrating the various structures and

sub-structures of the individual so that the person could act

as a unified entity on his/her environment, and in so doing

ensure focused, timely adaptation, and ultimately survival;

� in the process of performing this integration role, emphasises

the uniqueness, inner solidarity and continuity of the

individual over time – which typically surface in attributes,

skills, attitudes and other features of the individual (refer also

Table 1 which contrasts key features of early definitions of

identity and group identity);

� is established through a process of identity formation,

drawing on interactions with the environment, and

introspection and analysis by the individual;

� evolves through successive stages of the individual life cycle –

in concert with the evolutionary development of other

features of the organism; and

� may be adversely impacted on, and lead to identity crises if

the challenges encountered during the successive stages in the

life cycle are not adequately mastered.

It is also observed that identity crises will prompt tentative

search behaviour with the purpose of establishing or re-

establishing the distinctiveness of the individual (which has

been compromised and became diffused or was lost as a result

of an experienced identity crisis). The process of identity

acquisition is a continuous and dynamic process during which

the identity of the individual is constantly reaffirmed and

further developed.

By way of summary it is observed that Van Tonder (1987, p. 52)

argued that identity consists of an objective and subjective

element. Objective identity is defined as a dynamic cognitive

gestalt, which describes the individual, and conveys the

uniqueness, solidarity, autonomy, discreteness and continuity

of the individual over time. Subjective identity on the other

hand refers to the individual’s sense of identity (the person’s

awareness of his/her identity). Group identity similarly consists

of an objective and subjective element, where the former refers

to the cognitive gestalt of that unvarying and permanent

combination of characteristics of the group, which is

consistently and continuously recognised as differentiating the

group from others as being an irreplaceable unit – one of a kind

(Van Tonder, 1987)

The preceding perspective on the nature of the psychological

concept of identity serve as theoretical grounding for clarif ying

and defining the concept of organisation identity. However, as

the literature will attest, a variety of related concepts such as

organisation image and corporate identity contribute to a lack of

clarity and subsequent confusion. With the objective of clearly

delineating and articulating the concept of organisation

identity, both organisation or corporate image and corporate

identity will be reviewed briefly.

Corporate identity and corporate image 

The prolific writing on the topic of corporate identity over the

last decade or so is indicative of a growing awareness of the

subject both in scholarly and business quarters (Christensen &

Askegaard, 2001; Balmer & Stotvig, 1997; Kiriakidou & Millward,

2000) and among behavioural science professionals (Gorb, 1992)

and attests to the increasing theoretical and practical interest in

the ideational dimensions of organisations (Alvesson, 1990). A

substantial base of quasi-theoretical literature at a superficial

level currently characterises the domain of corporate identity and

corporate image. Despite the fact that academics from the

marketing and management domains have recently started

contributing to the literature base, the bulk of the available

literature is still leaning predominantly towards the practitioner

perspective (Alessandri, 2001). 

While a great many viewpoints have been expressed and a vast

array of definitions on these concepts has been published (Van

Heerden & Puth, 1995), this has, interestingly enough, not

contributed to greater precision in the usage of the identity and

image concepts and a general lack of consistency is still in

evidence (Christensen & Askegaard, 2001). In the absence

however of an adequate theory base and a lack of systematic

research (Stewart, 1991) i.e. “…not a mature academic area”

(Alessandri, 2001, p. 173), the conceptual boundaries of the

concepts have become diffused and contributed to confusion

and the continued practice of using the concepts

interchangeably. While it is generally acknowledged that

corporate image and corporate identity are associated (Ind, 1990;

Stewart, 1991; Van Heerden & Puth, 1995) this relationship in

itself appears to be a source of confusion. It is for example not

uncommon to encounter views expressing either similarities

between corporate identity and corporate image (Zinkhan,

1990), or indicating that the two concepts are closely bound

VAN TONDER, LESSING22

TABLE 1 

KEY FEATURES: DEFINITIONS OF IDENTITY AND GROUP IDENTITY

(ADAPTED FROM VAN TONDER, 1987)

Identity as intra-psychic quality Identity as product of social interaction Group identity

Identity is defined as: From this orientation, identity is: Group identity is frequently defined as

� Personal uniqueness � Described as a matrix of interpersonal relations � The inner solidarity or psychological unity

� Continuity of the person over time � Defined in relation to a structured social world. of the group, a sense of “we/us“

� Inner solidarity or consistency. � The boundaries of the group are emphasised

While the above represent the most commonly as point of departure for defining identity

The above elements are widely supported by a cited elements of identity, the concept has been � The uniqueness of the group

large number of researchers. defined as a complex balance of individual and � Clear differentiation from other groups,

general elements, including cultural inputs and displaying a special character over time and

Other aspects also identified as denoting identity, group memberships, and as an enduring and remaining in control of own activities

but perhaps less frequently cited include: dynamic process. � The group’s specific social position within

� The autonomy, integrity and goal directedness a network of inter-group relations, against a

of the individual In addition, several descriptions of identity broader socio-historical context and time frame – 

� The discreteness or unity of the individual over emphasise the following or elements thereof: conveying a strong environmental focus, often

time and place � Individual characteristics including biographical, characterised by so-called reference groups which

� A differentiation process between the self and historical and several other features, serve as place markers for the relevant group.

the environment � Roles, social position and social relations,

� Anchored in self-acceptance and self-confidence. � The role and contribution of time (past, present, 

future) and

� The dynamic nature of identity.

� An important distinction is drawn between 

objective identity (the fact of identity) and 

subjective identity (the sense of identity).



together (Stewart, 1991). The conceptual proximity of the two

concepts appears to have contributed to a reciprocal “spill over”

of meaning from one concept into the domain of the other – to

the extent that both concepts have adopted features of the other. 

A source of complexity compounding the existing difficulties

experienced with the terminology is the existence of various

approaches to, and distinct schools of thought within the

corporate identit y literat ure (Balmer, 1995). The most

established and prominent of these streams hails from the

corporate communications and public relations field, and

emphasises the visual and design components of the

organisation as the essence of corporate identity. This perspective

is represented by those that view corporate identity as the visual

manifestation and projection of a desired identity, notably

through means such as the company’s name (Kohli & Hemnes,

1995) and its logo, corporate colours, tagline, slogans, and

symbols (for example Halloran, 1985; O’Malley, 1992; Schmitt,

1995; Schmitt & Pan, 1994; Wathen, 1986; Zinkhan, 1993).

Several authors also include the physical design and physical

facilities of the organisation (Capowski, 1993; Grossman, 1994;

O’Malley, 1992). The emphasis placed on the visual components

of the organisation as a means to influence or manipulate (control

and manage) the perceptions, which the public and other

stakeholders develop in respect of the organisation, is a salient

feature of this approach. 

Less prominent, but gaining ground is the school of thought that

relates corporate identity to the company’s mission, philosophy,

and culture – essentially arguing that corporate identity depicts

the innate and distinct personalit y or character of the

organisation (for example Ackerman, 1984; Balmer, 1995;

Kiriakidou & Millward, 2000). Proponents of this view argue

that the typical visual attributes of the organisation are (or

should be) the manifestations of the underlying distinctive

character of the organisation, and imply alignment or

congruency between organisation character and appearance.

This approach appears to be more closely aligned with the

traditional, psychological concept of identity. Indeed, there is a

growing recognition that corporate identity can be related to the

fundamental and psychological concept of identity (Ackerman,

1984; Gorb, 1992). In this context, corporate identity is idealised

as the distinctive qualities or personality of the organisation,

which reside within and drive the organisation. The professional

and business literature are flushed with references to identity

crises (e.g. Arbetter, 1993) and variations such as “mistaken

identity” (Forbes, August 29, 1994), “searching for a new

identity” (Fitzgerald, 1993), a “split identity” (Murphy, 1996),

which tend to reinforce a more psychological view of corporate

identit y. These concept ualisations however lack the

psychological depth and sophistication generally observed in

terms of the psychological concept of personal or individual

identity. In practice corporate identity has not yet evolved to the

point of incorporating the psychological fundamentals of the

core or generic identity concept. 

The reality that the identity of the organisation is more than the

traditional concept of corporate identity (with its emphasis on

visual cues) has been acknowledged. In this regard Olins (1990,

p. 22) has stressed that the “visual promise” of corporate identity

must be underpinned by an improvement in the

communications or behaviour of the organisation. Furthermore,

a new logo or brand will not secure a new identity if these

organisational symbols do not adequately reflect internal

organisational reality (Olins, 1996). Reflecting on the status of

the corporate identity field, it must be concurred with Glover

(1993) that too much emphasis has been placed on the world

outside the organisation and not enough on the world inside it. 

While corporate identity appears to be concerned more with the

purposeful projection or portrayal of the organisation –

predominantly through planned and persuasive visual means,

corporate image tends to be the result or effect of, among other,

the efforts to project a desirable corporate identity. Descriptions

of what a corporate image is, range from the relatively

uncomplicated picture that a company’s audiences have of it (Ind,

1990), to the more encompassing set of beliefs, experiences,

feelings, knowledge, attitudes and perceptions stakeholders have of

the organisation (Van Heerden & Puth, 1995). Generally though,

corporate image conceptualisations tend to vary around the

common core of a perception of the company (Van Tonder, 1999).

Shee’s (1988) earlier observation that the majority of corporate

image concept ualisations tend to view the concept as a

manufactured rather than a true reflection of the organisation

remains valid – particularly if the frequent references to the

management of corporate image is considered (e.g. Schmitt,

Simonson & Marcus, 1995; Sutton & Callaghan, 1987). The

corporate image is essentially viewed as a marketing asset, a

market-positioning device, and as part of the strategic agenda to

be managed and designed for competitive advantage (Dowling,

1993; Stewart, 1991).

Of particular importance, is the claimed impact on the

organisation’s performance, of firstly, corporate identity, and

secondly corporate image, which enjoys popular support. Success

and successful organisations are frequently linked to corporate

identity (Gorman, 1994; Olins, 1989; Simões & Dibb, 2001;

Smith, 1990), while authors such as Ackerman (1984) more

directly argued that corporate identity clearly and consistently

sheds light on business success and failure. Chajet (1988) more

specifically stated that an inaccurate or inadequate corporate

identity and perceptions of this identity (introducing the

corporate image concept) will negatively impact on the

company’s sales and earnings, employee morale, ability to

attract talented people and expansion capital, and general

performance on Wall Street, while Melewar et al. (2001) cite

numerous authors who have indicated that corporate identity

programmes can reap financial rewards (attracting investment,

raising capital, etc.). The potential payoff of corporate identity

in terms of offering the organisation a distinct competitive

advantage (Balmer & Gray, 2000), or as a source of competitive

differentiation (Melewar & Navalekar, 2002) is widely

acknowledged. Balmer and Dinnie (1999) moreover interpreted

the results of a qualitative study (of limited scope) as offering

support for corporate identity’s effectiveness as an antidote to

merger failure. While many of these arguments appear to have

some face validity, few empirical studies have been produced in

the area of corporate identity (Melewar, 2001). As empirical

studies are rare, more research is clearly required before this

relationship can be substantiated. 

As with corporate identity, claims as to the impact of corporate

image on organisational performance similarly abound (see for

example Treadwell & Harrison, 1994, who cite numerous studies

in this regard). Despite this observation, substantive empirical

research in this domain is also lacking (Shee, 1988; Stewart, 1991;

Treadwell & Harrison, 1994). 

Organisation identity

In stark contrast to the proliferation of quasi-theoretical

contributions in the field of corporate identit y, the literat ure

reveals a marked absence of contributions on the subject of

organisation identity. Although each of the rather limited

number of theoretical contributions made in respect of

organisation identity pract ically represents a different

perspect ive, four major streams or paradigms can be

identified. For the purpose of categorisation and analysis

these categories are referred to as the psychoanalytic, social

identity, communication, and classical approaches to

organisation identit y.

The psychoanalytic approach, which is evidenced in the work of

Diamond (1993) and Czander (1993), applies concepts from the

domain of individual psychoanalytic theory to organisations.

Diamond (1993) for example describes organisation identity as

the unconscious foundation of organisation culture and suggests

ORGANISATION IDENTITY 23



that organisation identit y be seen as an interpretative

framework, from which the organisation can be analysed and

the motivation and behaviour of its members be understood. As

a theoretical perspective, it relies intimately on the

psychoanalytic tradition and concepts – in particular those

relevant during childhood and later ego-development and for

this reason the theory is difficult to apply to the organisation as

unit of analysis. 

The social identity approach, which is more concerned with the

identity an employee or person derives from his/her membership

of an organisation, is premised on the work of Tajfel (1974), and is

represented more pertinently by the work of Ashforth and Mael

(1989). Social identity theory argues that the individual seeks to

obtain a positive social identity by virtue of membership to a

group or groups (or organisations) that are held in high regard. It

acknowledges the existence of either a group or an organisation

with an identity sufficiently attractive or alluring for a potential

member or stakeholder to seek belonging to it. It is only in this

context that the notion of organisation identity – referring to the

identity of the organisation as an entity – is introduced in the

theory. It is argued that a distinctive organisation identity will

attract potential employees, customers and shareholders to the

organisation, and will enhance the support and loyalty of serving

members (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). 

Both Diamond (1993) and Ashforth and Mael’s (1989) articulation

of organisation identity lean more towards the identity of the

individual (as unit of analysis) and tend to understate the identity

of the organisation-as-organisation (indeed may inadvertently

diffuse the boundaries of the two identity concepts).

The communication approach to organisation identity (Hecht,

1993), essentially argues that organisation identity is a process

of communication and self-expression, and messages about the

self are exchanged during communication transactions. Identity

is defined as a characteristic of the individual, stored as self-

cognitions, feelings about self, and/or a spiritual sense of self or

being. The character of the identity concept is clearly depicted

through the basic assumptions of the theory, but the precise role

and function of identity (its purpose) in terms of the overall

functioning of the individual is less clear.

The fourth approach represents those researchers who focus on

the identity of the organisation as an entity. The organisation

identity concepts defined by these authors appear to incorporate

one or more of the psychological parameters of the original

identity concept as articulated by Erikson (1959, 1968). This

school of thought is represented by the work of Albert and

Whetten (1985), Dutton and Dukerich (1991), Dutton, Dukerich

and Harquail (1994), and Van Tonder (1987) and can be referred

to as the classical approach to organisation identity. Common to

these authors, is the equation of organisation identity to the

distinctive character of the organisation, which is evidenced in

those features of the organisation that are considered core,

distinctive, and enduring. In keeping with Erikson’s (1959, 1968)

views of individual identity, organisation identity is considered a

life cycle bound phenomenon, which may become more salient

during different development stages – particularly during

change (for example transitions from one life cycle stage to

another). 

Apart from the above approaches which can be differentiated on

the basis of the unit of focus and analysis (the organisation or

the employee), the subject of organisation identity has also been

approached from a strategy domain (Schoenberger, 1994),

ethno-cultural perspectives, largely anchored in communication

theory (Hecht, Collier & Ribeau 1993), and from a marketing

perspective (Christensen, 1995). Of the listed approaches, it is

only the research by Albert and Whetten (1985), Dutton and

Dukerich (1991), and more recently Van Tonder (1999) that

attempted to extend the theory to some form of empirical

exploration. 

A brief comparison of the various contributions within the

identified approaches indicates that the term organisation

identity in most instances is a misnomer – frequently employed

to indicate the identity of the individual employee. As such, it

does not depict the organisation as unit of analysis, whose

identity could more appropriately be referred to as organisation

identity. Several of the theoretical perspectives consequently

deal with the process of organisational identification – being the

process through which individual employees obtain a positive

identity by virtue of their involvement with the organisation.

A substantial degree of consistency is however observed in terms

of the frequency with which the organisation’s identity is equated

to its character or personality (regularly used as synonyms) and,

specifically, the distinctive/unique, central and enduring nature

of the organisation. Secondly, while using different terminology

such as frame of reference, schema, or cognitive gestalt, the

theoretical contributions seem to suggest directly and often

indirectly that organisation identity is an integration mechanism

or framework. Organisation identity itself is largely unconscious

or hidden and only becomes salient when the organisation

engages change (whether by choice or otherwise), when it is

challenged, or when it finds itself in transition between two life

cycle stages. While Albert and Whetten (1985), and Van Tonder

(1987) provide more evolved theoretical perspectives on

organisation and group identity, adequately developed theories of

organisation identity remain elusive. The problem is compounded

by the alternate vantage points from which theorists approach the

concept with or without regard for the psychological origins of the

concept – a situation having its roots in the complexity and

ambiguity of the psychological concept of identity and which

prompted the restatement of the organisation identity concept by

Van Tonder (1999).

Regardless of the perspective employed, it does appear as if most

of the cited theorists would concur that identity has potentially

serious ramifications and a significant impact which is often

more indirect, pervasive and enduring than may be immediately

apparent. 

The respective contributors nominate a wide array of

organisational attributes as important components for inclusion

in the organisation’s identity. Taken together, these include

virtually all prominent features of the organisation and cover

elements such as statements of ideology, mission, objectives,

strategy, structure, organisational processes, shared values and

beliefs, leadership, management philosophy, culture (frequently

cited) and components of culture (such as rituals, ceremonies,

stories, symbols), organisational boundaries, relationships

(between employees, management and subordinates), logos,

slogans, appearance of the corporate headquarters;

organisational climate, the skills, abilities, attitudes and interests

of the organisation; communication, feelings, social roles and

social affiliations, and physical attributes of the organisation.

While culture, structure and to a lesser extent leadership and

management, and ideology/mission are repeatedly mentioned, it

appears that identity-defining attributes can be any attribute of

an organisation, which attest to the uncertain understanding

and hence conceptual parameters of the concept. To an extent,

this also serves to confirm the absence of empirical research in

the domain of organisation identity. Empirical observations will

bring more clarity to this situation by differentiating between

more and less prominent variables (feat ures) of an

organisation’s identity. 

Towards a theoretical framework for organisation identity 

From the various, though limited, theoretical contributions in

the field, and drawing on Van Tonder’s (1987)

reconceptualisation of the identity construct, organisation

identity was redefined as a dynamic cognitive gestalt or integrative

schema of the organisation’s features which reflect its uniqueness or

distinctive, central/core and enduring character (Van Tonder, 1999).

VAN TONDER, LESSING24



It is established largely at an unconscious level and provides the

basis from which the organisation is consistently perceived as

unique (one of a kind) and is clearly differentiated from other

organisations in its environment (also referred to as the fact of

identity or objective identity). The organisation’s identity (or

lack thereof) is experienced and expressed at a subjective level in

the form of a sense of identity (referred to as subjective identity).

This subjective identity of an organisation is an emotional

manifestation of the more cognitive and objective identity (as

stated above), and essentially describes the organisation’s

awareness of its identity (or lack thereof).

Van Tonder (1999) concluded that the purpose of organisation

identity was to ensure that the organisation was perceived as a

unique entity when compared to similar organisations. This it

achieves through differentiating the organisation from its

environment (through social comparison, introspection and

self-categorisation processes), which in turn enhances focus and

consequently facilitates adaptation, and the future survival of

the organisation. 

Moreover, organisation identity, which is established and

maintained primarily at an unconscious level, is a life cycle linked

phenomenon. It is sensitive to change during organisational

transitions and in particular during periods when the organisation

was more vulnerable and at risk (for example start-up conditions,

rapid growth and decline stages in the organisation’s life cycle). 

Depending on the organisation’s sensitivity to environmental

conditions, and its capabilities for processing and internalising

information from the environment, it could drift into a

situation of identity diffusion or inadequate or inappropriate

identity, which is referred to as an identity crisis. The latter if

left unattended can seriously jeopardise the organisation’s

functioning in the short term, compromise intermediate

adaptation to environmental change, and ultimately result in the

organisation’s demise. 

With this conceptualisation as context it was argued that

organisation identity as the distinctive character or central,

distinctive and enduring features of the organisation, could be

differentiated on theoretical grounds from corporate identity

(essentially the visual portrayal of the organisation’s character)

and corporate image (the perceptions stakeholders have of the

organisation). At the same time it provides substantive grounds

for exploring the meaning and relevance of the organisation

identity concept at an applied level. 

A brief comparison of the alignment between identity concepts

from different domains is presented in Table 2. 

With the occasional exception, the preceding views in brief

highlighted the general state of theory on the nature of

organisation identity at the turn of the century – essentially

fragmented, microscopic in focus, lacking in systemic

ORGANISATION IDENTITY 25

TABLE 2

ALIGNMENT OF IDENTITY CONCEPTS FROM DIFFERENT DOMAINS

(SOURCE: VAN TONDER, 1999) 

Personal Identity Group Identity Corporate Identity Organisation Identity

Objective Identity (the fact of identity) Objective (fact of) identity which An assembly of visual cues – An integrative framework or schema

which consists of a cognitive gestalt of consists of a cognitive gestalt of the physical and behavioural – by which of the organisation’s character or

the individual, emphasising: group, emphasising an audience can recognise and personality, which reflect the

� Personal uniqueness � The inner solidarity or psycho- distinguish the company from others, organisation’s

� Continuity over time and place logical unity of the group (a sense  and which can be used to represent � Uniqueness or distinctiveness when

� Inner solidarity, unity, discreteness of “us” or “we”) and its boundaries or symbolise the company compared with other organisations

and consistency of the person � The uniqueness of the group � Central character (the essence of

� Its special character over time the organisation)

� Group’s control over own activities � Enduring nature – degree of

(autonomy) continuity or sameness over time

A complex balance of individual and The unvarying and permanent A variety of features/components Organisational features/characteristics

general elements/characteristics, combination of group characteristics, including at different stages: which emphasise the central,

which include: including � All the ways a company chooses to distinctive and enduring nature 

� Biographical characteristics � The group’s specific social position present itself of the organisation, include:

� Historical features within a network of inter-group � Design, name, logo, relevant � Ideology, mission, objectives, 

� Roles relations, against a social historical symbols values and beliefs

� Social positions and relationships context and timeframe. � Physical facilities � Strategy

� Cultural inputs � Strong environmental focus and � Corporate mission, philosophy and � Structure

� Group memberships relating to reference groups (“place culture � Organisational processes

� Etc. markers”) � Unique history, business mix, � Leadership, management

management style, communication philosophy, culture, climate

policies, market and competitive � Organisational boundaries

distinction of the company, � Social role, affiliations

technological capabilities � Physical attributes (size, skills,

� Personality, distinctive character, etc.)

spirit, ethos � Appearance (physical), logos, 

slogans, symbols, etc.

Emphasis: Uniqueness, clear character Emphasis: Distinctive character of Emphasis: More contrived, constructed Emphasis on distinctive character

anchored in self-acceptance and self- the group and projected as an idealised form or unique personality

confidence [suggesting an internal rather than reflecting the true inner

locus of control] self of the organisation

Differentiation process between the Clear differentiation from other Externally directed, communicative Differentiate/distinguish the

self and the environment groups as different and irreplaceable/ process with the environment organisation from other organisations

one of its kind. (audiences), with the purpose of

differentiating the organisation from

other

Nature: Dynamic process Nature: Dynamic process Nature: Visual cues/features and Nature: Process

a communicative process

Identity has two components – the Apart from objective identity, also a Claims to depict the distinctive Differentiates between an objective 

first being objective identity (the fact subjective identity, referring to the character of the organisation identity (observable distinctiveness,

of identity) and the second: the group’s sense (or awareness) of its Distinguished from Corporate image core and central features, enduring

subjective identity (or sense of identity) own identity and reputation – both of which are character and experienced unity)

specific types of perceptions held by and subjective identity: the awareness

audiences or stakeholders (sense) of identity.



concept ualisation, frequently incoherent, and with a

preponderance on the content of the definitional aspects of the

phenomenon. It is however evident that since the initial

surfacing of the identity concept in colloquial language, the

meaning structure of the concept has evolved through several

iterations of conceptual debate. The current perspectives on

identity in an organisational setting, which appear to converge

on the definition provided by Albert and Whetten (1985),

represents a substantially altered and more sophisticated attempt

to apply the identity concept in an organisational setting. 

While progress has been made with the conceptual debate on

identity and organisation identity, the converse is true for the

empirical verification of the organisation identity phenomenon.

Prior to Van Tonder (1999), empirical research on organisation

identity was limited to a few attempts at exploring the concept –

by and large qualitative case study methodologies (Albert &

Whetten, 1985; Dutton & Dukerich, 1991). This apparent

reluctance by and large stems from the inadequacies of

definitions of organisation identity and the absence of a

supporting theoretical framework that could be subjected to

systematic and rigorous empirical investigation. For the science

of organisation identity to advance, attention should be shifted

towards empirical research in order to solidif y conceptual gains

(in pursuit of a coherent theory of organisation identity). In this

regard the study by Van Tonder (1999) is worthy of comment for

it attempts to make progress at the level of the empirically

observed phenomenon of organisation identity. 

The study attempted to establish whether organisations possess

distinctive identities and whether observed identities related to

specific organisational attributes or feat ures and the

organisation’s performance. An exploratory, ex post facto field

study with qualitative and quantitative data gathering methods

was employed and triangulation as methodology was pursued in

the absence of a clear theory and empirical base. Both the

independent variable (organisation identity) and the dependent

variable (organisation performance) were operationally tested

with several alternative definitions. In this regard organisation

identity was alternatively conceptualised as the company’s total

answer to the question “who am I?”; distinctive character or

personality; perceived uniqueness; and, that combination of

organisational features which convey the unique, central or core,

and enduring character of the organisation. Organisation

performance in turn, was defined operationally as performance

ratings provided by executives (covering a seven year period);

published financial results for the 1997/1998 financial year; and

overall rank order position of the company based on the

frequency with which it has been cited in “top performing” and

“worst performing” tables of the Top 100 Companies (annual

Business Times survey) for a four year period. A cluster sampling

strategy, drawing on companies resorting among the “Top 100”

and worst performing companies on the Johannesburg Stock

Exchange in the 1997 annual survey of Top 100 Companies

(conducted by the Sunday Times Business Times) was employed.

The participation of 10 listed companies in 7 industry sectors

was secured. Data was obtained through structured interviews

with 153 top and senior executives, who represented the

participating companies. 

In general it is reported that organisation identit y was

consistently observed (both as an objective phenomenon and as

the subjective “sense of identity”) regardless of how it was

operationally defined, with organisations demonstrating

distinct identities (in various stages of experienced adequacy or

clarity) on a consistent basis. Results also revealed that

organisation identity for this research population correlated

consistently (and strongly) with specific sets of organisational

features. More importantly, organisation identity consistently

and in practically meaningful ways related to organisation

performance. It was noted, in addition, that organisation

identity (“distinctive character”) correlated equally high with

organisational focus and stage of organisational life cycle, and

ultimately organisational performance. The author concludes

that the empirical findings of the study were consistent with

many of the theoretical assumptions regarding the nature of

identit y and it is suggested that processes of identit y

acquisition and the concept of identity crisis may be rewarding

avenues for continued research. Van Tonder (1999) further

asserted that the st udy, despite the non-probabilit y

(convenience) nature of the research sample, confirmed the

relevance of organisation identit y for organisational

functioning, and indicated organisation identity’s linkage (and

sensitivity) to changes in the organisational life cycle. While

the exploratory (and correlational) nat ure of the st udy

precludes inferences about causality, the author argued that

strong foundations for hypotheses in this direction have been

established (Van Tonder, 1999). 

While the conceptual advances in the domain of organisation

identity entrenches the theoretical relevance of the concept, this

study provided some credence to the empirical reality of

organisation identity. It did so by demonstrating, firstly, that

organisation identity is a phenomenon that differentiates

organisations from one another, and secondly that it relates to

the features, and more importantly, the performance, focus and

development stage of the organisation. As such the study

provides a foundation for a more intensified and focused

research effort in terms of organisation identity – as a critical

consideration in organisational functioning. 

Turning to the current status of organisation identity research

it is notable that contemporary debates (since 1999) convey a

preponderance at a conceptual level with definitional aspects,

which is reminiscent of the “paradigm proliferation”

phenomenon observed in the field of organisation studies

(Donaldson, 1995). The original definition of Albert and

Whetten (1985) which equated organisation identity to that

which is central, enduring, and distinctive about an

organisation’s character still occupies centre stage in current

conceptual debates (e.g. Gioia, et al., 2000; Scott & Lane,

2000). Those that participate in the argument about what

organisation identity is, readily assimilate the “central” and

“distinctive” nature of organisation identity. Under attack, is

the definitional attribute “enduring” which is contested on the

assumed connotation of rigidity or inflexibility – given a

highly dynamic context (operating environment for

organisations) and the increasing frequency and magnitude of

organisational change. “Adaptive instability” (Gioia et al.,

2000) is an illustration of the phrases that are coined to

articulate and elevate the dynamic nature of organisation

identity. Some scholars are of the view that the “enduring

versus dynamic” argument is overstated (Scott & Lane, 2000)

and argue for a less dynamic/more stable quality (“stickiness”

of the organisation’s identity – Hogg & Terry, 2000). 

This debate on the malleability of identity “content”, however,

does not adequately recognise that identity content at any

moment in time is a function and manifestation of the quality

and effectiveness of the organisation’s identity development and

acquisition processes (Van Tonder, 1987). In effect the authors fail

to adequately account for the purpose and role of identity in

personalit y, and consequently the purpose and role of

organisation identity in the “personality” of the organisation.

The “how and why” of identity change, more appropriately,

should concern itself with a more fundamental philosophy of

organismic change linked to a theory of adaptation,

development, and growth. Indeed, the process model of identity

development and maintenance (Van Tonder, 1987) has proposed

that identit y is distilled from the reciprocal influence

relationship existing bet ween the environment and

organisation. Identity content will accordingly be determined by

the qualit y of the organisation’s interaction with the

environment, the quality of its data gathering processes (e.g.

perception, observation) and the quality of its analytical

processes (e.g. social comparison, self-categorisation and related

VAN TONDER, LESSING26



introspective processes). In short, identity change will be a

function of process – always within the context of prevailing

environmental conditions (e.g. turbulence) – and will vary from

organisation to organisation. Indeed it is against this context

that Brown and Starkey’s (2000) linking of organisation identity

to learning and change offers a potentially more productive

avenue for pursuing a holistic and coherent identity theory that

will take account of the organisation’s growth, and adaptation to

changing environments. 

Also prevalent from the more recent contributions, is the

predominantly cognitive approach to viewing and articulating

organisation identity and, despite a growing recognition of the

value of identity in ascribing meaning to organisational life

(e.g. Albert et al., 2000), and the natural reflection on

emotional facets of functioning that identit y offers

(psychoanalytic theories of organisation identity), none of the

current perspectives have as yet adequately recognised and

distilled the subjective experience of identity (the “sense of

identity”) from the “objective” or cognitive constructionist

identity of the organisation. The former is observed in the more

psychologically inclined views of the identity concept (e.g.

Erikson, 1959, 1963, Van Tonder, 1987) and has more recently

been illustrated empirically in an organisational setting by Van

Tonder (1999). Indeed, in organisational functioning, the sense

of identity may well prove to be a more critical construct than

the objective identity. 

In general, contemporary contribut ions convey a

commitment to the concept ual debate on organisation

identit y, but commitment to systematic empirical enquiry –

as vehicle for establishing a coherent theory of organisation

identit y – is less certain. 

Conclusion

Reflecting on the progress made with the delineation and

application of the identity concept, and in particular its spill

over into the domain of organisational functioning – initially as

corporate identity, but more recently as organisation identity – it

would appear that the development of the identity concept has

in a sense gone full circle. Current “calls” in the corporate

identity field are proposing that the corporate identity concept

incorporates a greater emphasis on the psychological and

inherent character of the organisation, as opposed to the

traditional emphasis on the organisation’s appearance and

visual attributes. In this sense contemporary views of corporate

identity are converging with the classical perspectives of

organisation identity, which in turn is firmly rooted in a

psychological view of identity. 

With regard to the development path of the organisation

identity construct, it would appear that the critical, minimum

level of concept ual mass needed for its theoretical

differentiation from related concepts has been attained. The

future relevance and significance of organisation identity will

however be premised on empirical advances during the next

stage of the construct’s development.

Finally, the increasing awareness of identity and its prominence

in the organisational context is a confirmation of the impact of

rapid and turbulent change in the organisational environment,

with its accompanying adaptation challenges to organisations.

The question “who am I?” is brought into sharp focus when the

organisation engages in adaptive change i.e. when greater

alignment between organisation and environment is indicated.

When organisations attempt to secure greater alignment with

the environment for survival purposes – most notably in present

times in the form of strategic repositioning, waves of mergers

and acquisitions, downsizing or rightsizing, etc., the response to

the identity question: “who am I?” emerges as a critical survival

issue for the organisation. Identity and organisation identity as

concepts, indeed, speak to the core of organisational adaptation,

success, and longer-term survival. 

REFERENCES

Abend, S.A. (1974). Problems of identity: Theoretical and clinical

applications. Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 43, 606-637.              

Ackerman, L.D. (1984). The psychology of corporation: How

identity influences business. Journal of Business Strategy, 5,

56-65.              

Albert, S., Ashforth, B.E., & Dutton, J.E. (2000). Organizational

identity and identification: Charting new waters and building

new bridges. Academy of Management Review, 25, 13–25.

Albert, S., & Whetten, D.A. (1985). Organizational identity. In

L.L. Cummings & B.M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational

behavior, Vol. 7. Greenwich, CT.: JAI Press              

Alessandri, S.W. (2001). Modelling corporate identity: a concept

explication and theoretical explanation. Corporate

Communications: An International Journal, 6 (4), 173-182.

Alvesson, M. (1990). Organization: From substance to image,

Organization Studies, 11, 373-394.               

Arbetter, L. (1993). Identity crisis. Security Management, 37 (4), 11.

Ashforth, B.E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the

organization. Academy of Management Review, 14, 20-39.

Balmer, J.M.T. (1995). Corporate branding and connoisseurship.

Journal of General Management, 21 (1), 24–46.

Balmer, J.M.T., & Dinnie, K. (1999). Corporate identity and

corporate communications: the antidote to merger madness.

Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 4 (4),

182-192.

Balmer, J.M.T., & Gray, E.R. (2000). Corporate identity and

communications: creating a competitive advantage.

Industrial and Commercial Training, 32 (7), 256-261.

Balmer, J.M.T., & Stotvig, S. (1997). Corporate identity and

private banking: a review and case study. International

Journal of Bank Marketing, 15 (5), 169-184.

Bourne, E., (1978). The state of research on ego identity: A 

review and appraisal, part I. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,

7, 223-251.

Brown, A.D., & Starkey, K. (2000). Organizational identity and

learning: A psychodynamic perspective. Academy of

Management Review, 25 (1), 102–138.

Capowski, G.S. (1993) Designing a corporate identit y.

Management Review, 82 (6), 37-40.

Chajet, C. (1989). The making of a new corporate image. Journal

of Business Strategy, 10 (3), 18-20.

Christensen, L.T. (1995). Buffering organizational identity in the

marketing culture. Organization Studies, 16 (4), 651–672.

Christensen, L.T., & Askegaard, S. (2001). Corporate identity and

corporate image revisited: A semiotic perspective. European

Journal of Marketing, 35 (3/4), 292-315.

Czander, W.M. (1993). The Psychodynamics of work and

Organizations: Theory and application. New York: Guilford Press.  

De Geus, A. (1997). The living company: Growth, learning and

longevity in business. London: Nicholas Brearley Publishing.

Diamond, M.A. (1993). The unconscious life of organizations:

Interpreting organizational identity. Westport, Connecticut:

Quorum Books.                 

Donaldson, L. (1995). American anti-management theories of

organization: A critique of paradigm proliferation. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Dowling, G.R. (1993). Developing your company image into a

corporate asset. Long Range Planning, 26 (2), 101-109.             

Dutton, J.E., & Dukerich, J.M. (1991). Keeping an eye on the

mirror: Image and identity in organizational adaptation.

Academy of Management Journal, 34, 517-554.          

Dutton, J.E., Dukerich, J.M., & Harquail, C.V. (1994).

Organizational images and member identification.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 239–263.

Erikson, E.H. (1959). Identity and the life cycle. Psychological

Issues, 1.               

Erikson, E.H. (1968). Identity, youth, and crisis. New York: Norton.  

Fitzgerald, M. (1993). Searching for renewed identity. Editor &

Publisher, September, 11–12.

Forbes. (1994). Mistaken identity, 154 (5), 284–285.

ORGANISATION IDENTITY 27



Gioia, D.A., Schultz, M., & Corley, K.G. (2000). Organizational

identit y, image, and adaptive instabilit y. Academy of

Management Review, 25, 63–87. 

Glover, R.K. (1993). Identity building begins on the inside:

External views reflection of a company’s internal practices,

habits. Business Marketing, August, 38.

Golnick, L.S. (1985). Creating a business identity, Banker’s

Monthly, 102 (11), 17.

Gorb, P. (1992). The psychology of corporate identity. European

Management Journal, 10, 310–314.

Grossman, G. (1994). Carefully crafted identity can build brand

equity. Public Relations Journal, 50 (8), 18–21. 

Halloran, K.D. (1985). The impact of mergers and acquisitions on

company identity. Mergers & Acquisitions, 20, 64-65.

Hecht, M.L. (1993). 2002 – A research odyssey: Toward the

development of a communication theory of identity.

Communication Monographs, 60 (1), 76-82.              

Hecht, M.L., Collier, M.J., & Ribeau, S.A. (1993). African American

communication: Ethnic identity and cultural interpretation.

Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 

Hogg, M.A., & Terry, D.J. (2000). The dynamic, diverse, and

variable faces of organizational identit y. Academy of

Management Review, 25 (1), 150–154.

Ind, N. (1992). The corporate image. London: Kogan Page.

Kiriakidou, O., & Millward, L.J. (2000). Corporate identity:

external reality or internal fit. Corporate Communications: An

International Journal, 5 (1), 49-58.

Kohli, C. & Hemnes, T.M. (1995). A corporation by any other

name…? Business Horizons, 38 (6), 29-33.

Korten, D.C. (1995). When corporations rule the world. San

Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Labich, K. (1994). Why companies fail. Fortune, 130 (10), 22-32.

Levinson, H. (1994). Why the behemoths fell: Psychological

roots of corporate failure. American Psychologist, 49, 428-436.  

Melewar, T.C. (2001). Measuring visual identity: a multi-

construct study. Corporate Communications: An International

Journal, 6 (1), 36-41.

Melewar, T.C., & Navalekar, A. (2002). Leveraging corporate

identity in the digital age. Marketing Intelligence & Planning,

20 (2), 96-103.

Melewar, T.C., Saunders, J., & Balmer, J.M.T. (2001). Cause, effect

and benefits of a standardised corporate visual identity

system of UK companies operating in Malaysia. European

Journal of Marketing, 35 (3/4), 414-427.

Murphy, C. (1996). Dunlop to sport a split identity. Marketing,

June 27, 7.

O’Malley, M. (1992). Corporate identit y and the built

environment. Planning, 124, 58–59.

Offerman, L.R., & Gowing, M.K. (1990). Organizations of the

future: Changes and challenges. American Psychologist, 45,

95-108.  

Olins, W. (1990). The corporate search for identity. Har vard

Business Review, 68, 153-157.

Olins, W. (1996). The energy of identity. Marketing Focus, April,

18–20.

Pitta, J. (1992). Identity crisis. Forbes, 149 (11), 82. 

Robertson, D. (1999). Business leaders keenly focused on action.

Sunday Times, Business Times, April 11, 1-1.  

Schmitt, B.H. (1995). Language and visual imagery: Issues of

corporate identity in East Asia. The Columbia Journal of

World Business, 30 (4), 28–36.  

Schmitt, B.H., & Pan, Y. (1994). Managing corporate and brand

identities in the Asia-Pacific region. California Management

Review, 36 (4), 32–48.

Schmitt, B.H., Simonson, A., & Marcus, J. (1995). Managing

corporate image and identity. Long Range Planning, 28 (5),

82–92.   

Schoenberger, E. (1994). Corporate strategy and corporate

strategists: Power, identity, and knowledge of the firm.

Environment and Planning A, 26, 435-451.               

Scott, S.G., & Lane, V.R. (2000). Fluid, fractured and distinctive?

In search of a definition of organizational identity. Academy

of Management Review, 25, 143-147.

Shee, P.S.B. (1988). The corporate image process. Unpublished

master’s research report, University of the Witwatersrand,

Johannesburg.                             

Simões, C., & Dibb, S. (2001). Rethinking the brand concept:

new brand orientation. Corporate Communications: An

International Journal, 6 (4), 217-224.

Smith, P.J. (1990). How to present your firm to the world. Journal

of Business Strategy, 11, 32-36. 

Stewart, K. (1991). Corporate identity: A strategic marketing

issue. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 9 (1), 32–39.     

Sutton, R., & Callahan, A.L. (1987). The stigma of bankruptcy:

Spoiled organizational image and its management. Academy

of Management Review, 30, 405-436.           

Tajfel, H. (1974). Social identity and intergroup behavior, Social

Science Information, 13 (2), 65-93.        

Treadwell, D.F., & Harrison, T.M. (1994). Conceptualizing 

and assessing organizational image: Model images,

commitment, and communication. Communication

Monographs, 61 (1), 63-85.          

Van Heerden, C.H. (1995). Corporate identity as an element of

marketing strategy. Unpublished master’s dissertation,

University of Pretoria, Pretoria.

Van Heerden, C.H., & Puth, G. (1995). Factors that determine the

corporate image of South African institutions: An

exploratory investigation. International Journal of Bank

Marketing, 13 (3), 12–17.

Van Tonder, C.L. (1987). Kleingroepidentiteit. Unpublished

master’s thesis, Rand Afrikaans University, Johannesburg.

Van Tonder, C.L. (1999). Organisation identity: An exploratory

study. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Rand Afrikaans

University, Johannesburg.

Wathen, M. (1986). Logomotion: Corporate identity makes its

move into the realm of strategic planning. Public Relations

Journal, 42, 24. 

Westin, C. (1983). Self-reference, consciousness and time. In A.

Jacobson-Widding (Ed.), Identity: Personal and socio-cultural.

Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.             

Zinkhan, G.M. (1993). Advertising, design and corporate

identity. Journal of Advertising, 22 (4), vii-ix.

VAN TONDER, LESSING28