Identity within the Microfoundations of Institutions: A Historical Review

Full text

Identity within the Microfoundations of Institutions: A Historical Review
Anna E. Roberts
Doctoral Candidate, Smeal College of Business
416A Business Building
The Pennsylvania State University
University Park, PA 16802
Tel: +1 814-867-1224 (office); +1 407-435-2745 (personal)
Email: annaroberts@psu.edu
Identities provide a human link between macro-level mechanisms and microfoundations of
institutions. Yet, as the literature on identity within the microfoundations of institutions has
developed, scholars have begun to shift their understanding of “who” populates the
microfoundations of institutions. This article offers a historical review of this niche, but growing,
area of research. More specifically, I identify and discuss three phases of research on identity
within the microfoundations of institutions, their ontological and epistemological assumptions,
and their implications for the area. To conclude, I reflect on the possible theoretical avenues for
future research on identities within the microfoundations of institutions.
Keywords: literature review; identity; institutional theory; microfoundations

IDENTITY WITHIN THE MICROFOUNDATIONS OF INSTITUTIONS
1
Identity, at its core, answers the question “Who am I?”. Identities serve as an important
part of way that people produce and are produced by their social and institutional contexts, and
how they seek to exercise their agency over it. Understanding identities and how they shape
institutional processes, therefore, are crucial for any meaningful understanding of the
microfoundations of institutions. Empirical research at the intersection of people’s identities,
identity work, and institutions has been an influential area of scholarship for over a decade
(Creed, Scully, & Austin, 2002; Rao, Monin, & Durand, 2003; Meyer & Hammerschmid, 2006;
Reay & Hinings, 2009; Creed, DeJordy, & Lok, 2010; Lok, 2010; Leung, Zietsma, & Peredo,
2013; Giorgi & Palmisano, 2017; Kyratsis, Atun, Phillips, Tracey & George, 2017). Yet, as the
literature on identity within the microfoundations of institutions has developed, scholars have
shifted their understanding of “who” populates the microfoundations of institutions.
The aim of this article is twofold. The first goal is to identify and review, despite its
scarcity,
1
exemplars of past empirical scholarship related to identity within the microfoundations
of institutions. By this, I mean studies engaging with concepts and theories of identity at the level
of individuals or persons, such as their self- or personal identities. With acknowledgement that
no level of analysis should be more “real” than the others (Friedland & Alford, 1991), I focus on
people’s identities, and, therefore, do not focus on research at the intersection of organizational
identity and institutional theory.
2
Part of this goal also is to provide other scholars with a
1
Theorization at the intersection of organizational identity and institutional theory examines the identification of
organizational members, but only as a part of organizational identity and not as a process onto itself (see Glynn,
2008; Glynn, 2017 for review, Schilke 2018 for recent empirical example). Although outside the microfoundational
focus of this volume and chapter, institutional scholarship employing organizational identity theory (Albert &
Whetten, 1985) also has relied on social identity theory-based concepts and theories of identity alongside
institutional theory in their research explicitly and implicitly (e.g., Foreman & Whetten, 2002; Glynn, 2000; Glynn,
2008). Therefore, I consider organizational identity related-research beyond the scope of this review.
2
The initial identification of empirical exemplars in 2015 used the Web of Science citation mapping to trace the
influence of key social identity theory (SIT) and key micro-sociological articles in institutionalist empirical research.
This allowed me to identify influential empirical articles that engaged with identity within the microfoundations of
identity without being restricted to keyword searches In 2018, the earlier identification of empirical articles was

IDENTITY WITHIN THE MICROFOUNDATIONS OF INSTITUTIONS
2
theoretical overview of the empirical work on identities within the microfoundations of
institutions that has been done to date. This historical approach permits a critical discussion of
the past, present, and possible future state of identity research within the microfoundations of
institution. It also allows me to draw implications more broadly for research on the
microfoundations of institutions.
The second aim for this article is to shed light on the paradigmatic shifts behind the
changing “who” of institutions through historical review and analysis of each period’s scholarly
frames of identity within the microfoundations of institutions. By engaging in a historical review
of the concept of identity within the microfoundations of institutions, I find that the concept of
identity underwent a progressive evolution. Nearly absent in foundational and early literature,
identity within the microfoundations of institutions began with the domination of social identity
theory (SIT) (Phase 1), which implied a top-down, cognitive, and psychology-based approach.
Then, a turn toward a social constructivist concept of identity within the microfoundations of
institutions (Phase 2) was marked by the publication of Lok (2010) and Creed, DeJordy, and Lok
(2010). In the most contemporary period, the microfoundations of identity within institutionalism
has taken a more intellectually pluralistic approach to the concept of identity, including both top-
down and bottom-up conceptualizations (Phase 3). The ensuing plethora of definitions and
concepts of identity within the microfoundation of institutions draws from microsociology,
discourse, symbolic interactionism, and critical theory.
supplemented with a more systematic search using the keywords identity; identification; identities; self; ident* and
institutionalism, institutional theory, institutions, institution, and institut*(with wildcards to catch variants) in the
following journals with a significant institutionalist presence: Academy of Management Journal, Administrative
Science Quarterly, Journal of Management, Management Science, Organization Science, Organization Studies,
Research in the Sociology of Organizations. I then read the abstracts and, if necessary, the text to identify relevant
works. I excluded works that were either a theoretical article or did not explicitly engage with the institutions and
identity at the individual-(or person-) level. For instance, much work was excluded because the article focused on
the organizational-level, collective- or professional level or field-level identity (see Footnote 1).

IDENTITY WITHIN THE MICROFOUNDATIONS OF INSTITUTIONS
3
This article is organized as follows: For each phase that I identified, I denote the
dominant theoretical approach to identity and the empirical articles from the period that
exemplify this approach (“exemplars”). Then, I detail and discuss the theoretical approach to
identity, its ontological and epistemological assumptions related to identity, and its implications
for the microfoundations of identity within institutionalism. For context, I start with the
foundational and early literature in institutional theory and its connections to identity within the
microfoundations of institutions. I then detail each phase in chronological order. I conclude with
a reflection on the possible theoretical avenues for future research on identities at the
microfoundations of institutions.
Foundational and Early Literature in Institutions (Prior to 2003)
To theorize the role of the individual in institutions as different from other rational actor
models, early institutional scholars engaged lightly with social psychology and micro-sociology
research related to identity and related topics, particularly Zucker (1977) in her work on role
identities. Influential foundational scholars for institutional theory, such as Mead (1934), Cooley
(1902/1956), Berger and Luckmann (1967), Parsons (e.g., 1951), and Goffman (e.g., 1983)
engaged with identity in their own work. Yet, as exemplified by Creed, Scully, and Austin
(2002) and their studies of legitimating accounts for and against workplace anti-discrimination
policies for LGBT people, the scholars’ focus on elucidating institutional dynamics meant that
identity was conceptualized as a self-evident concept, rather than explicitly defined.
Assumptions. The assumption existed amongst early scholars the “the psychology of
mental structures” provides a micro-foundation to the sociology of institutions (DiMaggio, 1997,
p. 271). Early scholars envisioned identity at the microfoundations as cognitive, however that
may be an artifact of the cognitive emphasis in psychology at the time. Zucker (1991: 105)

IDENTITY WITHIN THE MICROFOUNDATIONS OF INSTITUTIONS
4
wrote, "without a solid, cognitive, microlevel foundation, we risk treating institutions as a black
box at the organization level, focusing on content at the exclusion of developing a systematic
explanatory theory of process.” Identities, though not articulated in depth, also were envisioned
as doubly-embedded in institutions. Jepperson (1991), for example, suggested that institutions
conferred identities and the actors themselves are constructed institutions.
Exemplar. Creed, Scully, and Austin (2002) drew upon Goffman, social movement
theory, and other micro-sociological theories to connect the production of identities with
institutions. The authors adopted a “framing approach to identities,” but did not explicitly define
the concept of identity. Their study found that identity within the microfoundation of institutions
relies on “‘tailor-made’ legitimating accounts, defined as cultural narrations and myths,
dominant assumptions, inherent ideologies, and ‘master frames’.” Thus, identities were depicted
as mutually constitutive with institutionalizing processes (Creed et al., 2002, p. 480). Identities
also were conceived as situated in time and space and involving attributes, relationships, and
actions (Creed et al. 2002, p. 480). Their findings led to theorization of identities as dynamic
processes, not static.
Implications. Identity within the microfoundations of institutions lacked a cohesive
theoretical understanding of identity itself. Yet, interest in identities within the microfoundations
of institutions was building. Scholars at the time called for an examination of “the
interdependence between institutions and individual identity and roles” (Dacin, Goodstein, &
Scott, 2002: 52).
Phase 1 (2003-2009): Social Identity Theory (SIT) Dominates
With the greater concern for agency and actors (e.g., Battilana, 2006; DiMaggio, 1988),
institutional theorists began to turn toward a concern for individuals and how they understand

IDENTITY WITHIN THE MICROFOUNDATIONS OF INSTITUTIONS
5
themselves within institutions (e.g., Seo & Creed, 2002; Zilber, 2002). To theorize how people
understand themselves, scholars within this period primarily relied on social identity theory and
its variants (SIT) (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Turner, 1984; Tajfel 1982; Tajfel and Turner, 1986).
Three empirical works that employ the SIT during this period act as exemplars. First, Rao,
Monin and Durand (2003) studied the influence of identity movements and institutional change
by studying elite chefs’ identity changes from classical to nouvelle cuisine. Second, Meyer and
Hammerschmid (2006) examined how shifts in institutional logics can be examined by changes
in public-sector workers’ identities. Third, Reay and Hinings (2009) found how physicians and
regional health authority managers maintain separate identities to maintain the rivalry between
two competing institutional logics in a field.
Assumptions. SIT and its variants stress “how people form identities in relation to others
through cognitive attachments to social categories – that is, in groups and outgroups” (Ashcraft,
2013, p. 11), despite some recent refinements (Ashforth, 1998; Bartel & Dutton, 2001; Haslam &
Reicher, 2007).
3
Once a group identity is made salient in a given situation, all other identities
recede and that single group identity, or social identity, guides behavior (Tajfel & Turner, 1985).
The concept of the self is treated as containing two separable elements of “personal identity” and
“social identity” (Ashford & Mael, 1989). All three exemplars explicitly cite SIT and its variants
as the definition of identity and engage, in varying degrees, with its theory of identity.
Three embedded assumptions in SIT influence its onto-epistemic approach related to the
role of cognition, the nature of identity targets, and the understanding of identity as a resource.
First, SIT treats identification as a nearly entirely cognitive process. Because identities
3
Recent research on SIT in OB has evolved to incorporate situational and processual interpretations (Ashforth, Kreiner, &
Fugate, 2000; Ashforth, Rogers, & Corley, 2011; Kreiner et al., 2015). However, these approaches were not emphasized in the
exemplars’ use of SIT.

IDENTITY WITHIN THE MICROFOUNDATIONS OF INSTITUTIONS
6
encompass one’s affiliation to specific social groups, identities are the result of deliberate and
conscious affinities (e.g., Chattopadhyay, Tluchowska, & George, 2004; George &
Chattopadhyay, 2005). As a result, individuals are assumed to possess the agency and the ability
to resist identification and reshape identities, including sexual orientation, racial and gender
identities (Ashcraft, 2013; Nkomo, 1992). Thus, this cognitive emphasis assumes that during
identification, a person is deciding amongst well-defined groups.
Second, because social groups provide identities, a person is assumed to choose an
identity amongst well-established unified identities. Thus, SIT implicitly conceptualizes
identities as objective, stable and unchanging targets, including race and gender (Chattopadhyay
et al., 2004; George & Chattopadhyay, 2005). This relatively stable and static view of identities
treats the associated levels of identification between a person and her targeted group(s) to be
fairly uniform across people (Alvesson et al., 2008) and regardless of institutional context and
material bodies.
Third, the two previous assumptions – identities as discrete, largely static mental
resources that encompass one’s affiliation to groups – reveal a conceptualization of identities
where identities act as freely available and controllable resources. By framing identities as
mental resources tied to affinities, rather than embodied phenomena, SIT scholars implicitly
claim what is important is how I think of my race or gender (Ashcraft, 2013; Nkomo, 1992).
Identities are conceptualized as fully available to those who mentally and consciously “target”
the social group, regardless of their own body or physical attributes. In addition, identities rarely
are conceptualized as able to commingle, to be interdependent, or to be mutually dependent with
other identities. Because an identity arises only when a social group is salient in a person’s mind,

IDENTITY WITHIN THE MICROFOUNDATIONS OF INSTITUTIONS
7
identities are only constrained by institutions or organizations when such entities influence
cognitive functioning.
Exemplars. In the Phase 1 exemplars, SIT’s reliance on cognition allowed for the strong
connection between logics and identities. These exemplars viewed identity as top-down and
deterministic process, where identities are drawn directly from associated institutional logics.
Rao, Monin, and Durand (2003) defined identity using a variant of SIT (p. 797) and explicitly
tied identification to logics and cognition. Identification occurred when “situational logics create
distinctive categories, beliefs, expectations, and motives and thereby constitute the social identity
of actors” (Rao et al., 2003, p. 797). Explicitly defining identities using SIT, Meyer and
Hammerschmid (2006, p. 1001) depicted identities as cognitively tied to logics because identities
“change with the logics that shape them.” Although they minimally engaged with SIT in its text,
Reay and Hinings (2009) also depicted a physician’s identity as connected to logics in a
deterministic fashion. Because a physician cognitively identified as a physician, a physician was
assumed to support the logic of medical professionalism, despite the new dominant field logic of
business-like health care. These logic-specific elements of cognition (i.e., expectations,
categories, and vocabularies) deliberately influence which social identities people claim. Thus, in
this study, logic-specific elements of cognition are the primary essence of identities.
Furthermore, the connections between logics, identities, and social groups in the
exemplars support SIT’s assumption related to stable and enduring nature of identities. In the
Phase 1 exemplars, identities within the microfoundations of institutions are concomitant with
logics and with social groups. Therefore, a stability and commonality between logics, identities,
and groups to connect must exist at some point. To be sustain the connection, identities must
map onto the social groups created by associated institutional logics. For instance, if a person

IDENTITY WITHIN THE MICROFOUNDATIONS OF INSTITUTIONS
8
encounters multiple institutional logics, multiple matching social identities then become
available to her (Meyer & Hammerschmid, 2006; Rao et al., 2003; Reay & Hinings, 2009).
These multiple logics give cognitive access to identity by providing vocabularies and the
legitimating accounts that people can draw up on to indicate to others their identity (Meyer &
Hammerschmid, 2006, p. 1005). Identities are provided by institutions in this view; identities are
not seen as intertwined or co-constitutive of logics.
However, the Phase 1 exemplars did challenge the conceptualization of identities, logics
and groups as perpetually static, particularly as depicted in SIT. Rao et al. (2003) borrowed from
social movement theory to challenge the idea of group identity to be unitary in nature. As an
increasing number of classical cuisine chefs responded to identity-discrepant cues, more chefs
defected to the nouvelle cuisine identity. The “groupness” of nouvelle cuisine, thus, was variable
rather than fixed (Rao et al., 2003, p. 838). Meyer and Hammerschmid (2006) adhered to SIT’s
conceptualizations of identities as multiple additive mental resources, but emphasized the
instability and impermanence of the institutional realm. Reay and Hinings (2009) noted that the
dominant field-level logic had changed to business-like health care and political pressures
existed for doctors to switch logics. However, the individual doctor’s identity remained a
physician and, thus, she instead was guided by the medical professionalism logic instead. Thus,
identity within the microfoundations of institutions was more fragile than SIT, depending on the
state of the logic within the field and the state of the group itself.
However, this flexibility did not extend to the nature of the identity itself. Identities in the
Phase 1 exemplars were depicted as discrete entities and multiple identities cannot exist
simultaneously, as in SIT. For instance, a person with an identity as a doctor cannot also identify
as a businessperson. Identities are conceptualized as “contingent, flexible resources in

IDENTITY WITHIN THE MICROFOUNDATIONS OF INSTITUTIONS
9
interaction” (Meyer & Hammerschmid, 2006, p. 1001), and thus, to a degree, can be chosen.
Multiple identities are not simultaneously understood considering each other. Rather, identities
must compete or be reconciled into a singular identity produced by “hybridization” of the two
competing identities (Meyer & Hammerschmid, 2006, p. 1006; Rao et al., 2003, p. 836).
In sum, employing SIT to theorize identity within the microfoundations of institutions did
not challenge SIT’s view of identification. People primarily were seen as freely choosing their
identification, albeit to the extent allowed by institutional context. Identities also were
experienced as cognition and as objective, stable and unchanging targets. In doing so, employing
SIT continued to depict people within institutions as primarily cognitive and rational actors,
despite ongoing shifts away from such view in the literature.
Implications. If the use of SIT undercut the shift away from the primarily cognitive and
rational approach that the microfoundations movements held promise for, what advantages did
SIT confer upon the exemplars of identity within microfoundations research in this phase? SIT
provided early institutionalists exploring the microfoundations of identity with an explicit
definition of identity and theoretical approach to identities at the micro-foundational level.
Theories from psychology and organizational behavior (OB) often are borrowed to form
microfoundations of organizational theory; institutional theorists have advocated such borrowing
(Powell & Colyvas, 2008; Powell & Rerup, 2017). At this time, SIT reigned as the dominant
theory of identity (Nkomo, 1992). By extending the presumed macro-level theory of institutional
theory to the individual level, these scholars risked being perceived as illegitimate. Thus, SIT
and its exceedingly well-established literature was a prime candidate for understanding identity
in the microfoundations of institutional theory.

IDENTITY WITHIN THE MICROFOUNDATIONS OF INSTITUTIONS
10
However, this cognitive emphasis limited the role of emotion and “felt” social
experience. Cognition and emotion require each other. Feeling is not free of thought and thought
is not free of feelings (Zajonc, 1980). Identification solely through cognition ignores the material
conditions of the body and its relationship to identities. It ignores how particular identities, such
as race and gender, require a certain type of body to enact it. These bodies come with constraints
and implications which alters how a person maneuvers the implications of her body in social
interaction and in institutions, no matter what she thinks (Ashcraft, 2013; Nkomo, 1992). By
perpetuating a view of identities as purely cognitive tools, Phase 1 reinforced cognitive bias in
institutionalism.
By viewing access to identities as merely access to logics, the exemplars gave remarkable
agency toward people and their creativity, abilities and energies as they navigate multiple logics.
This certainly departed from the notion of “cultural dopes” (Powell & Colyvas, 2008, p. 277)
found in “old” institutionalism. However, this concept of identities as freely and equally
available to all also was problematic. In sum, the Phase 1 approach supported the rational actor
model, deemphasized the role of emotions and feelings in identification, and privileged macro-
processes over microfoundations.
Phase 2 (2010): Social Constructivist Identity Turn Begins
Social constructivists believe that the question “Who am I?” implicates another question:
“how should I act?” (Cerulo, 1997). A person’s ongoing attempts to address both questions are
important to microfoundational institutionalist approach. In contrast to SIT’s static and fixed
conceptualization, this view emphasizes identities as “becoming, rather than being” (Alvesson et
al., 2008, p. 15). In this approach, individuals are bound to create meanings, from available
cultural material beyond their personal experience (Cerulo, 1997), such as “cultural frames”

IDENTITY WITHIN THE MICROFOUNDATIONS OF INSTITUTIONS
11
(Callero, 2003) or “social-identities” (Watson, 2008). Thus, this approach views the self as a
social construction that is mutually constituted by internal, personal elements and external,
cultural elements.
Two empirical works ushered in the social constructivist approach to identity within the
microfoundations of institutions, and thus, are the exemplars of this brief and important phase.
Lok (2010) and Creed et al. (2010). Lok (2010) found that as investors engaged in micro-level
identity work, their practices transformed new institutional logics. Creed et al (2010) found how
gay and lesbian ministers, as embedded marginalized actors, use cultural resources to engage in
embodied identity work that creates experiences of contradictory institutional prescriptions.
Assumptions. Incorporating the external aspects of identity brought institutionalism to
bear on social constructivist aspects of identities at the microfoundations. Watson’s (2008)
theory of social-identity linked aspects of “internal” personal identity work and the “social-
identities” that individuals draw on in identity construction. Originating in context and external
to selves, social-identities are cultural, discursive or institutional notions of who any person
might be. Social-identities pertain to all people in the various environments in which they live
their lives. Implicit in his theory was a critique of the tendency of identity research to
deemphasize the contextual, external, and/or social influences on the processes of identity work.
Watson (2008) strengthened the analytical power of the concept of identity by incorporating an
explicit recognition that identity work shapes both the external and internal elements of identity.
In social constructivism, identification arises from the processes of identity work. Identity
work is defined as “the mutually constitutive processes whereby people strive to shape a
relatively coherent and distinctive notion of personal self-identity and struggle to come to terms
with and, within limits, to influence the various social-identities which pertain to them in the

IDENTITY WITHIN THE MICROFOUNDATIONS OF INSTITUTIONS
12
various milieu in which they live their lives” (Watson, 2008, p. 129). People themselves make
these institutional meanings underlining their identities through these identity resources: people
have the scope to interpret or even modify the role given to them in the “script” of any given
identity.
Watson (2008) also takes a more critical bent to identities: Identities exist and are
acquired, claimed and allocated within power relations because identity work occurs as others
attempt to tell us who or what we are. A person may utilize identities as institutional resources to
advance their own objectives. However, people do not utilize identities completely out of free
will or as a matter of personal whim (Watson, 2008). Because of the many diverse, competing
and contradictory discursive pressures upon and resources available to every individual in the
contemporary world (Giddens, 1991), engagement in identity work is unavoidable and plurality
of often competing social-identities exists (Alvesson et al., 2008: 6). The use of these identity-
making cultural resources also varies.
Exemplars. For exemplars in this phase, identities and identity work exist when both
internal self-reflection and external engagement come together—through talk and action—with
various institutional “building blocks.” Creed et al. (2010) explicitly operationalized the term
“identity” using the definition by Watson (2008) to emphasize the “internal” and external aspects
of identity work. The authors’ engagement with Watson (2008) allowed them to incorporate the
idea in their analysis that through personal identity work actors can influence, within limits, the
various institutionally prescribed social-identities that pertain to them. In other words,
individuals’ notions of who and what they are, accomplished through identity work, can act back
on the institutional notions of who or what any individual might or should be, and affect
institutional structure.

IDENTITY WITHIN THE MICROFOUNDATIONS OF INSTITUTIONS
13
Identities entwined feelings, values and behavior and points them in particular and
sometimes conflicting directions (Alvesson et al., 2008). Creed et al. (2010) pushed against the
notion of identities as purely cognitive structures and employed Watson (2008) to theorize about
how identities are not purely mental resources. In this study, identities were highly emotionally
charged, where contradictions are embodied and “lived, rather than merely cognitive
experiences” (p. 1356). LGBT ministers were not purely heroic change agents or cultural dopes;
instead, they were both enabled and constrained by their embeddedness and commitment to their
denominations. This study contradicted the notion that identities are purely cognitive and
normative structures experienced in the form of behavioral assumptions, expectations, or norms.
Instead, the subjectively lived experience and emotions were crucial to an understanding of
identities and identity work in institutional theory.
Lok’s (2010) study showed how SIT no longer fit the needs of institutional research. The
study’s strong conception of identities as derived from logics could have allowed the study to
employ SIT and its associated assumptions, as the Phase 1 exemplars did. Instead, Lok (2010)
drew directly from the social constructivist approach to identity. In turn, his findings
significantly departed from prior understandings of the microfoundations. Lok’s (2010)
illustrated that identities are no longer defined purely by their relation to social units or related
logics. People within the microfoundations of institutions encountered a multiplicity of logics
which influence and shape their identities. Because logics are another source of cultural scripts,
as in Creed et al. (2002), identities did not emerge from the logic as a fully formed mirror of the
logic. Instead, logics acted as “inputs” to the self-identity. In this study, changing logics still
influenced how actors reproduce and translate new institutional logics into their identities, but
did not result in a wholesale transformation into identical identities.

IDENTITY WITHIN THE MICROFOUNDATIONS OF INSTITUTIONS
14
Implications. Unlike Phase 1, the Phase 2 approach to identities portrayed identities as
not just an outcome, but also as a mechanism of institutionalization. Identities, in turn, craft
institutions. Cognition did play a role in the Phase 2 approach to identity within the
microfoundations of institutions, but not in the same way as in Phase 1. In Phase 1, identities are
mental resources that are internal to selves, but mirroring external social conditions. However, in
Phase 2, external engagement brings people into contact with institutional, discursive, and
cultural resources that become part of their identity work, and eventually become incorporated
into internal notions of the self.
Phase 3 (2011-Present): Multiple Theories at Play
In the most contemporary period, the microfoundations of identity within institutionalism
has taken a more intellectually pluralistic approach to the concept of identity (Phase 3). Some
scholars continued to engage with the SIT (Phase 1) and social constructivist (Phase 2)
approaches to identity, while others brought new theories to play. Rather than solidifying into
one approach, identity within the microfoundations of institutions continued to be defined in a
variety of ways.
Three empirical works exemplify this phase. Leung et al. (2013) researched people
content with one institutionally prescribed identity and no other identity targets in sight: Japanese
housewives. Giorgi and Palmisano (2017) studied people who participated in mystic Catholic
communities in Italy. Kyratsis et al. (2017) analyzed how individual physicians from five
European countries navigated shifts in institutional logics during the transition from Soviet to
Western health care system model.
Assumptions. This multiple paradigmatic approach did not create a cohesive set of
assumptions operating in Phase 3. For instance, Kyratsis et al. (2017) defined identity akin to

IDENTITY WITHIN THE MICROFOUNDATIONS OF INSTITUTIONS
15
Phase 1 scholars and relied on SIT research (p. 611). Leung et al. (2013) defined identity similar
to Phase 2 scholars, defining identity as consisting of external and internal components (p. 3). In
contrast, Giorgi & Palmisano (2017) provided no explicit definition and treated the concept of
identity as self-evident, but the scholars did engage with discourse and critical research on
identities. The assumptions of Phase 3, thus, were characterized by the theory at play in the
exemplar, rather than being able to be characterized cohesively.
Exemplars. Leung et al. (2013) found that by engaging in actions to obtain healthier food
and products for their families as part of enacting their housewife identity, the women also
interacted with the multiple institutional pressures. These interactions eventually sparked an
emotionally-driven conflict with the housewife identity, reshaping their personal identity along
with their institutional identity. Giorgi and Palmisano (2017) found that rather than the
experience of institutional contradictions acting as motivation for mystic Catholics to engage in
endogenous change, identity work to achieve a coherent sense of self also acted as institutional
maintenance work. Even if such identity work was “costly,” mystic Catholics also experienced
an intensity of emotions such as joy, love, and awe and were not willing to forgo them (Giorgi &
Palmisano, 2017: 813). In an empirical context with a highly contested shift in professional logic
with powerful actors championing the change, Kyratsis et al. (2017) found that some
professionals worked to change their identities, while others actively worked to maintain all or
part of their original identities. The degree to which doctors adopted the new professional
identities associated with the new logics affected the degree to which they enacted logics at a
local, including new work practices, vocabularies, and new professional titles.
Implications. Leung et al. (2013) relied upon social constructivist, structural
interactionist, and structuration theories to theorize the recursive loop between social structures –

IDENTITY WITHIN THE MICROFOUNDATIONS OF INSTITUTIONS
16
such as institutional process, pressures, and opportunities – and identities in people. By
emphasizing the recursive aspects of identities and institutions, Leung et al. (2013) explained
how and why identities do not perfectly mirror an institutionally prescribed logic and often
depart from them in significant ways. Kyratsis et al. (2017) employed SIT initially, but its
findings challenged SIT by positing interrelationships between multiple group identities. For
doctors with a more pro-Western identity, the logic shift allowed them to be both a doctor and an
entrepreneurial businessperson (p.632). The authors are not alone in their continued use of
psychology theories at the microfoundations of identity. Brandl & Bullinger (2017) wrote a
theory article advocating for identity control theory, another psychology theory, as the
microfoundations of identity within institutions. Alternatively, Giorgi and Palmisano (2017) used
the term identity without a corresponding micro-theory of identity. Instead, the scholars
theorized within institutional theory. Thus, Phase 3 raised the question: Do we need a single
theory of identity to undergird the microfoundations of institutionalism, at all?
Discussion
Identity acts as a human link between macro-level mechanisms and microfoundations of
institutions. To investigate this link, this historical overview illuminates the theories and
assumptions underpinning this intersection. The Phase 1 exemplars adopted the cognitively
heavy view of SIT; yet, SIT’s dominance in OB conferred legitimacy on identity within the
microfoundations of identity. Phase 2 exemplars had a more socially constructed approach to
identity; this allowed identities to be envisioned as a recursive mechanism of institutionalization.
The exemplars in Phase 3 employed prior approaches and experimented with new ways of
conceptualizing identity, even complicating the identity concepts that it employed. Thus, this
research on identity within the microfoundations of institutions allowed both theories to evolve

IDENTITY WITHIN THE MICROFOUNDATIONS OF INSTITUTIONS
17
in complexity and nuance. Institutional theory research has become less deterministic, top-down
and static and identity research more frequently recognizes that institutions and the social world
have impact on identity work and identity.
However, no paradigmatic consensus has emerged. Some may have hoped to find a
declaration, particularly institutional scholars who consider the theory’s “uninhibited”
theorization dangerous (Alvesson, Hallett, & Spicer, 2019) and OB scholars who fear a similar
encroachment of identity research (Brown, 2019; Alvesson et al. 2008). This historical review,
however, suggests such a declaration would be premature. As institutional theory evolved and
grew in directions difficult to foresee, different enabling theories of identity provided different
implications for research and for our scholarly community. Institutional theory, thus, will
continue to be a pluralistic field with multiple paradigms operating within its microfoundations.
Future scholars may want to consider which conceptualizations of identity are
appropriate for the intellectual conversation and the research community within institutionalism.
Institutional theory and organizational theory are growing in its appreciation of emotions
(Zietsma, Toubiana, Voronov & Roberts, Forthcoming); many of the exemplars have been a
crucial part of that appreciation. Identity within the microfoundations research may find insights
from “institutional biography,” studying accounts of identities in relation to the institutions that
structured their lives and that they worked to create, maintain, or disrupt (Lawrence, Suddaby, &
Leca, 2011). New approaches to identity within the microfoundations, such as Hazan and
Zilber’s narrative identity (this issue), may begin new phases.
As the “human link” between the microfoundations and macro-process of institutions,
identities within the microfoundations of institutions will be important to scholarly
understanding of ongoing social and organizational challenges. For example, as organizations

IDENTITY WITHIN THE MICROFOUNDATIONS OF INSTITUTIONS
18
and institutions become more fragmented due to the growing gig economy and industry
disruptions, identities may be the most evident way to understand both connections to institutions
(Roberts & Zietsma, 2018) and how workers can best cope with its toll (Petriglieri, Ashford, &
Wrzesniewski, 2019). Perhaps by continuing to find ourselves and others’ identities, we can
continue to flesh out the people within the microfoundations of institutions.
Acknowledgments: I am extremely grateful to Jost Sieweke, Patrick Haack, and Lauri Wessel for
giving me the opportunity to pursue this project. I thank Jost and an anonymous reviewer for
pushing me to sharpen my argument. I also grateful to the organizers and the participants of the
2015 EGOS Sub-Theme on Institutions and Identities and the 2016 EGOS Sub-theme on
Bringing Emotions out of the Shadows of Institutions for their insights into earlier drafts of this
manuscript and their help honing my ideas. I also appreciate the participants of the Brown Bag
Seminar at the Schulich School of Business, York University, for their encouragement and
thoughtful feedback at a very early stage of this paper and my academic career.

IDENTITY WITHIN THE MICROFOUNDATIONS OF INSTITUTIONS
19
REFERENCES
Alvesson, M., Ashcraft, K. L., & Thomas, R. (2008). Identity matters: reflections on the
construction of identity scholarship in organization studies. Organization, 15(1), 5–28.
Alvesson, M., Hallett, T., & Spicer, A. (2019). Uninhibited Institutionalisms. Journal of
Management Inquiry.
Ashcraft, K. L. (2013). The Glass Slipper: “Incorporating” Occupational Identity in Management
Studies. Academy of Management Review, 38(1), 6–31.
Ashforth, B. E. (1998). Becoming: How does the process of identification unfold. Identity in
organizations: Building theory through conversations, 213-222.
Ashforth, B. E., Kreiner, G. E., & Fugate, M. (2000). All in a day’s work: Boundaries and micro
role transitions. Academy of Management Review, 25(3), 472–491.
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of
management review, 14(1), 20-39.
Ashforth, B. E., Rogers, K. M., & Corley, K. G. (2011). Identity in Organizations: Exploring
Cross-Level Dynamics Identity in Organizations. Organization Science, 22(5), 1144–1156.
Barney, J., & Felin, T. (2013). What Are Microfoundations? Academy of Management
Perspectives, 27(2), 138–155.
Bartel, C., & Dutton, J. (2001). Ambiguous organizational memberships: Constructing
organizational identities. Social identity processes in organizational contexts, 115-130.
Battilana, J. (2006). Agency and Institutions: The Enabling Role of Individuals’ Social Position.
Organization, 13(5), 653–676.
Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality. London: Allen Lane.
Brandl, J., & Bullinger, B. (2017). Individuals’ considerations when responding to competing
logics: Insights from identity control theory. Journal of Management Inquiry, 26(2), 181-
192.
Brown, A. D. (2019). Identities in Organization Studies. Organization Studies, 40(1), 7-22.
Callero, P. L. (2003). The Sociology of the Self. Annual Review of Sociology, (29), 115–133.
Cerulo, K. A. (1997). Identity construction: New issues, new directions. Annual Review of
Sociology, 23, 385–409.
Chattopadhyay, P., Tluchowska, M., & George, E. (2004). Identifying the Ingroup: A Closer
Look at the Influence of Demographic Dissimilarity on Employee Social Identity. The
Academy of Management Review, 29(2), 180–202.
Cooley, C. H. (1902/1956). Human nature and the social order. New York: Scribner.
Creed, W. E. D., DeJordy, R., & Lok, J. (2010). Being the Change: Resolving Institutional
Contradiction through Identity Work. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), 1336–1364.
Creed, W. E. D., Hudson, B., Okhuysen, G. A., & Smith-Crowe, K. (2014). Swimming in a Sea
of Shame: Incorporating Emotion into Explanations of Institutional Reproduction and
Change. Academy of Management Review, 39(3), 275–301.
Creed, W. E. D., Scully, M. A., & Austin, J. R. (2002). Clothes Make the Person?: The Tailoring
and the Social Accounts Legitimating of Identity Construction. Organization Science, 13(5),
475–496.
Dacin, M. T., Goodstein, J., & Scott, W. R. (2002). Institutional Theory and Institutional Change:
Introduction to the Special Research Forum. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 45-56.
Delbridge, R., & Edwards, T. (2013). Inhabiting Institutions: Critical Realist Refinements to
Understanding Institutional Complexity and Change. Organization Studies, 34(7), 927–947.

IDENTITY WITHIN THE MICROFOUNDATIONS OF INSTITUTIONS
20
DiMaggio, P. J. (1997). Culture and Cognition. Annual Review of Sociology, 23, 263–287.
Friedland, R., & Alford, R. R. (1991). Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices and
institutional contraditions. In The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 232–
263).
Foreman, P., & Whetten, D. A. (2002). Members’ Identification with Multiple-Identity
Organizations. Organization Science.
Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity. Self and society in the late modern age. Polity
Press.
Giorgi, S., & Palmisano, S. (2017). Sober intoxication: Institutional contradictions and identity
work in the everyday life of four religious communities in Italy. Organization Studies, 38(6),
795-819.
George, E., & Chattopadhyay, P. (2005). One Foot in Each Camp: The Dual Identification of
Contract Workers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(1), 68–99.
Glynn, M. A. (2000). When Cymbals Become Symbols: Conflict Over Organizational Identity
Within a Symphony Orchestra. Organization Science, 11(3), 285–298.
Goffman, E. (1983). The interaction order: American Sociological Association, 1982 presidential
address. American Sociological Review, 48(1), 1-17.
Greenwood, E. R., Oliver, C., Suddaby, R., & Sahlin, K. (2008). Introduction. In E. R.
Greenwood, C. Oliver, R. Suddaby, & K. Sahlin (Eds.), Sage Handbook of Organizational
Institutionalism (pp. 1–46). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc.
Haslam, S. A., & Reicher, S. (2007). Beyond the banality of evil: Three dynamics of an
interactionist social psychology of tyranny. Personality and social psychology bulletin,
33(5), 615-622.
Jepperson, R. L. (1991). Institutions, institutional effects and institutionalism. In P. J. DiMaggio
& W. W. Powell (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp.143–163).
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kyratsis, Y., Atun, R., Phillips, N., Tracey, P., & George, G. (2017). Health systems in transition:
Professional identity work in the context of shifting institutional logics. Academy of
Management Journal, 60(2), 610-641.
Lawrence, T., Suddaby, R., & Leca, B. (2011). Institutional Work: Refocusing Institutional
Studies of Organization. Journal of Management Inquiry, 20(1), 52–58.
Leung, A., Zietsma, C., & Peredo, A. M. (2013). Emergent Identity Work and Institutional
Change: The “Quiet” Revolution of Japanese Middle-Class Housewives. Organization
Studies, 35(3), 423–450.
Lok, J. (2010). Institutional Logics as Identity Projects. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6),
1305–1335.
Meyer, R. E., & Hammerschmid, G. (2006). Changing Institutional Logics and Executive
Identities: A Managerial Challenge to Public Administration in Austria. American
Behavioral Scientist, 49(7), 1000–1014.
Nkomo, S. M. (1992). The Emperor Has No Clothes: Rewriting “Race in Organizations.”
Academy of Management Review, 17(3), 487–513.
Parsons, Talcott (1951). The Social System. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.
Petriglieri, G., Ashford, S. J., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2019). Agony and ecstasy in the gig economy:
Cultivating holding environments for precarious and personalized work identities.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 64(1).

IDENTITY WITHIN THE MICROFOUNDATIONS OF INSTITUTIONS
21
Powell, W. W., & Colyvas, J. A. (2008). Microfoundations of Institutional Theory. In E. R.
Greenwood, C. Oliver, R. Suddaby, & K. Sahlin (Eds.), Sage Handbook of Organizational
Institutionalism (pp. 276–298). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc.
Powell, W. W., & Rerup, C. (2017). Opening the Black Box: The Microfoundations of
Institutions. In R. Greenwood (Ed.), Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism (2nd
ed., pp. 541–576). Sage Publishers.
Rao, H., Monin, P., & Durand, R. (2003). Gastronomy Institutional Change in Toque Ville:
Nouvelle Cuisine as an Identity Movement in French. American Journal of Sociology,
108(4), 795–843.
Reay, T., & Hinings, C. R. (2009). Managing the Rivalry of Competing Institutional Logics.
Organization Studies, 30(6), 629–652.
Roberts, A., & Zietsma, C. (2018). Working for an App: Organizational Boundaries, Roles, and
Meaning of Work in the “On-demand” Economy. In Toward Permeable Boundaries of
Organizations? (pp. 195-225). Emerald Publishing Limited.
Schilke, O. (2018). "A micro-institutional inquiry into resistance to environmental pressures."
Academy of Management Journal, 61(4): 1431-1466.
Seo, M., & Creed, W. E. D. (2002). Institutional contradictions, praxis, and institutional change:
A dialectical perspective. Academic of Management Review, 27(2), 222–248.
Turner, J. C. (1984). Social identification and psychological group formation. In H. Tajifel (Ed.),
The social dimension: European developments in social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 518-538).
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Tajfel, H. (1982). Instrumentality, identity and social comparisons. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social
identity and intergroup relations (pp. 483-507). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1985). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S.
Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (2nd ed., pp. 7-24).
Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Voronov, M., & Vince, R. (2012). Integrating Emotions into the Analysis of Institutional Work.
Academy of Management Review, 37(1), 58–81.
Voronov, M., & Yorks, L. (2015). “Did you notice that?” Theorizing differences in the capacity
to apprehend institutional contradictions. Academy of Management Review, 40(4), 563–586.
Watson, T. J. (2008). Managing Identity: Identity Work, Personal Predicaments and Structural
Circumstances. Organization, 15(1), 121–143.
Zilber, T. B. (2002). Institutionalization as an interplay between actions, meanings, and actors:
The case of a rape crisis center in Israel. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 234–254.
Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American
Psychologist, 35(2), 151.
Zucker, L. G. (1977). The Role of Institutionalization in Cultural Persistence. American
Sociological Review, 42(5), 726–743.
Zietsma, C., Toubiana, M., Voronov, M. & Roberts, A. Forthcoming. Elements in Organization
Theory: Emotions in Organization Theory. Cambridge University Press.