Content uploaded by Jennifer Howard-Grenville
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jennifer Howard-Grenville on Oct 17, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
The Faithful Rise Up:
Split Identification and an Unlikely Change Effort
Betzaluz Gutierrez
Hay Group®
Av. San Felipe Edif. Coinasa 8-84
La Castellana 1060
Caracas, Venezuela
email: betzaluz_gutierrez@haygroup.com
phone: +58 (212) 263 2323 ext. 24
Jennifer Howard-Grenville
Lundquist College of Business
1208 University of Oregon
Eugene, OR 97403-1208
email: jhg@uoregon.edu
phone: (541) 346 3347
Maureen A. Scully
College of Management
University of Massachusetts Boston
100 Morrissey Blvd.
Boston, MA 02125-3393
email: Maureen.Scully@umb.edu
phone: (617) 287 7864
February 27, 2010 version
Forthcoming in Academy of Management Journal, August 2010
All authors contributed equally to this paper. We thank Associate Editor Mike Pratt and three
anonymous reviewers for their excellent feedback and guidance throughout the review process.
We also benefited greatly from feedback on earlier drafts provided by: Kathryn Aten, Douglas
Creed, Marlena Fiol, Karen Golden-Biddle, David Levy, Alan Meyer, Banu Ozkazanc-Pan,
James Post, and Taryn Stanko. Finally, the members of Voice of the Faithful (VOTF) and others
who shared their stories and their insights through interviews made this project possible. We
appreciate their candor and their willingness to help us understand their work. Any errors or
omissions remain our own.
2
The Faithful Rise Up:
Split Identification and an Unlikely Change Effort
Through a qualitative study of the emergence of unlikely activism from committed members of
the Catholic Church, we examine how identification can trigger and shape a change effort. We
uncover how crafting “split identification” allows members to retain their identification with
normative aspects of an institution, while disidentifying with, and seeking to change,
organizational aspects. Our process model traces how members split their identification, attempt
to repair the split by seeking change, and respond when their claimed identification is
challenged. We offer implications for identification theory and for literature on change
originating inside organizations and institutions.
3
“Keep the Faith, Change the Church”
Voice of the Faithful motto
In January 2002, The Boston Globe published the first of a series of articles on the sexual
abuse of minors by priests in the Boston Archdiocese of the Roman Catholic Church. In the
following weeks, accusations of abuse by more than 70 priests were revealed and documents
released showing that the Church hierarchy had known of some of the accusations for as long as
30 years, corresponded repeatedly with accused priests, and transferred them among parishes
(Robinson, 2002). The ensuing crisis shook the Church deeply, exposing it to questions about its
governance, and stirring a crisis of faith for some members. A few dozen grieving laity began
gathering to discuss their reactions in a suburban church basement. Within five months, the
group grew into a 20,000-member organization, with membership drawn from across the country
and around the globe. The group‟s name, Voice of the Faithful (VOTF), reflects one of its core
goals of enabling lay people to play a part in the Church‟s governance, thereby altering the
passive stance that members came to see as a root cause of the abuse and cover-up.
VOTF‟s emergence is particularly notable because its members come from the very core of
the Church. Fully 93% of VOTF members were born into the Church, and nearly two-thirds
attend Catholic Mass weekly, twice the level of the general Catholic population (Colbert, 2006).
Their motto – “Keep the Faith, Change the Church” – captures their desire to remain deeply
committed spiritually while aiming to change elements of the Church‟s governance structures.
While the founders intended their approach to be one of loyal insiders helping to renew a Church
in crisis, Church leaders greeted it as provocative, because they teach that the faith and Church
are inseparable (D‟Antonio & Pogorelc, 2007). Initially a temporary vehicle for organizing a lay
response, VOTF became an enduring organization which continues to sustain a membership of
4
30,000, support worldwide chapters and a sophisticated web presence, and engage in tactical use
of the secular media. For some, participation in VOTF enabled them to remain Catholic rather
than leave the Church. As one member put it, “if we didn‟t have some mechanism for seeking
justice, I don‟t know if I could stay in this Church right now” (Boston Globe 5/1/04).
We were intrigued by how exit from the Church was forestalled by the unusual combination
of loyalty and voice exhibited in VOTF‟s change efforts. In particular, we sought to understand
how VOTF‟s members crafted and sustained this combination, how it emerged from their
relationship with the Church, and how it also altered the nature of that relationship over time.
The identification literature provided the conceptual tools to investigate the nature of VOTF
members‟ attachment to the Church and to probe how it might be realigned when it was
threatened. It suggests that those who identify with an organization or other entity typically
conform and defend it at a time of crisis (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Dukerich, Golden & Shortell,
2002; Dutton, Dukerich, & Harquail, 1994), but that their commitment may also make them
valued participants in change processes (Ashford & Barton, 2007; Fiol, 2002).
Our inductive analysis of interviews, press accounts, and VOTF documents revealed a process
model in which specific mechanisms explain how members i) crafted a “split identification” with
the Church, ii) attempted to repair it by redeploying the Church‟s own beliefs, practices, and
teachings, and finally, iii) sustained split identification in the face of a response from Church
authorities that forestalled swift repair.
Our analysis makes several contributions to theory. First, it builds theory on the crafting of
“split identification.” Split identification is a way of relating to an entity which involves
cognitively separating elements of a target of identification that are worthy of continued
identification (in this case, normative aspects including the teachings and practices of the faith)
5
from other elements that demand disidentification (in this case, certain organizational elements
including Church governance structures). Beyond ambivalent (Meyerson & Scully, 1995; Pratt,
2000) or „schizo‟ (Dukerich, Kramer, & Parks, 1998; Elsbach, 1999) identification which
accommodate mixed feelings about an individual‟s relationship to an entity, split identification is
a mechanism for repairing identification. Through splitting, individuals can retain a high level of
identification with valued aspects of entity while calling for other aspects to be reformed or
restored.
Our account shows how split identification is actively, and collectively, pursued and reflects
emotional and behavioral, as well as cognitive, responses to triggering circumstances. While the
sexual abuse crisis in the Catholic Church may constitute an extreme case of the circumstances
that trigger split identification, there are other organizational circumstances involving fraud,
discontent, an unpopular policy, or some other potential conflict, perhaps not of the intensity nor
singularity of a crisis, that can similarly trigger such a response. For example, in the months
leading up to accounting firm Arthur Andersen‟s collapse, employees were surprisingly loyal,
even rallying in support of the firm while distancing themselves from leaders who were being
investigated for their involvement in the Enron scandal (Eichenwald & Glater, 2002; Toffler &
Reingold, 2003). Soldiers may support the military and its values (honor, courage, and defense of
country) while distancing themselves from certain military practices (particular campaigns or
tactics). Or doctors may express “disquiet over .. for-profit hospitals,” and object to
“corporatizing” their governance processes (Wiener, 2000:32), while remaining firmly identified
with the norms of good medical care.
A second contribution of our analysis is that it answers a call to explore the “subtleties and
complexities of … identification and disidentification,” (Pratt, 1998: 200) and to move beyond
6
“snapshot images of identification” (Ashforth, Harrison, & Corley, 2008: 340) by taking a
process view and tracing how a split identification and efforts to repair it play out over time. We
examine not just how split identification emerged but how it evolved and endured when there
was no ready way to suture the split. Identification and disidentification have been portrayed as
having distinct antecedents (Elsbach & Bhattacharya 2001; Kreiner & Ashforth, 2004) and
distinct trajectories (Elsbach & Bhattacharya 2001; Pratt, 2000), and, when both are present, as
an unstable mix. Unlike depictions of schizo-identification as a fragile or even “pathological”
state1 (Dukerich et al., 1998: 250), we examine how crafting and sustaining split identification
has some benefits, enabling coping and continued involvement (rather than exit) and a
potentially useful source of corrective feedback (Hirschman, 1970) for an entity.
Finally, split identification draws attention to how identification, not just interests or identity,
can mobilize individuals to participate collectively in a change effort and points to new ways to
think about processes for insider change agency, adding to a growing literature. Where others
have emphasized the instrumentality of change agents‟ tactics and the significance of interests in
mobilizing change (Maguire, Hardy, & Lawrence, 2004; Reay, Golden-Biddle, & GermAnn,
2006), recent literature on social movements shows that expressive and instrumental tactics are
intertwined in change efforts based in identity (e.g., Polletta & Jasper, 2001). Our work extends
this view by suggesting that identification shapes change tactics in distinct ways. Change efforts
rooted in identification may begin expressively and come to take on a more targeted and
instrumental cast, especially if split identification is challenged. Further, while identification
might make some change actions particularly effective because they are deeply aligned with an
organization or institution, it can also delimit the actions a change effort can attempt and tolerate.
1 We also distinguish our use of splitting from the psychological use of the term which refers to an unconscious
defense mechanism by which individuals separate related but contradictory aspects of experience.
7
Identification and its Consequences
In the organizational literature, identification has been understood as both a state (of being
identified with an entity), and a process (of becoming identified with an entity) (Kreiner,
Hollensbe, & Sheep, 2006). When identification is treated as a state, individual and
organizational identity aligns (Whetten, 2007), such that individuals feel a sense of „oneness‟
with the organization (Ashforth & Mael, 1989) and use similar descriptors for the self and
organization (Dutton et al., 1994). Identification as a process is depicted as a reciprocal
interaction between the individual and target of identification (Ashforth et al., 2008) as an
individual discovers affinity with the target or seeks to alter his or her identity to align with that
of the target (Pratt, 1998). Treated as a process, identification can be defined as occurring “when
an individual‟s beliefs about his or her organization become self-referential or self-defining”
(Pratt, 1998: 172).
Our study draws upon work that suggests that identification has both state and process
characteristics (Kreiner et al., 2006), involving periods of apparent stability interspersed with
episodes when realignment may occur (Ashforth et al., 2008). Identification as process does not
end when an individual has „become‟ identified but instead is “social, retrospective, and
ongoing” (Pratt 1998: 180). Our study tracks how identification may be reconsidered and altered
as a result of an intense and abrupt change in the conditions surrounding identification.
Identification with a Religious Institution
There are a number of types of entities and levels within them with which individuals might
identify. These include employing organizations (Dutton & Dukerich, 1991; Rousseau, 1998),
voluntary associations (Elsbach & Bhattacharya, 2001), organizational „systems‟ or „forms‟
(Dukerich et al., 2002; Foreman & Whetten, 2002), professions (Ibarra, 1999; Pratt, Rockman, &
Kaufmann, 2006), occupations (Kreiner et al, 2006), work groups (Fiol, Pratt, & O‟Connor,
8
2009), and dyadic role-relationships (Sluss &Ashforth, 2007). Scholars have long recognized
that identification need not assume an employment relationship nor even organizational
membership (Elsbach & Bhattacharya, 2001; Pratt, 1998). This rich vein of work invites further
exploration of the processes and consequences of identification where organizational
membership is not the sole defining feature of the relationship, such that the nature, intensity and
duration of involvement with an entity may be more directly examined (Whetten, 2007).
We examine identification with an institution. Institutions encompass both a logic or belief
system that guides action (Friedland & Alford, 1991) and the associated governance structures
(DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). In stable times, institutional beliefs and governance structures are
in alignment, but events can „dislocate‟ them, such as when a merger brings competing logics
into association (Thornton, 2004; Thornton, Jones & Kury, 2005). The Catholic Church offers a
setting in which we can examine individuals‟ identification with the religious beliefs, practices,
and meanings that undergird Catholicism as an institution (Wilde, 2004; Dillon, 1999), which we
refer to collectively as the normative aspects of the institution, and the organizational expression
of these beliefs in the structures and governance of the Church, which we refer to as the
organizational aspects of the institution. This approach follows a long-standing juxtaposition of
normative and structural elements of institutions (Scott, 1987), recently re-emphasized in studies
of levers for institutional change (e.g., Maguire et al., 2004).
Elsewhere, religious faith, and the expression of spirituality in workplaces, are described as
having parallels to identification (Ashforth & Pratt, 2003; Ashforth & Vaidyanath, 2002).
Organizations can direct individuals‟ adoption of religious beliefs through sensebreaking and
sensegiving (Ashforth & Pratt, 2003; Pratt 2000b) and collectively validate those beliefs
(Ashforth & Vaidyanath, 2002). We regard VOTF members‟ relationship to the Catholic Church
9
through their faith as a form of identification, differing perhaps in degree, but not in kind, from
identification with other entities portrayed in the organizational literature. Identification is
differentiated from concepts like commitment through its relationship to belief. Pratt (1988:178)
explains that “commitment [is] equated with the „acceptance‟ of organizational values and
beliefs (Meyer & Allen, 1991), whereas identification is equated with „sharing‟ or „possessing‟
organizational values and beliefs.” In the theological literature, „faith as response‟ is similarly
differentiated from „faith as belief,‟ with the latter requiring the church to have a communal
sense of identity with which members associate (Johnson, 2004: vii).
Identification Processes
Empirical studies of identification have yielded a number of processes associated with
becoming identified with an entity (Ibarra, 1999; Pratt et al., 2006), restoring or altering
identification when challenges arise (Fiol, 2002), or resisting efforts to manage identification
(Pratt, 2000). Such accounts have uncovered top-down processes, such as sensebreaking and
sensegiving (Pratt, 2000), used by leaders to manage members‟ identification, and bottom-up
processes, such as enacting experimental identities (Ibarra, 1999) to „try on‟ new, concrete ways
of relating to the organization (Fiol, 2002). These processes can work in a cycle, with individual
enactment and organizational sensemaking validating and reinforcing a prototypical way of
identifying with an organization (Ashforth et al., 2008).
Despite identification processes being richly theorized and illustrated with compelling
empirical accounts, scholars continue to note that “surprisingly little research has attempted to
capture …[the] dynamics” of identification (Ashforth et al., 2008: 340). Notably, attention to
how those who are already identified cope with challenges to their identification is lacking. Prior
work suggests that the nature of triggering events may influence how identification is altered. A
gradual erosion of identification may occur differently from when it is “dramatically broken
10
through crisis or betrayal” (Pratt, 1998: 200). When organizations violate actions and beliefs that
they have „sacralized,‟ they produce profound consequences for member identification:
“To actually behave contrary to the sacred – a bank defrauding its customers, a doctor
molesting his patients –… presents a unique crisis for organizations in that the very
fabric that helps bind key stakeholders to the organization … is severely torn”
(Harrison, Ashforth, & Corley, 2009: 45)
Recent models explaining the dynamics following organizational transgression focus on top-
down sensemaking acts by management as they „confess‟ and engage in „repentance‟ (Harrison
et al., 2009; Pfarrer, Decelles, Smith & Taylor, 2008). Our analysis explores bottom-up
responses to organizational transgression, offering a way to probe other aspects of the cycle of
identification beyond sensegiving, and to attend to situations when sensegiving efforts may be
unsatisfactory to their recipients. Such attention addresses a call to explain “how identification
waxes and wanes as individuals and their contexts evolve” (Kreiner et al., 2006: 1032).
Broader Consequences of Identification
The identification literature offers a number of alternatives for how individuals cope when
differences exist, or suddenly arise, between their beliefs and how those beliefs are manifested
by a target of identification. For example, they may deidentify, or decrease their level of
identification (Fiol, 2002), ultimately resulting in exit (Pratt, 2000). Or, disidentification (when
individuals define themselves as in opposition to attributes that they believe define the
organization (Elsbach & Bhattacharya, 2001)), may arise in combination with identification,
resulting in schizo-identification (Dukerich et al., 1998; Elsbach, 1999). For example, Elsbach
describes how a „policy wonk‟ legislative staffer might identify with policy ideals, but
disidentify with political maneuvering to advance those ideals (1999). Schizo-identification has
so far been regarded as an “adaptive cognitive response” (Elsbach, 1999: 183), but is closely
related to ambivalent identification (Kreiner & Ashforth, 2004) which can manifest in behaviors
that alternate between periods of active and no engagement with an entity (Pratt, 2000).
11
At times such responses may not be adequate. Identification can be “infused with emotions”
(Pratt, 2000: 485) making individual cognitive adaptation unsatisfactory. It can represent
“considerable investments of time, energy and more” (Kreiner et al., 2006: 1052), making
voluntary separation unrealistic. Accounting for such intensity suggests that understanding
identification following a transgression may be less about how people weaken or shed their
attachments, and more about how they cope by attempting to retain or restore identification.
While identification is frequently associated with a range of outcomes related to compliance –
such as resilience, assimilation to top-down change, member sense of well-being, commitment,
motivation, involvement, positive affect, and prosocial behavior (Spataro & Chatman, 2007) – it
is worth exploring the dynamics by which identification might motivate individuals to „speak
truth to power‟ (Ashford & Barton, 2007: 240), perhaps instigating an effort to change their
organization or institution. This investigation will amplify our understanding of the nature and
consequences of identification, and illuminate a little-considered pathway to change.
Method
Research Setting and Approach
The Catholic Church has many institutional elements that bind members to the institution,
including a hierarchical governance system that is deeply legitimated, clear boundaries and roles
for members, taken-for-granted norms governing regular interaction, and valued, shared routines
(Greenwood & Suddaby, 2006; Rao, Monin, & Durand, 2003; Scott, 2001), making data from
this setting appropriate for examining the mechanisms of identification. Because these elements
also contribute to institutional persistence, this setting is also appropriate for studying the genesis
and mechanisms of an unlikely change effort, where change may occur only occasionally but
enough to permit adaptation over a long time.
12
Other organizational studies have looked at church settings to understand challenges of
maintaining identification (Creed, 2003; Kreiner et al., 2006) or the genesis of change efforts
(Plowman, Baker, Beck, Kulkarni, Solansky, & Travis, 2007). Many of these accounts focus on
marginalized members, those who either adopt positions that run counter to church beliefs, such
as the acceptance of homosexuality (Creed, 2003) or ordination of women (Katzenstein, 1998),
or who are weakly tied to the church and its core practices (Plowman et. al., 2007). Our study
uses a church setting to explore how core members – those who identify strongly with the
Church but lack hierarchical power within it – seek changes that they see as being in alignment
with core Church principles. We extend these findings to workplace and other settings outside of
churches.
We undertook a case study approach (Yin, 2003) because we were most interested in
understanding the processes which yielded and sustained VOTF‟s change efforts and in locating
the specific mechanisms underlying the processes (Gutierrez, 2006). We focused primarily on
the three-year period from January 2002, when the first stories on the crisis broke in The Boston
Globe, to December 2004. By the end of 2004, VOTF had the features of an established entity,
including multiple chapters, stable internal governance structures, and a recognized collective
identity (D‟Antonio & Pogorelc, 2007). We augmented our case by collecting additional data in
2008.
Data Sources
We collected data from three sources – newspaper articles, interviews, and VOTF archival
documents – to obtain a rich understanding of VOTF‟s emergence and the context. Information
from these sources often overlapped, which helped establish the sequence of events and revealed
recurring themes. Table 1 summarizes how the data from these sources, plus additional sources
described below, were used in our analysis.
13
-------------------------------------------------
Insert Table 1 About Here
-------------------------------------------------
Newspaper articles. We collected all newspaper articles mentioning either the sexual abuse
crisis or VOTF that appeared in four newspapers for the three year time period. To obtain a range
of coverage, we chose both regional and national secular sources (The Boston Globe and The
New York Times), and regional and national religious sources (The Pilot, the newspaper of the
Boston Archdiocese, and the National Catholic Reporter). A total of 2,729 articles on the crisis
and/or VOTF were collected from these sources and imported into NVivo qualitative analysis
software. Figure 1 documents VOTF‟s rise and continued presence in the news media by
showing the monthly count of its mention in the four newspapers.
-------------------------------------------------
Insert Figure 1 About Here
-------------------------------------------------
Interviews. We conducted 17 semi-structured interviews with founders, members, and close
observers of VOTF. Interviews lasted from 1 ½ to 2 ½ hours and were recorded and transcribed.
All but one of these interviews was conducted in a four month period in 2004; informal
interviews with a key informant (a founder) began in mid-2002 and continued throughout the
case study period, alerting us to additional sources of data and guiding our emergent
understanding of the case. Our interview guide (see Appendix A) probed interviewees‟
involvement in VOTF, the group‟s founding, and its goals, strategies, and evolution since then,
including prompts about specific events and interpretations from the media data. Most
interviewees were present at the early meetings and had remained involved, allowing us to gather
information on the group‟s earliest days and interviewees‟ reactions to the crisis.
Initial potential interviewees were identified for us by the informant, who pointed us to
several other founders who had been present at the first meeting and remained active in the
14
group. This group of interviewees was expanded through snowballing as each interviewee
suggested others, with frequent overlap. We were aware that snowball sampling could tap a
network of people who knew each other and held similar but not representative views. We
discovered that, while a number of the interviewees did know each other from their involvement
with VOTF, there had not been a pre-existing network of parishioners; the process of creating a
collective identity, particularly in response to a “moral shock,” can create rather than assume, a
network (Polletta and Jasper, 2001: 290-291). We were careful to ask for individuals who could
give us a variety of perspectives, ensuring we spoke with at least one member working in support
of each of VOTF‟s distinct goals or Working Groups. We also included among our interviewees
some non-members of VOTF (i.e., two priests, one ex-priest, and one early member of VOTF
who had since left the group) and two individuals who specifically mentioned struggling over the
decision to join. We wanted to include interviews with leaders of the Church to trace their views,
particularly to see how VOTF‟s attempted signaling of loyalty was received. After repeated
efforts to gain interviews through the Archdiocese of Boston, we accepted that it would be
difficult to get representatives of the Church hierarchy to speak with us. However, we also
realized that the official Church position was publicly available, via reports and editorials in The
Pilot. Accounts from other newspapers also provided the official Church reactions to VOTF and
established the context in which VOTF emerged and operated.
VOTF materials and secondary sources. We collected a large number of VOTF reports and
working papers, provided to us by interviewees or obtained from VOTF‟s website. We also drew
upon material used to establish VOTF affiliates in parishes, particularly to trace the emerging
rationale for why a reform group was needed and why it was consistent with the faith for loyal
Catholics to become involved. Several interviewees directed us to secondary sources, including a
15
book written by VOTF co-founder Jim Muller (Muller & Kenney, 2004) and one written by
theologians and sociologists using survey and interview data from VOTF members and founders
(D‟Antonio & Pogorelc, 2007). We used these to fill in our timeline and, later, to get more data
on VOTF members and founders and their involvement with the Church.
Follow up data. We collected additional data in 2008 to understand whether and how VOTF
had sustained itself after the triggering crisis had disappeared from daily public attention. Again,
we drew upon multiple sources: four interviews, newspaper sources, and VOTF‟s website and
documents. We use these data to add to our analysis of the processes and consequences of
VOTF‟s continued existence.
Data Analysis
Consistent with an inductive, theory-building approach, we moved back and forth between
our data and our emerging theoretical understanding of VOTF‟s founding and actions (Locke,
2001; Miles & Huberman, 1994). We directed our attention to uncovering the processes by
which the group came into being, acted, and evolved following the crisis. A process focus
requires a temporal view, attending to unfolding events, decisions, and actions (Langley, 2007),
and an understanding of the mechanisms that underlie and explain these (Davis & Marquis,
2005). Our analysis progressed in several stages as we developed and refined these.
Timeline and case history. We first constructed a timeline of key events and developed a
comprehensive understanding of the overall case by reading and coding all the newspaper
articles. Given the large number of articles, we used a parsimonious start list of general codes
(action, actor, relationship, and strategy) to perform initial coding (Whyte, 1984). This approach
allowed us to trace actions by VOTF as well as others (e.g., the Church hierarchy) and directed
our attention to explanations of their actions and interactions that appeared in press accounts. In a
second round of coding, we elaborated and refined the codes (Miles & Huberman, 1994).
16
We plotted simple counts of articles by month that mentioned VOTF (see Figure 1) and the
abuse crisis itself. Spikes in these plots helped direct our attention to particular moments and
events that may have held significance for a process model. We used these spikes in two ways.
First, we identified the event, action, or decision that was associated with the spike, and explored
whether and how it was represented across the four newspapers. Second, we included some of
these events in our specific questions to interviewees.
Table 2 contains excerpts from our timeline; entries were augmented with additional
information as we analyzed our other data sources. As our analysis proceeded, we added the
conceptual significance of each event for our process model.
-------------------------------------------------
Insert Table 2 About Here
-------------------------------------------------
Development of the process model. After constructing the case history, we read the
interview transcripts in full and consulted the VOTF archival material. The interviews were open
coded (Locke, 2001) for core themes. In all rounds of coding the interview data we named
incidents and observations with conceptual categories and then, using a constant comparative
method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), compared these categories between occurrences and across
interviews, refining the categories as we proceeded. We were interested both in how VOTF
emerged and what its members considered its central strategies and accomplishments. We
developed and explored the utility of several theoretical frames at this stage (Gutierrez, 2006).
Through interaction with reviewers and other readers we realized that our early frames were not
helping us to fully illuminate certain puzzles that we and others found interesting in our data,
which urged us to continue our theorizing (Locke, Golden-Biddle, & Feldman, 2008). In
particular, we were surprised by the extent to which VOTF members appeared to be devoted
17
members of the Church, and the degree to which they spoke of using practices and teachings of
the Church in their efforts to bring about change within it.
Secondary data became available from a 2004 survey and interview study of VOTF
(D‟Antonio & Pogorelc, 2007) which supported this observation about a strong relationship with
the Church. Compared to a nationwide sample of lay Catholics, VOTF members were more
likely to name the Church as the most important, or among the most important, parts of their
lives (62%, as opposed to 44%). VOTF members attended Mass more frequently (66% attended
weekly, compared to 34%), were more likely to be registered in a parish (85%, compared to
68%), and were more likely to have attended Catholic elementary schools (70%, compared to
49%) (D‟Antonio & Pogorelc, 2007).
We returned to our data to perform further rounds of coding and comparison, now focused on
understanding how interviewees portrayed their relationship with the Church, and how this
informed their change efforts. Our reading of the identification literature continued and we
iterated between the interview data and theory on the development, change, and consequences of
identification. New categories and themes emerged at this stage (for example, the importance to
members of differentiating between Church doctrine and Church governance in their calls for
change), and previously identified categories were seen in new light (for example, the use of the
institution‟s own language was both strategic and expressive). The idea of splitting identification
offered an overall process that tied together the themes that had emerged. VOTF members
neither fully broke their attachment to the Church (deidentification), nor were fully in opposition
to it (disidentification). Instead, they appeared to need to remain identified but also needed to
alter their attachment as a result of what the crisis revealed. We returned to the data once again to
elaborate mechanisms associated with this splitting, and relate these to the evolution of VOTF
18
and its context that we had initially developed. At this stage, we named our categories at a level
of abstraction that supported a more generalizable process model (Glaser & Strauss, 1967;
Locke, 2001). As we wrote up our analysis we theorized possible alternative pathways (see
column three in Table 2) at various points in time, to remind ourselves that the unfolding process
was not simply deterministic and to add to its generalizability to other settings.
Split Identification and its Role in Shaping a Change Effort
Our analyses revealed three main processes. First, early members crafted a split identification
with the Church by discerning their relationship with its normative elements (Church teachings,
beliefs and practices) from their relationship with its organizational elements (governance
structure and activities of members of the Church hierarchy). Second, working as an emergent
reform group, they continued to encourage splitting of identification as a short-term coping
mechanism, while attempting to restore identification by seeking to repair some organizational
practices. When the Church hierarchy resisted these efforts, VOTF worked to sustain its
members’ split identification in the face of an apparently irreparable split, which shaped a more
permanent, and more radicalized, reform effort. Figure 2 summarizes the main processes and
notes underlying mechanisms that contributed to them, which we describe in detail below.
-----------------------------------------------
Insert Figure 2 About Here
-----------------------------------------------
The figure depicts the institution of the Church, the target of identification, initially as a solid
circle to the left of the figure. The crisis of the abuse revelations triggered the three process just
mentioned, and the figure depicts an accompanying split of the target of identification into
normative (solid circle) and organizational (dotted circle) elements. As the reform group
emerges, it is depicted first as a dashed grey circle and then as a solid grey circle, representing
the emergence and establishment of the VOTF organization as a third potential target of
19
identification for lay Catholics. The overlap of the circles roughly represents the relative
intensity of identification with different targets (Bergami & Bagozzi, 2000) capturing visually
the unfolding identification. Before discussing each process and its underlying mechanisms in
detail, we describe the immediate aftermath of the abuse revelations and the early emergence of
VOTF. The founding conditions are critical to understanding how the later processes unfold.
The Crisis and its Aftermath
Following the initial abuse revelations in The Boston Globe, new allegations against priests
and new evidence of the cover-up appeared almost daily. Three weeks after the first articles,
evidence was published showing that claims involving 200 victims had been settled quietly in the
Archdiocese in the prior 10 years (Robinson, 2002). The response from the Catholic community
and the community at large was one of shock, anger, and disbelief. A Catholic commenting on
the news coverage observed, “when you thought you had heard the worst there was more… It
just kept hurting, for weeks and months” (D‟Antonio & Pogorelc, 2007: 12).
The VOTF members we interviewed recalled similar feelings of pain, and of anger, betrayal,
and shock. One interviewee remembered: “I really was in such a whirl of disbelief and denial, …
many people felt the same way, that they just didn‟t want to believe that this was happening.”
Other interviewees described visceral responses, using the terms “horrifying,” “sickening,” or
“like being punched in the stomach.” One recalled:
“People were angry with the Church, they were angry with Cardinal Law and the other
bishops for having let this happen. So much sexual abuse, so much injury to children.
You can‟t make this pretty.” (interview)
A VOTF co-founder later summed up the experience as “the „Catholic Watergate experience,‟
the betrayal of something fundamental that we deeply treasured.” (Murnion Lecture, 2005: 2).
Often, an event that disrupts identification and produces “felt pain and disequilibrium” is
followed by deidentification, the significant weakening or breaking of ties between an individual
20
and entity (Fiol, 2002: 659). This possible path was taken by a number of Catholics. The Boston
Archdiocese‟s own numbers indicated a 14% drop in Church attendance, and a Gallup poll
showed an 11% drop nationwide (Pfeiffer, 2003), from 2001 to 2002. This path was not possible
for those laity who eventually chose to join VOTF. They described themselves in our interviews
and in news articles as “concerned Catholics,” “Catholics looking for solutions,” or “Catholics
who want to help,” continuing to affirm their identity as Catholics. An interviewee described the
early days of VOTF as “a movement of the Spirit” and expressed her need to remain in the
Church, using language distinct to Catholicism, such as sacraments (valued rituals that confer
spiritual benefits) and specifically the Eucharist (receiving communion during a Catholic Mass):
“[I] recognized the sacramental, Eucharistic difference that made me Catholic and … I
needed that for sustenance. I needed that for my soul, I needed that for my life. I think
that is a connection that so many of us in Voice of the Faithful feel. … It‟s not a matter
of just shedding it off, putting on another coat. It‟s so deep within.”
At the same time, these Catholics were facing others who questioned their continued
identification with an institution that was so visibly being held to account for the shameful acts
of some of its members. Like other settings where an organization‟s unfavorable image confers
negative attributes on its members (e.g., the New York Port Authority facing homelessness in its
facilities, or Exxon following the Valdez accident, see Dukerich et al., 1994), interviewees spoke
of being asked “why do you stay?” Defending an institution where the degree of transgression
and its apparent pervasiveness is high will generally be more difficult because of the “more
stigmatizing labels and punitive responses” applied by outsiders (Harrison et al., 2008: 54). One
interviewee recalled, “I felt great shame in those days,” but went on to explain that participating
in VOTF enabled her to say, “yeah, we‟ve got a Church that‟s fallen, but we‟re talking about it.
And I‟m part of that.” These individuals, for whom denial, defense, or deidentification were
unsatisfactory responses, converted the pain of the revelations into “emotional fuel,” as one
21
interviewee described it. The shared pain from the public scrutiny brought them together.
Though upset with the Church, the Church also offered a natural gathering place.
The earliest moments of VOTF‟s existence were simply discussion groups, conducted in a
church in the Boston suburb of Wellesley, and with the priest‟s approval. Co-founder Jim Muller
recounted that stillness followed his opening of the first discussion group, until:
“The quiet voice of a woman broke the silence…She started sobbing audibly, and as
she did so she said: „I don‟t know what to tell my children...‟ There was a stunned
silence … for she seemed to embody it all – the overwhelming emotion of it, the
confusion, the terrible hurt.” (Muller & Kenney, 2004: 19)
They began to meet each Monday, opening the meeting with a prayer, followed by introductions,
comments on the crisis, and a closing prayer. “We started as a group of heartbroken people who
needed to talk,” observed one attendee (Boston Globe 2/8/02). “Part of the magic in the early
days, [was that] people could say anything [they] wanted to. And that‟s what it was, literally
listening to the voices of the faithful,” recalled one interviewee.
Several others noted the importance of finding support from fellow Catholics at a time of
crisis. One interviewee recalled that “I was happy to get it off my chest and hear other people felt
just as strongly as I did.” While emotional responses dominated the early discussion groups,
conversation quite quickly moved to explore ways to help. One noted, that, “There was this need
to continue, so we did… we continued to share our feelings and our emotions as the Globe
revealed every day what was happening and then it came time to [ask] – OK, what are we going
to do about it?” Another recalled that:
“It was spreading like wildfire, that you could come to St. John‟s [Church in Wellesley]
and you could state your piece, say what you needed to say… That‟s how Voice of the
Faithful really got off the ground. It was an early, unspoken sentiment that we needed to
do something. It wasn‟t just about venting. That we wanted to do whatever it would
take to make sure this would never happen again.” (interview)
22
Crafting a Split Identification
VOTF‟s early discussion groups initiated two mechanisms by which the overall process
advanced. First, through their conversations in early meetings, attendees started to problematize
the nature of their identification with the Church and began to envision an alternative. Second,
they actively discerned the normative from the organizational aspects of the Church and asserted
that the abuse and cover-up stemmed from organizational failings. Together these mechanisms
led early participants to „split‟ their identification with the Church, allowing them to remain
identified with the normative aspects and loyal to the those in the hierarchy who they saw as
innocent and unfairly tainted by events, but to disidentify with organizational practices that, in
their view, had lead to the crisis. This split was an intendedly temporary solution to help highly
identified lay people cope with the crisis; by envisioning an alternative way of identifying, and
parsing the failings as organizational and therefore subject to correction, the move to split
identification already anticipated the possibility of repair.
Problematizing the nature of identification. As they made sense of the abuse revelations,
individuals in the early meetings began to label their relationship with the Church as „passive,‟
contrast this with alternatives, and assert that their passivity partly contributed to the crisis. One
interviewee recalled the early meetings when:
“You‟d have 700 people come … and they would break into smaller groups, [to
discuss] … different issues [including] how could this happen within the structure of the
Church? And we discovered that we had all been rather blindly following leaders in the
Church with a blind trust … [otherwise] it would not be possible that this could take
place, certainly not to the extent that it had taken place.”
This characterization was pervasive in our interviewees‟ accounts, VOTF‟s statements in the
media, and their own internal documents. While trust in the Church leadership may once have
been consistent with devotion to the Church‟s principles, the abuse and its cover-up had revealed
blind trust to be problematic. One interviewee remarked, “the average, everyday Catholic … has
23
just „Yes-Fathered‟ their whole life and hasn‟t thought for themselves.” Another noted, “you
show up at Church, you write a check, and you go home…And so for generations, we‟ve been
trained, in a way, in acquiescence, „Father knows best‟.” Some bemoaned “a distance between
[their] secular lives and faith lives” with one observing:
“Many Catholics have adopted what I call the „yes, Father,‟ … attitude, even though in
their professional lives … their attitude is „I‟m going to speak my piece,‟ „I‟m going to
advocate the issues that I think should be advocated.‟” (interview)
Early VOTF members envisioned a relationship with the Church described by interviewees as
“active,” “energetic,” and “empowered,” but also “moderate,” and “challenging but not radical.”
They envisioned lay people gaining a “seat at the table,” “speaking truth to power,” and
exercising responsibility as “adult laity.” One member quoted in VOTF‟s 2002 Annual Report
noted “the structure I had so devoted so much of my time and energy to” offered “ [no] room for
me to participate fully as an adult in terms of ideas, influence, and decision-making.”
By problematizing what they labeled as a passive way of identifying with the Church, and
specifically with its leadership and governance, and articulating an alternative, founders and
early members of VOTF could portray themselves as helpful insiders. One interviewee noted
“We love the Church. We want to be part of the change. Being part of the change means being
more active than just paying, praying and obeying.”
Discerning normative from organizational aspects of target of identification. Early members
of VOTF redefined what they meant by „loving the Church‟ by deliberately discerning the
Church‟s teachings and beliefs from its governance. In their discussions about the abuse, they
settled within weeks on the structure and culture of the Church‟s hierarchical governance as „root
causes.‟ In the words of one interviewee, “clearly, it‟s …the victims that got us to our feet… but
we realize that the victims are just symptomatic of the flaws that exist in the structure of the
Church.” Others spoke of the “clerical culture” and “culture of secrecy” surrounding the
24
operations of the Church hierarchy. One interviewee noted that “we knew we needed to go one
step beyond… that at the heart of the sexual abuse scandal was this clerical culture and the
structures, formal and informal, of secrecy and lack of transparency.”
Members articulated the organizational failings very specifically, commenting in interviews
that “the abuse scandal reflected some basic flaws in the way the Church is governed,” and
critiquing “structures of governance that have not served the Church in the U.S. well.” In
particular, early members asserted that the management of the Church had been inconsistent with
central normative elements of its identity. One observed that “the sexual abuse crisis was the
product of … a Church that wasn‟t operating as it should, and certainly was not grounded in
gospel values of justice, mercy, inclusion.” Another argued that VOTF emerged from:
“a hunger for a Church that we know is what Jesus would want… It‟s a Church that
would be inclusive, that would be transparent, would be accountable, fair and just. A
Church that would not hurt little children, a Church that would not lie to the people who
are members of it. … We are not dealing with doctrinal issues. … We are dealing with
how the organization is run, the governance and guidance of the Church.”
Separating the target of identification – the Church – by discerning its normative elements
(the beliefs, teachings, and practices of the faith) from its organizational elements (the
hierarchical management) enabled members to craft a split identification, best captured in the
motto “Keep the Faith, Change the Church,” through which they could remain identified as
Catholics but disidentify with the organizational failings that gave rise to the abuse. This
discernment was formalized in the group‟s mission statement, goals, and statement of beliefs
(see Table 3).
-------------------------------------------------
Insert Table 3 About Here
-------------------------------------------------
Together these documents served as sensegiving vehicles, as they offered a language that
enabled early members – and potential members – to craft a split identification with the Church.
25
For example, members‟ identification with the normative aspects was affirmed in the reference
to a “prayerful voice,” (mission statement) and recognition of their “love and support” for the
Church and its teachings (statement of beliefs). Their disidentification with the hierarchy was
selective. The second goal, “to support priests of integrity,” enabled them to continue to honor
the normative aspects of the priesthood, that priests answer a spiritual calling, perform valued
rituals, and provide spiritual guidance, but emphasize that members would be guided by their
faith, not by blind deference to any authority figure in the Church. The alternative form of
identification to replace the problematic one was captured in the mission statement portion
calling for “the Faithful [to] actively participate in the governance and guidance of the Catholic
Church,” and the third goal calling for “shap[ing] structural change within the Church.” In the
words of one interviewee: “[Goal three] means that we want to work to break down the kind of
structures that allowed the abuse to occur… the secrecy, the lack of transparency.” This third
goal captured the emerging group‟s vision for change and opened the possibility that they could
suture back together the normative aspects of the Church and a governance structure that
fulfilled, rather than subverted, them.
As VOTF shared this message through its website, the press, and at its meetings, it offered a
way for lay people to join VOTF and engage in the change effort, yet retain their identification
with the normative aspects of the Church. The 2002 Annual Report stated that “We encourage all
Catholics who care about the Church to join Voice of the Faithful and fulfill our baptismal right
to „actively participate in the governance and guidance of the Catholic Church‟.” The importance
of crafting of a split identification to recruiting was reflected in one member‟s comment that she
was “always keenly interested in encouraging [her] more traditional friends… [who] didn‟t want
to question authority, and yet it was authority that had let us down.” Another member who had
26
been reluctant to join recalled admiring the group early on but “didn‟t want to be part of it at that
point… I‟m not by nature a rabble-rouser, I‟ve never been a protester.” She went on to say:
“I had read enough about … Voice of the Faithful … saying „we are faithful Catholics,‟
„we are not seeking to overturn the Church,‟ „we want to make it whole again,‟ … and I
thought, I believe all those things, I‟m all of those things. I‟m a faithful Catholic, I‟m
not seeking to overturn the Church, I love the Church and I want it to remain a healthy,
spiritual entity, and if this is how I can do it, I want to be part of it.” (interview)
The goals, mission statement, and statement of beliefs also served to frame the group‟s
collective identity to outsiders (the media and the public at large) and insiders (the Church
hierarchy and other laity). In the absence of articulating a split identification as viable (and even
necessary) for its members, the group would likely have had a harder time gaining acceptance.
An active laity could otherwise be seen as attacking Church governance and doctrine and be
labeled as dissenters. “From the beginning,” noted one interviewee, “the purpose has been not to
espouse a particular doctrinal change, but simply to speak up for the rights of the laity to
participate in their own religion.” Another interviewee noted that distinction was “a very critical
separation … because we‟re not dealing with the matters of our faith.” Many others saw this as
an important difference between VOTF and other reform groups. One stated:
“We‟ve presented a face of lay Catholicism that challenges the institutional hierarchy
without being a voice of dissent. And that‟s important, because prior to 2002, the image
of Catholics were either very conservative [ones] who supported the hierarchy no matter
what they did, or … people who … really want to change the doctrine of the Church.”
Secondary data support these claims. While a large fraction of VOTF leaders and members
were very involved in their parishes (76% of VOTF leaders and 37% of VOTF members served
on parish councils), a much smaller proportion (20% or less) had participated in reformist
Catholic social movements that sought to alter Church positions on women‟s ordination,
homosexuality, and other issues (D‟Antonio & Pogorelc, 2007). VOTF actively sought to
distance itself from other „radical‟ groups (Hines, 2007), and from its founding had refused to
take positions on controversial issues such as women‟s ordination.
27
In sum, crafting a split identification arose as a collective response. Church members
articulated it as a way to cope with and respond to a crisis. Split identification enabled
individuals to hang on to a high level of identification with an institution by clearly
distinguishing what parts of it merited ongoing, and even enhanced, devotion and what parts
required re-examination and change. Leaders sometimes provide “mediatory myths” to reconcile
apparent inconsistencies between an institution‟s espoused values and how it behaves
(Abravanel, 1983; Pratt & Foreman, 2000). In our case, highly identified followers came up with
their own story to mediate their devotion to and horror at their institution. Split identification
generated ideas about change. Problematizing aspects of the original nature of identification
allowed VOTF members to envision a new way of identifying that would knit back together the
split and renew identification with the organizational structure and their place within it. It
enabled them to become part of the solution in an embattled institution; without a more active
role for laity, the split as articulated by VOTF was irreparable.
Attempting to Repair Split Identification
Once they had carefully articulated a split identification, the emergent group deliberately set
about to repair the split. Two mechanisms drove the repair process. First, the group‟s members
engaged in practices that enabled them to continue to identify with valued normative aspects of
the Church, yet also signal their more active lay stance. Second, they discovered and deployed
normative support (in the form of Church teachings and policies) to help them present the
desired organizational changes as legitimate. They used Church texts and teachings to “frame”
their efforts to themselves and potential new members as plausibly loyal. Framing processes are
“collective processes of interpretation” (McAdam, McCarthy & Zald, 1996:2) that inspire action
inasmuch as they are resonant with beliefs and values (Snow & Benford, 1988). Framing
processes provide a legitimated way to speak to the audience for proposed remedies, in this case
28
the Bishops and Church hierarchy (Gamson 1992; Polletta & Jasper, 2001). Together the two
mechanisms – affirming positive aspects of identification and framing a change as legitimate –
redeployed institutional practices and knowledge in service of a change effort, but did so in a
way that drew upon members‟ very identification with the institution.
Engaging in practices that affirm positive aspects of identification. When asked in our
interviews about how they sought to make change, members and founders of VOTF consistently
spoke of drawing on the resources of their faith, which included prayer. The importance of
prayer to VOTF‟s change efforts can be seen in the fact that one of its six Working Groups is
entitled “Prayerful Voice.” One member of this working group noted that, “[our] vocation is to
make sure that we remain centered in prayer and that we do not lose our Catholic identity as we
organize.” The website page for this group notes that “daily communal prayer is foundational to
our tradition.” A VOTF prayer was displayed prominently on the group‟s first Annual Report.
One member observed, “we pray it and we believe it.” One interviewee who was not a VOTF
member suggested that prayer was an antidote to some of the group‟s difficult discussions, but
concluded that it was largely an expression of “who they were.”
While rarely described in the organizational literature, „tapping spiritual resources‟ has been
seen as source of energy for renewing and managing a sense of self in a religious setting (Kreiner
et al., 2006). Here we see it serving a similar purpose, particularly when individuals were
depleted by the emotional toll of the events. One interviewee recalled, “it was so important for
us to be a healing element in the situation…. I think it was essential that we pray together.”
Another observed that they prayed because it “reaffirm[ed] the identity of who [we] are as
Catholic laypeople. And … in doing that, [it] reminds everybody that that‟s what brings us
together. So we may have other business, but this is what brought us together.”
29
In addition to enabling members to affirm their identification with normative aspects of the
Church, prayer was recognized as a source of energy for VOTF‟s change effort. The website
noted, “we acknowledge the need for more prayer, to keep us … united and in communion with
the Spirit that energizes and supports each of us in this important work.” One interviewee noted
that prayer guided members in their decision making, and kept them open to possibility:
“It‟s so easy for us to think we have the right answers. If we don‟t have that openness to
begin with, we can so easily go down a blind alley. So … prayer… [has] got to be the
starting point.”
Another explained that “when [we] talk about a prayerful voice … it‟s not a picture of a kid
kneeling down and reciting the rosary, it‟s a picture of an adult thinking hard about and asking
for some kind of inspiration to think about … guiding this institution.”
While primarily affirming and expressive, prayer could also be seen as serving strategic
purposes for the group. First, it signaled the group‟s legitimacy to external audiences. One
interviewee observed that “it‟s very important that we never forget that we are rooted in prayer,
and that we also seem to be rooted in prayer.” Another noted how “prayer [is] central... There is
no concession to any radical belief at all. We are absolutely mainstream and centrist, and we call
ourselves that.” The group‟s use of this practice, however, was both traditional (engaging in
prayer individually and in groups), and non-traditional, as they began to engage it in a way that
circumvented normal involvement of the Church hierarchy. One notable example was the first
VOTF convention which established the group‟s practice of celebrating Mass at their large
gatherings. VOTF leaders questioned whether to include a Mass or simply a prayer service but
they settled on a Mass, because, one noted, it is “central to the practice of our faith.”
This Mass and others held later signaled that the laity could engage directly in Church
practices and, by implication, that the hierarchy had not adequately fulfilled its role (Mass was
not typically organized by lay people, representing a departure from organizational practices,
30
although in this and other cases it was celebrated (led) by priests who were allies of the group, in
adherence with Church doctrine). One interviewee observed, “the Mass was for healing in the
Archdiocese of Boston, for survivors and their families, for the Church that was so fractured, for
the pain that came with what [Cardinal] Law did.” A second example of enacting core practices
without hierarchical involvement or sanction is seen in VOTF‟s choice to accept donations to a
“Voice of Compassion fund” from lay people who no longer felt comfortable donating to their
parish. After the Archdiocese declined to accept money from the fund, Catholic Charities
accepted it directly. One VOTF member recalled “I was proud of Catholic Charities, and I was
proud of us, because I think it highlighted … our intentions … to be about taking care of the
neediest amongst us, the genuine job of the Catholic Church.”
Discovering and deploying normative support to legitimate desired changes. In addition to
prayer, a second main theme that pervaded our interviews was the use of education to inform lay
people about Church structures and ways in which they might be involved in Church
governance. For example, when asked what was the most effective way to bring about change,
one interviewee answered, “an organized and educated laity… and it would have to be grounded
in gospel values.” Connecting education to the normative elements of the Church was critical to
VOTF‟s efforts. The group drew on the Church‟s own texts, teachings, and policy (Canon law)
in order to frame and justify the changes they sought.
Very early in the group‟s existence, VOTF founders and members began to educate
themselves very specifically about Church structure and governance. One founder recounted how
they developed study programs around the third goal (structural change) which included
“learn[ing] about Canon law, lots of consultations with specialists in Church structures, and
[finding out] what had happened during Vatican II.” Convened during 1962-65, Vatican II is
31
regarded as a watershed event in the history of the Church (Dillon, 2007) which produced a
number of influential texts and sought to reconcile Church teachings with contemporary social
trends. VOTF used direct quotes from Vatican II documents to lend credence to their claims that
the laity have the right to be involved in issues of Church governance. Through its website, the
Voice of Renewal/Lay Education Working Group, and its parish affiliate network, VOTF
presented excerpts from these documents so that individuals could decide whether a more active
laity was consistent with Church principles.
Knowledge of Canon law, governance structures, and Vatican II texts helped the group to
devise some strategies for approaching the hierarchy, some of which they brought to bear later,
once rebuffed. For example, in countering Cardinal Law‟s imposed ban on VOTF gatherings at
Churches (see Table 2 and further discussion in next section), the group wrote to the regional
Bishop and cited a specific Canon law that would recognize them as a valid association. This
approach “just knocked the legs out from under that argument that somehow we were an
improper association” recalled one interviewee, adding that “the only way you can challenge
them is to know what the real law says, and we did.”
In addition to discovering and deploying this normative support for their substantive claims,
the group also saw education as a way to awaken members to what was needed to repair their
split identification. Repair would only come about, according to VOTF, if individuals restored
their relationship with the hierarchy to one that was more consistent with the normative
expressions of the Church. Education was deployed by VOTF as both a sensebreaking vehicle –
encouraging laity to question their relationship with the Church – and a sensegiving vehicle –
enabling them to discover an alternative. Sensebreaking is demonstrated in the comments of
32
several interviewees. One noted that “[it] is very clear [that] Catholics need to … have a more
adult-adult relationship with the bishops and priests, rather than this child relationship,” and:
“Part of that is understanding that it‟s not immoral for Catholics to gather to talk about
where the Church should go .…That‟s actually not exactly Church teaching. Now,
maybe that‟s what the Church practices, but you can‟t find that in Canon law. You
actually can‟t find that in Vatican II. It‟s certainly not in Jesus‟ teachings.”
Another asserted that “education is the vehicle for asking the hard questions about the Church as
a modern institution,” explaining that:
“It‟s an institution that is so encrusted with characteristics that are not divine, they‟re
very much man-made, and people don‟t know how to even ask the question of where
does one stop and the other one begin.”
As a sensegiving tool, education was recognized as a practice congruent with lay people‟s
identification with the Church, and therefore a valid way to engage those who would reject more
confrontational approaches. One interviewee suggested:
“I‟m not going to get you to come and stand in a picket line, necessarily. But you might
be interested in knowing more about spiritual practices. … You might be interested in
knowing what our theology is telling [us].”
Each of the processes involved in attempting to repair identification were to some degree both
affirming of valued aspects of members‟ identification and generative of a change effort. Even
prayer, which appears primarily affirmational, was deployed as a vehicle for energizing and
guiding individuals in their change efforts. Education most directly informed a change agenda,
yet was also regarded as a way to engage individuals around their identification with normative
aspects of the Church and motivate them to participate in the change effort. VOTF‟s use of
prayer and education should not be regarded as purely or even primarily instrumental, however.
These were institutional elements that resonated deeply with the group‟s members precisely
because they were highly identified, engaged Catholics. Scholars of social movements have
noted the importance of identity affirming practices for their expressive, not simply instrumental,
value:
33
“Models of strategic choice that had movement leaders selecting among strategies,
tactics, and organizational forms by instrumentally assessing environmental
opportunities and constraints missed the fact that strategic options may also be
intrinsically appealing. They reflect what we believe, what we are comfortable with,
what we like, who we are” (Polletta & Jasper, 2001: 284).
Approaches to repairing a split identification may be selected because they are comforting and
familiar. Using prayer may have come across as tactically clever, but in this case, it was more
accidentally than prospectively strategic. Its affirmational appeal and connection to the core of
lay people‟s identification with the Church gave it value in this setting. One member explained:
“We feel we are most authentically Catholic Christians at the Eucharist. It was an
amazing spiritual experience [referring to the Mass at the first convention]. And it‟s the
best of who we are.”
At this point in VOTF‟s existence, its claims towards change were small and centered on how
the organization was supporting and enabling lay people to make sense of their attachment to the
Church following the crisis. The President‟s letter in VOTF‟s first Annual Report stated, “this
year, VOTF helped laypersons ask what it means to be Catholic, to be active members of the
Church” (VOTF 2003: 1). One interviewee said, “I don‟t even think of us as an advocacy
organization right now. I think we‟re creating a leadership model for lay Catholics to grow up.”
This approach was the foundation for repairing the articulated split in identification, even if it
was less specific about strategies that would advance the group‟s three goals.
Sustaining Split Identification
An early response from Church authorities that acknowledged the nature of VOTF members‟
identification with the Church and accepted their offers to help might have enabled a restoration
of the split. Targets of identification may offer, through sensegiving efforts, an „identity echo‟
that can affirm an individual‟s sense of self (Ashforth et al., 2008: 343). Such a response was not
forthcoming, and the „echo‟ disputed rather than affirmed VOTF‟s proposed way of relating to
the Church, triggering for some a second crisis of identification. This lead to the split
34
identification being sustained rather than repaired. We found two mechanisms important to
sustaining split identification. First, the group used the rebuff from Church authorities to justify
maintaining a split identification and engaging in new approaches. Second, it sought out and
articulated voids in the Church hierarchy‟s sensegiving to lay members, thereby expanding the
range of issues on which it exercised a voice. Both of these approaches contributed to VOTF
taking on a more permanent existence, a condition not foreseen by its founders. The group itself
became a more permanent target for identification, rather than a temporary vehicle through
which a split identification could be crafted and repaired. One member said of VOTF:
“I guess in a way, it‟s part of my religion at this point. If it wasn‟t there ... I think I
would have a hard time just continuing in the Church, because I still don‟t see a lot of
change as far as accepting laypeople and their role.”
Using the response to justify sustaining a split identification and adopting new approaches.
The splitting of identification happened in a context and triggered responses from that context.
VOTF had identified the highest figure in the Boston Archdiocese, Cardinal Law, and Bishops in
other Archdioceses, as its immediate audience and hoped to be accepted as helpful. One
interviewee recalled, “when we first started, we thought we were going to be welcomed with
open arms, like „here are the people who have stayed‟.” However, the Church hierarchy made no
public comment about VOTF during its first five months of existence. The first public
communication was largely critical and came immediately following the group‟s first
conference, which attracted 4,200 Catholics from the U.S. and seven other countries to Boston in
July 2002. Our interviewees all pointed to the conference as the pivotal event that cemented the
group‟s sense of itself, and elevated it to a prominent voice in the media coverage of the crisis
(see Figure 1). An editorial in The Pilot, the Archdiocese‟s official newspaper, was openly
critical of several speakers, noting that:
35
“The July 20th Voice of The Faithful (VOTF) Conference confirmed our worst fears.
Overriding an initial „mainstream‟ position on Church issues, keynote speakers derided
the hierarchical structure of the Church, calling it a “medieval monarchical model;”
[and] asserted the need to „democratize‟ the Church...” (Pilot 7/26/02: 10)
Further critical reactions followed, including the ban on groups meeting on Church property,
mentioned earlier. One member commenting on the mobilization of people and interest around
the first conference observed that “our success was also the source of [tension]... it produced this
very defensive behavior by the Bishop… we were seen as adversaries for sure at that point.”
Despite this reaction, VOTF continued its efforts to meet with Cardinal Law. A meeting was
finally granted in November 2002 and, as one interviewee recalled,
“…on the positive side [it was] a recognition of our legitimacy as an organization, that
the laity could have this separate voice, and that Cardinal Law had to at least pay lip
service to it.... But the outcome of it was just this continual dismissiveness towards us.”
Another interviewee noted the meeting showed up stark differences between how they saw
themselves and how the hierarchy saw them: “It became very clear that they felt they were
meeting with the enemy and we thought we were meeting with our good Shepherd.” Even while
the group continued to deploy its knowledge of Canon Law, as mentioned, to bolster their
substantive claims, there was a qualitative shift in how members expressed their relationship
with members of the Church leadership. One interviewee recalled the pain of being banned from
meeting on Church property,
“You can imagine what it meant to be banned…we were this faithful remnant…And the
Church threw the word „dissident‟ at us, and other Catholics threw the word “dissident”
… of all the words.”
Another observed “to be seen as a dissenter, and confronting, is very difficult… It‟s not us
against them. They set us up as „them‟ and „us‟.” Being labeled as dissidents appeared to drive
VOTF members to alter their tactics. They became progressively disenchanted with the
hierarchy‟s unwillingness to affirm their identification and accept their help. One interviewee
36
recalled an encounter with Cardinal Law that led her to conclude “You can‟t be our shepherd
anymore. …. You don‟t know the flock that you‟re supposed to lead.” Another noted:
“Eventually it evolved that we felt that it was no longer important to meet with the
Bishop. That we had been marginalized, … and that we had other work to do.”
No longer expecting that the group would be welcomed as helpful insiders, members began to
find and use alternative channels to convey their message. A founder reflected:
“I think that at first we thought that … if we protested and insisted on change, that
somehow it would happen… Now, we‟ve discovered that the Bishops are not going to
change .... [Now our strategy] has to be direct action.”
VOTF‟s actions became increasingly directed through the media, and its voice increasingly
sought by the media, shifting it into a spokesperson for lay concerns through this channel, rather
than a voice of direct advice to the hierarchy. As shown in Figure 1, VOTF‟s media presence
spiked noticeably around major events that followed from the initial abuse allegations.
Commenting on Cardinal Law‟s resignation in December 2002, VOTF‟s then-President recalled:
“I did 28 media interviews that day plus a major press conference out in the parking lot.
… We were in every major newspaper, we were on every major media outlet, not just in
the United States, but also around the world.”
This “media turn,” as one interviewee put it, is best illustrated by VOTF‟s actions following the
release of the Church‟s National Review Board report early in 2004. The report documented over
10,000 abuse cases nationwide between 1950 and 2002 (NY Times, 2/27/04). VOTF published a
full-page ad in The New York Times that read, “Our trust had been violated. But not our faith
….add your voice to the Voice of the Faithful. It‟s time to return responsibility to Catholicism.”
The ad included three petitions, addressed directly to the Pope, to demand a papal meeting be
held with victims, bishops be held responsible, and details of the transfer of accused priests be
disclosed (2/29/04). An interviewee noted that the ad “brought tremendous attention, national
television exposure, and lots of discussion about Voice of the Faithful action.”
37
As they were expanding their voice through the media, VOTF also renewed its effort to make
change at the local parish level by encouraging the formation of affiliates and continuing to
provide them with training and education materials. Many interviewees spoke of putting in place
the representative parish councils called for in Vatican II and encouraging lay people to ask their
parish leadership for transparency on financial, personnel, and other issues. One noted that this
approach made the enormity of the third goal seem possible:
“Change the Church, uh-uh. Ain‟t gonna happen. Let‟s say, ok, let‟s make sure every
parish has an effective pastoral council where people can feel that their voice is heard.
Begin with the simple steps.”
This local engagement may also have reflected the reality that VOTF remained relatively small.
Debate around a mass membership versus local affiliate strategy had been ongoing within the
group, according to those we interviewed. The parish affiliate approach appeared to accept that,
even as they were exercising a national media voice, the group saw limits in their vision of an
active laity. One interviewee expressed his opinion that mass mobilization is “not the reality in
Catholicism,” saying:
“Catholics don‟t come out. If everything we know today about the number of priests
who raped kids, about the number of kids who were raped by priests, if all that …
hasn‟t brought every Catholic out into the streets, nothing will. Nothing …So there‟s no
such thing as getting millions of Catholics to do anything, except maybe write checks.”
While the crisis had seemed initially to demand rapid, discontinuous response, VOTF leaders
began to accept both that change would be gradual and incremental and that VOTF would
become a more permanent entity in stewarding the calls for change.
Articulating sensegiving voids created by the original target of identification. VOTF also
became more direct in pointing to voids in the Church‟s efforts to manage its members‟
identification. One member reflected on the meeting with Cardinal Law, saying:
“Fine, we met with the Cardinal. But …there was no acknowledgement of our value.
There was no acknowledgement of the fact that we were providing something for laity
38
in a time when they weren‟t doing [it], when they certainly were not providing any
solace, not only to survivors but also the laity in this Archdiocese.”
The group more directly signaled their dissatisfaction with the hierarchy‟s engagement with
lay people. This shift is illustrated in the way group members spoke of their decision to hold
Mass outside on the Boston Common in 2004 when a number of parish Churches were slated for
closing, one financial repercussion of the crisis. In contrast to the first Mass held in 2002 which
had been largely motivated by a need to heal and bring Catholics together, this Mass conveyed
VOTF‟s independence. “Having it outside was symbolic of the fact that the Church is built on
living stones,” noted one interviewee, “you can take our buildings away from us, but the Church
still stands.” Another explained:
“Why on the Common? Because the Pope was the only other one who had organized a
Mass on the Common. Because it would demonstrate very clearly that we … are [the]
Church, whether the Bishop is there or not. So it was a symbolic choice as well as a
practical, demonstrative choice.”
Issues like the Church closings connected to the founding concern of VOTF, because the
public, press, and many Catholics attributed them to the financial pressures that arose from
expensive settlements with abuse victims. But such issues also went beyond its self-defined
mandate, raising questions about its claims to have specific and bounded goals.
To counter concerns that the group was losing its original emphasis, VOTF‟s leadership
issued a renewed “Statement of Identity” in 2007 that states: “affirming their responsibility for
the good of the Church, VOTF members continue to offer their experience of faith and their
competencies in the Church” (VOTF website). The group continued to try to strike a middle
ground among members. One interviewee noted, “for a lot of people, …we‟re not going far
enough, we‟re not loud enough, we‟re not angry enough.” Another suggested that “I think we
stay on message and I think now, I think we‟re recognized for that message.”
39
Leaders interviewed in 2008 shared one of the group‟s struggles that reflect its founding in
identification. An internal study had been conducted to develop a position on priest celibacy, an
issue not originally in VOTF‟s domain. A celibate priesthood is often regarded as a fundamental,
normative aspect of the faith and some VOTF members felt this issue must remain untouchable.
Other members tied this issue to the group‟s goals of supporting abuse survivors and preventing
future abuse. A 2007 New York Times article quoted a VOTF Board member commenting on this
struggle, noting that, “The minute the word celibacy is in anything, it‟s going to be: „There they
go – they‟ve lost their center,‟ and other people will be saying „finally‟” (Belluck, 2007: 2).
Many groups seeking internal change have to balance pushing too hard with not pushing hard
enough (Meyerson & Scully, 1995). For VOTF, being born from members‟ strong identification,
rather than from an already skeptical position on the margins of an institution, gave this
challenge a particular cast. Although the lack of affirmation for their claimed identification
triggered the group to sustain its efforts, alter its tactics, and expand the issues on which it
exercised voice, their desire to remain identified also limited their ability to advance their work
through tactics like “issue bundling,” connecting an issue to others, (Dutton & Ashford, 1993) or
“frame extension,” moving beyond original issues and concerns, (Benford & Snow, 2000) found
to be successful in other change efforts. Even as their founding in identification imposed some
limits, it also gave them resources for managing potential internal rifts, which bedevil many
change efforts (e.g., Breiner, 2007), such as the shared commitment to prayer. An interviewee,
who was not a member of VOTF noted:
” [Prayer] was something that would resonate with the whole community … Some of
the discussions … became so vitriolic that prayer was sort of a counterbalance… I think
that [it] was very helpful to give expression to who they were, first and foremost.”
As of this writing, VOTF leaders remain focused on sustaining the group‟s work at the cusp of
loyalty and voice.
40
Discussion and Implications
In this section, we return to our opening puzzle about how individuals can remain identified
with and loyal to an entity by which they feel deeply betrayed. Following the sexual abuse
revelations, lay members of the Catholic Church experienced a mix of emotional reactions,
including anger, sadness, and betrayal. Those who chose to form and join VOTF channeled their
concerns and energies toward voice, rather than exit or quiet loyalty, and sought a legitimate
platform for change by drawing on the Church‟s own normative elements. By documenting an
effort where we saw both a split and attempt to repair identification, our analysis suggests that
highly identified members may be among the most – rather than the least – motivated and able
to engage in a change effort from within an organization or institution. In this section we expand
on the nature of split identification and consider its wider applicability, and then discuss
implications for the literature on change efforts within institutions and organizations as well as
implications for managers.
The Nature of Split Identification
Split identification arose in our study as a response to a crisis that revealed serious
organizational failings. Crafting a split identification enabled members to retain their high level
of identification with valued aspects of a target of identification while discerning other aspects
that were unworthy of continued identification and demanded repair. Our qualitative analysis
revealed three processes associated with splitting identification: crafting a split identification,
attempting to suture the split and repair identification, and finally, sustaining split identification
and attendant change efforts in the face of an apparently irreparable split.
Split identification differs from other constructs in the literature in several ways. First,
splitting identification highlights the processual nature of identification (Ashforth et al, 2008)
and the capacity (and need, in some cases) for individuals to recraft it from the bottom up.
41
Unlike resilient identification which can occasion defense of an organization in trouble, split
identification is actively crafted as a coping mechanism to retain identification yet not „blind
faith.‟ It builds on the constructs of ambivalent identification and schizo-identification,
characterized as states of mixed feelings about one‟s identification with an entity, (Dukerich et
al, 1998; Meyerson & Scully, 1995; Pratt 2000) by demonstrating one way that members may act
to resolve their ambivalence. In our case, potential ambivalence was triggered by a sudden crisis,
which caused confusion and pain for those who were highly identified. Splitting identification
offered a way out of confusion and pain, rather than constituting a problematic state, as schizo-
identification has been described (Dukerich et al, 1998). It reveals how members might move
from confusion to engaged activity, extending work that calls for identification to be regarded as
a “social accomplishment” of members who shape their own and others‟ identification with an
entity (Bartel & Dutton, 2001).
Second, the splitting of identification is a collective, cognitive, and partly emotional response
to circumstances that reveal a previously unarticulated, or perhaps inconsequential, distinction
within a target of identification. Conflict between multiple, existing loci of identification is often
managed by individual cognitive tactics, such as decoupling, ordering, or sequentially enacting
identities (see Ashforth and colleagues (2008) for a summary). Such strategies may be
inadequate to manage the disjunction that occasions a splitting of identification and the potential
birth of a change effort to restore it. The emotional dimensions of identification (Harquail, 1998;
Pratt, 2000) may be particularly salient in such situations. We discuss below boundary conditions
under which members may use splitting to sustain an intense identification.
Finally, split identification may evolve, in complex and unforeseen ways. A split need not be
resolved by any of a range of top-down processes (Pratt & Foreman, 2000), but its persistence
42
poses distinct challenges for those who craft it. Unsuccessful repair efforts may lead to ongoing
ambivalent identification, or an uneasy combination of identification and critical outspokeness.
Somewhat ironically, a group‟s limited success in accomplishing its original goals may solidify
the need for its ongoing existence. VOTF increasingly became a more permanent target for
identification, becoming meaningful to its members in its own right. This development led to
ongoing tension, as VOTF partly persisted because it mediated members‟ identification with the
original target, the Catholic Church, and partly inspired a new identification with VOTF‟s
increasingly critical push for change in the Catholic Church.
Boundary Conditions for Split Identification and Its Applicability in Other Settings
There are certain boundary conditions associated with crafting a split identification. First, split
identification relies on aspects of a target of identification being decomposable, that is,
individuals discern aspects of an entity with which they need to remain identified from those
from which they wish to disidentify. In the absence of decomposability of the target of
identification, exit, quiet loyalty, or radicalizing voice may be the only routes available, and their
combination would be hard to envision or enact. Further, one of the separable elements of a
target identification must be particularly valued, and beliefs associated with it seen as inviolable.
Normative aspects of an entity such as a professional code, a belief system, or a close-knit
community of practice may elicit such intense identification. For example, the professions have
an autonomous basis for normative attachment that crosscuts organizations; codes or standards
bind individuals to their profession and also provide a yardstick for measuring fulfillment of
espoused values by particular organizations. In such settings individuals may identify strongly
with the higher order, more encompassing professional identity and split identification might
arise if they disidentify with an organizational governance structure, an externally imposed set of
43
regulations, or a leadership style that fails to live up to the normative standards. Kellogg
(forthcoming) studied physicians‟ responses when a medical resident apparently made a fatal
medical error after a long shift and found that senior male physicians joined women doctors in
pushing their hospital administration to reduce long hours for residents. The senior male
physicians were motivated by how the tragic incident tainted their institution and their
professional norms („do no harm‟). They could be seen as crafting a split between their
identification with these norms and the organizational practices that had undermined them. In
contrast, the women physicians seized this political opportunity to advance their long-sought
cause of reduced work hours, in a manner akin to tempered radicalism (Meyerson & Scully,
1995). This example shows the importance of decomposability of normative and governance
elements for the crafting of a split identification. It also begins to show how splitting
identification differs from other processes of insider change agency, in that committed and
central insiders as well as more historically marginal members can become mobilized for change.
A second boundary condition for the splitting of identification is that individuals craft a
distinction from the bottom up. Others have drawn attention to how organizational arrangements
maintain a split between normative commitments and organizational practices through „loose
coupling‟ (Meyer & Rowan, 1977), or how leaders manage a split through „mediatory myths”
(Abranavel, 1983) that symbolically manage normative contradictions. Our case differs from
these because it shows how members themselves develop and articulate a split as a way of
coping with a revealed divergence between institutional norms and organizational practices.
Further, members use the crafting of a split as a call for reform, not as a façade to forestall
change. Importantly, crafting a split identification is a collective effort. A sense of conflict
44
between norms and practices must be both significant enough and sufficiently widely shared that
a number of individuals are compelled to articulate a split identification and seek its repair.
While the circumstances triggering the formation of VOTF are traumatic and extreme, there
are a number of other settings, including those within work organizations, in which the above
boundary conditions hold and the splitting of identification may be observed. For example,
teachers might identify strongly with their professional belief in providing equal educational
opportunities but disidentify with how regulations about standardized tests are implemented in
their schools (Hallett, forthcoming). Front line workers might identify with their company‟s
values but disidentify with leaders over a contentious issue. For example, workers at Pepsi
striking for wages to match Coca-Cola‟s described themselves as old-fashioned, loyal, hard-
working believers in the company seeking a slightly larger share of their beloved product‟s
success (Grow, 2000), thereby permitting them go on strike while simultaneously proclaiming
their loyalty. The Arthur Andersen case is another example of employees disidentifying with
certain leaders while proclaiming their identification with an organization described as having a
strong shared culture. When the company was collapsing under the weight of accounting cover-
ups, employees appeared at rallies chanting “I am Andersen” (Toffler & Reingold, 2003),
distancing themselves from the behavior of some within the firm while embracing their
attachment to the firm itself.
We focused on a split along normative versus governance lines, triggered by a particular issue
or jolt. Other splits may occur between potentially conflicting targets of identification, and arise
more emergently. A large body of work shows that individuals discern loci of identification
within and beyond their organizations, including identification with workgroups, divisions, and
occupations (see Ashforth et al, 2008). Some of these targets may nest within others (e.g., a
45
workgroup within a department) while others cross-cut (e.g., a union and a work organization)
(Ashforth & Johnson, 2001). The crafting of split identification in such circumstances may yield,
as in our case, new organizations or groups that mediate members‟ identification with the
original targets. It may also prompt new ways that mediating groups legitimate their standing to
propose changes as both loyal insiders and advocates seeking change. For example, the
American Auto Workers Union may simultaneously permit strong identification with General
Motors and strong identification with the union itself. Workers may at once claim their strong
and deserved identification as “GM men” (the “GM man” is a canonical example of
organizational identification), while also standing somewhat outside the organization to push
change. As in our case, unions are located at the point where collective, bottom-up efforts seek to
cope with potential conflicts associated with complex organizational commitments (e.g., to the
health of the industry in which they work and the pride in their workmanship) and normative or
professional commitments (e.g., to social justice and the rights of workers), but unlike our case,
their change efforts are ongoing and do not necessarily arise from a singular crisis. When the
auto industry is in crisis, workers and unions seek a hearing in public policy discussions of
remedies from the standpoint of their identification not just from the standpoint of their critical
advocacy.
Future work might explore in detail the processes surrounding the crafting and sustaining (or
repair) of a split in cases of nested or cross-cutting identification, and examine its similarities and
differences with crafting a split around normative and organizational dimensions of
identification. For example, what kinds of circumstances give rise to a persistent split, and under
what circumstances might split identification be fairly readily resolved? Future work could also
further probe the particular challenges of sustaining a mediating organization that becomes a
46
target of identification in its own right. When does it become institutionalized as part of a
landscape of change efforts, either effectively or counterproductively, and when might it
disband?
Implications for the Literature on Change Efforts Inside Institutions or Organizations
The process of splitting identification can also contribute to the growing literature on how
individuals seek to make change from inside organizations and institutions. This literature
highlights mechanisms such as tempered radicalism (Meyerson & Scully, 1995), institutional
entrepreneurship (Maguire et al. , 2004), issue selling and resourcing (Dutton, Ashford, O‟Neill,
& Lawrence, 2001; Howard-Grenville, 2007), and microprocesses that build the momentum of
small changes (Plowman et al., 2008; Reay, et al., 2006). It draws attention to the benefits of
embeddedness (Reay et al, 2006) for insiders seeking change, in contrast to the view of
embeddedness as a constraint that produces conformity. Recent work demonstrates how
embedded insiders can deploy their specialized knowledge, expertise, and valued subject
positions skillfully to make their change efforts both legitimate within existing institutions and
effective at altering these very institutions (Maguire et al., 2004; Rao et al., 2003; Reay et al.,
2006; Scully & Segal, 2002). These approaches share a concern with the social movement
literature around issues of mobilization and the selection of tactics, and increasingly draw up on
its concepts (Davis, McAdam, Scott, & Zald, 2005). Our work on insider-driven change agency
founded in identification makes three extensions.
First, our findings suggest that scholars should pay more attention to identification as a basis
for potential mobilization because highly identified individuals might rapidly and unexpectedly
mobilize for change, especially when conditions threaten the basis of their identification. The
inherently relational nature of identification (Albert, Ashforth & Dutton, 2000) means that the
47
relationship between an individual and the collective is already salient, suggesting that highly
identified insiders may readily „find each other‟ and be able to express their concerns when
conditions are ripe. Mobilization has traditionally been treated as stemming primarily from
shared interests, and more recently from social identity (Creed, 2003; Polletta & Jasper, 2001;
Rao et al., 2003), often conceptualized in demographic terms such as gender, race, or nationality
(Kurtz, 2002). Attending to identification as a basis for potential mobilization offers similar
advantages to focusing on identity because it brings attention to emotional and symbolic aspects
of mobilization alongside rational and political ones, but also offers a new line of sight by
suggesting that groups of individuals united by their relationship with an entity may be readily
available to participate in a change effort. Social identity as a basis for mobilization requires the
creation of a consciousness of the shared identity as a basis for collective action, whereas
identification need not. Mobilization through identification might be a natural way for
individuals from disparate groups to come together to seek change within a valued entity.
Second, identification as a basis for collective action expands our understanding of the types
of tactics and practices insider change agents may undertake. We found that change agents
selected strategies for how well they signaled, reinforced, or repaired identification. They did
deploy their insider knowledge, which others have noted as a benefit of embeddedness (Maguire
et al., 2004; Reay et al., 2006), when, for example, VOTF members grounded their calls for lay
participation in Vatican II texts. Importantly, they also used approaches that tapped and
authentically expressed members‟ relationship with valued aspects of the institution.
Authentically expressive tactics are a less well-considered resource in change agency, but are
starting to be regarded as both important and intertwined with more instrumental tactics (Polletta
& Jasper, 2001). Our study shows empirically how actions, such as VOTF‟s celebration of Mass
48
at its large gatherings, can be at once expressive and instrumental, binding members to an
institution and legitimating their participation in it, even as they signal their discontent with and
effort to change aspects of it. Split identification as a mechanism for change alerts scholars to
consider the actions of embedded insiders not simply as skillful and politically informed, but
simultaneously expressive of their relationship with an entity. Further, it can enable a more
nuanced exploration of simultaneous institutional maintenance and change (Lawrence &
Suddaby, 2006) as those who split their identification redeploy valued institutional practices and
norms, seeking to restore institutional foundations while also altering their enactment.
Finally, while a high level of identification could be part of the birthing conditions for a new
change oriented group, these founding conditions also can stamp and delimit (Stinchcombe,
1965) what the group can tolerate and attempt. Highly identified insiders seeking change need to
legitimate the split they craft, and their efforts to repair it, both to themselves and to their
primary audiences. This might limit their choice of actions, tempering their ability to seize
political opportunities (Campbell, 2005; Meyer & Minkoff, 2004). We found that VOTF did not
pursue certain approaches because they would be inconsistent with members‟ identification with
the Church. For example, the group voted down an early proposal to call for Cardinal Law‟s
resignation for they continued to regard him, despite his handling of the abuse crisis, as the
leading figure in the Archdiocese. The phrase “pick your battles” is used in studies of insider
change efforts mainly to denote picking smaller wins and waiting to pursue larger changes; our
study adds that it can also mean declining options that may damage an effort‟s credibility. Future
research might track how change efforts evolve through the opportunities foregone.
Implications for Managers
Finally, our study has implications for managers and leaders faced with managing members‟
identification with an entity, particularly when it is threatened. Managers fulfill their interest in
49
stability, commitment, and alignment when they have strongly identified members. They are
often depicted as, or encouraged to become, shapers of members‟ identification (Fiol, 2002; Pratt
& Foreman, 2000; Pratt & Corley, 2007). For example, they can create meaning voids or
construct meaning for members (Pratt, 2000), particularly in a time of external or internal
disruption (Dutton & Dukerich, 1991; Fiol, 2002). Our case adds a dynamic, contextualized
approach as it traces how Church leaders responded to members‟ efforts to craft split
identification and shows how such „managerial‟ responses might unintendedly sustain the split.
Ironically, leaders who successfully court identification through clear and uncompromising
stances might end up being those who are least able to retain that identification when there is a
split. Church leaders who labeled VOTF members as „dissenters,‟ perhaps in an effort to protect
the organization by not capitulating to pressures for change, triggered VOTF to take up tactics
that sustained and perhaps even deepened the split. Such responses may push the very members
who are typically allies for change and defenders of an entity in a time of crisis (Dutton &
Dukerich, 1991; Fiol, 2002), not those already skeptical of leaders‟ pronouncements (Gamson,
1982; Scully & Segal, 2002), to become particularly intent and surprising drivers of a change
effort. While split identification followed an escalating path in our case, the process need not
lead deterministically toward solidifying a reform group. Leaders and managers could
alternatively respond to members‟ efforts to split identification by making changes in
organizational structures or practices so they realign with valued norms. They might engage in
sensegiving to explain why the sought changes cannot be made, and offer alternative ways to
restore identification. Future work could explore such responses and their implications, or could
pick up where our study ends, to explore the ongoing implications of managing a split
identification, both for managers and those involved in crafting the split.
50
Conclusion
In closing, the splitting of identification offers a new way of thinking about how members
cope with transgression or conflict in an organization or institution to which they are deeply
attached. It suggests that those who are highly identified may seek to renew or restore what is
broken, rising up in protest while simultaneously rising up to express and affirm their devotion to
what is cherished. Our title deliberately includes this double entendre in the phrase “rise up.”
Standing up for an organization and standing up to its leaders to seek changes are usually seen as
separate dynamics, coming from different internal members. Our paper has connected them to
show how identification may trigger and shape an unlikely change effort.
51
References
Abravanel, H. 1983. Mediatory myths in the service of organizational ideology, In L. Pondy, G.
Morgan, P. Frost, & T. Dandridge (Eds.) Organizational Symbolism. Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press: 273-93.
Albert, S., Ashforth, B. E., & Dutton, J. E. 2000. Organizational identity and identification:
Charting new waters and building new bridges. Academy of Management Review, 2000: 13-
17.
Ashford, S. & Barton, M. 2007. Identity-Based Issue Selling. In C. Bartel, S. Blader, & A.
Wrzensniewski (Eds.) Identity and the modern organization. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum: 223-244.
Ashforth, B., Harrison, S. & Corley, K. 2008. Identification in organizations: An examination of
four fundamental questions. Journal of Management, 34: 325-374.
Ashforth, B. & Johnson, S. 2001. Which hat to wear? The relative salience of multiple identities
in organizational contexts. In Hogg, M. & Terry, D. (Eds.), Social identity processes in
organizational contexts: 31-48. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. 1989. Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of
Management Review, 14: 20-39.
Ashforth, B. & Pratt, M. 2003. Institutionalized spirituality: An oxymoron? In R. A. Giacalone &
C. L. Jurkiewicz (Eds.). The handbook of workplace spirituality and organizational
performance. Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe.
Ashforth, B. & Vaidyanath, D. 2002. Work organizations as secular religions. Journal of
Management Inquiry, 11: 359-370.
Bartel, C. & Dutton, J. 2001. Ambiguous organizational memberships: Constructing
organizational identities in interactions with others. In Hogg, M. & Terry, D. (Eds.), Social
identity processes in organizational contexts: 115-130. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
Belluck, P. 2007. Catholic lay group tests a strategy change. The New York Times, July 24,
2007.
Benford, R. D. & Snow, D. A. 2000. Framing processes and social movements: An overview
and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26:611-639.
Bergami, M. & Bagozzi, R. 2000. Self-categorization, affective commitment, and group self-
esteem as distinct aspects of social identity in the organization. British Journal of Social
Psychology, 39: 555-577.
Breiner, W. 2007. The trouble between us: An uneasy history of black and white women in the
feminist movement. Oxford University Press.
Campbell, J. L. 2005. Where do we stand? Common mechanisms in organizations and social
movements research. In Davis, G.F., McAdam, D., Scott, W.R. & Zald, M.N. (Eds.), Social
movements and organization theory. Cambridge University Press.
52
Colbert, C. 2006. Voice of the Faithful Members Profiled. National Catholic Reporter. March
10, 2006 issue.
Creed, W. E. D. 2003. Voice lessons: Tempered radicalism and the use of voice and silence.
Journal of Management Studies, 40: 1503-1525.
D'Antonio, W. & Pogorelc, A. 2007. Voices of the Faithful: Loyal Catholics Struggling for
Change. New York, NY: The Cross Road Publishing Company.
Davis, G. & Marquis, C. 2005. Prospects for Organization Theory in the Early Twenty-First
Century: Institutional Fields and Mechanisms. Organization Science, 16 (4): 332-343.
Davis, G. F., McAdam, D., Scott, W. R., & Zald, M. N. (Eds.). 2005. Social movements and
organization theory. Cambridge University Press.
Dillon, M. 1999. Catholic Identity: Balancing Reason, Faith, and Power. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Dillon, M. 2007. Bringing doctrine back into action: The Catholicity of VOTF Catholics and its
imperative. In W. D'Antonio & A. Pogorelc. Voices of the Faithful: Loyal Catholics
Struggling for Change: 105-120. New York, NY: The Cross Road Publishing Company.
DiMaggio, P. J. & Powell, W. W. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and
collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48: 147-160.
Dukerich, J. Golden, B., & Shortell, S. 2002. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder: The impact of
organizational identification, identity, and image on the cooperative behaviors of physicians.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 47: 507-533.
Dukerich, J., Kramer, R., & McLean Parks, J. 1998. The dark side of organizational
identification. In D. Whetten, & P. Godfrey (Eds.), Identity in organizations: Building theory
through conversations: 245-256. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dutton, J. & Ashford, S. 1993. Selling issues to top management. Academy of Management
Review, 18: 397-410.
Dutton, J., Ashford, S., O‟Neill, R., & Lawrence, K. 2001. Moves that matter: Issue selling and
organizational change. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 716-736.
Dutton, J., & Dukerich, J. 1991. Keeping an eye on the mirror: Image and identity in
organizational adaptation. Academy of Management Journal, 34: 517-554.
Dutton, J., Dukerich, J., & Harquail, C. 1994. Organizational images and member identification.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 39: 239-263.
Eichenwald, K. & Glater, J. 2002. Enron's many strands: The accountants. The New York Times.
March 29.
Elsbach, K. 1999. An expanded model of organizational identification. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 21: 163-200.
Elsbach, K, & Bhattacharya, C. B. 2001. Defining who you are by what you‟re not:
organizational disidentification and the National Rifle Association. Organization Science, 12,
393–413.
53
Fiol, C. M. 2002. Capitalizing on paradox: The role of language in transforming organizational
identities. Organization Science, 13: 653-666.
Fiol, C. M., Pratt, M. & O'Connor, E. 2009. Managing intractable identity conflicts. Academy of
Management Review, 34(1), 32-55.
Friedland, R., & Alford, R., 1991. Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices, and institutional
contradictions. In W. Powell & P. DiMaggio (Eds.) The new institutionalism in
organizational analysis: 232-266. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Foreman, P. & Whetten, D. 2002. Members' identification with multiple-identity organizations.
Organization Science, 13: 618-635.
Gamson , W. A. 1982. Encounters with unjust authority. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.
Gamson, W. A. 1992. The social psychology of collective action. In A.D. Morris & C.M.
Mueller, (Eds.) Frontiers in Social Movement Theory. New Haven: Yale University Press:
53-76.
Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. 1967. The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Greenwood, R. & Suddaby, R. 2006. Institutional entrepreneurship in mature fields: The big five
accounting firms. Academy of Management Journal, 49: 27-48.
Grow, D. 2000. Striking workers bottled up and shoved aside by Pepsi. Star Tribune. August 19.
Gutierrez, B. 2006. Contested identity: Institutional entrepreneurship in a mature field in crisis.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Boston University.
Hallett, T. Forthcoming. The myth incarnate: Recoupling processes, turmoil, and inhabited
institutions in an urban elementary school. American Sociological Review.
Harrison, S. H., Ashforth, B. E., & Corley, K. G. 2009. Organizational sacralization and
sacrilege. In B.M. Staw & A.P. Brief (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behaviour: in
press. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Harquail, C. V. 1998. Organizational identification and the "whole person": Integrating affect,
behavior and cognition. In D. Whetten & P. Godfrey (Eds.) Identity in organizations:
Building theory through conversations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hines, M. 2007. Voice of the Faithful survey: An ecclesiological reflection. In W. D'Antonio &
A. Pogorelc. Voices of the Faithful: Loyal Catholics Struggling for Change: 121-134. New
York, NY: The Cross Road Publishing Company.
Hirschman, A. O. 1970. Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations,
and states. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Howard-Grenville, J. 2007. Developing issue selling effectiveness over time: Issue selling as
resourcing. Organization Science, 18: 560-577.
Ibarra, H. 1999. Provisional selves: Experimenting with image and identity in professional
adaptation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44: 764-791.
Johnson, L. T. 2004. The Creed: What Christians believe and why it matters. New York: Image
Doubleday.
54
Katzenstein, M. F. 1998. Faithful and Fearless: Moving Feminist Protest inside the Church
and Military. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Kellogg, K. Forthcoming. Operating room: Relational spaces and micro-institutional change in
two surgical teaching hospitals. American Journal of Sociology.
Kreiner, G., & Ashforth, B. 2004. Evidence toward an expanded model of organizational
identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25: 1-27.
Kreiner, G., Hollensbe, E., & Sheep, M. 2006. Where is the "me" among the "we"? Identity work
and the search for optimal balance. Academy of Management Journal, 49: 1031-1057.
Kurtz, S. 2002. Workplace Justice: Organizing Multi-identity Movements. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
Langley, A. 2007. Process thinking in strategic organization. Strategic Organization, 5:271-282.
Lawrence, T., & Suddaby, R. 2006. Institutions and institutional work. in Clegg, S., Hardy, C.,
and Lawrence, T. (eds.) Handbook of Organization Studies, 2nd ed. London, Sage: 215-254.
Locke, K. 2001. Grounded theory in management research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Locke, K., Golden-Biddle, K., & Feldman, M. 2008. Making Doubt Generative: Rethinking the
Role of Doubt in the Research Process. Organization Science, 19(6), 907-918.
Maguire, S., Hardy, C., & Lawrence, T. B. 2004. Institutional entrepreneurship in emerging
fields: HIV/AIDS treatment advocacy in Canada. Academy of Management Journal, 47:
657-679.
McAdam, D., McCarthy, J. D. & Zald, M. N. 1996. Introduction: opportunities, mobilizing
structures, and framing processes -- toward a synthetic , comparative perspective on social
movements. In McAdam, D., McCarthy, J. D. & Zald, M. N. (Eds.), Comparative
perspectives on social movements. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1-20.
Meyer, D. S. & Minkoff, D. C. 2004. Conceptualizing political opportunity. Social Forces,
82(4):1457-1492.
Meyer, J. & Rowan, B. 1977. Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and
ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83: 340-363.
Meyerson, D. & Scully, M. 1995. Tempered radicalism and the politics of ambivalence and
change. Organization Science, 6: 585-600.
Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook,
2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Muller, J. E., & Kenney, C. 2004. Keep the Faith, Change the Church. New York, Rodale
Press.
Murnion Lecture: Building a Church of Communion. 2005.
http://www.nplc.org/commonground/murnion_2005_response.php
Pfarrer, M., DeCelles, K., Smith, K., & Taylor, M. 2008. After the fall: Reintegrating the corrupt
organization. Academy of Management Review, 33(3), 730-749.
Pfeiffer, S. 2003. O'Malley will find many wounds to heal. The Boston Globe. July 2, 2003.
55
Plowman, D. A., Baker, L., Beck, T., Kulkarni, M., Solansky, S. T., Travis, D. V. 2007. Radical
change accidentally: The emergence and amplification of small change. Academy of
Management Journal, 50: 515-543.
Poletta, F., & Jasper, J. M. 2001. Collective identity and social movements. Annual Review of
Sociology, 27: 283-305.
Pratt, M. G. 1998. To be or not to be: Central questions in organizational identification. In D.
Whetten & P. Godfrey (Eds.) Identity in organizations: Building theory through
conversations: 171-208. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pratt, M. G. 2000. The good, the bad, and the ambivalent: Managing identification among
Amway distributors. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45: 456-493.
Pratt, M. G. 2000b. Building an ideological fortress: The role of spirituality, encapsulation, and
sensemaking. Studies in Cultures, Organizations, and Societies, 6: 35-69.
Pratt, M. G. & Foreman, P. O. 2000. Classifying managerial responses to multiple organizational
identities. Academy of Management Review, 25:18-42.
Pratt, M. G., Rockman, K. & Kaufmann, J. 2006. Constructing professional identity: The role of
work and identity learning cycles in the customization of identity among medical residents.
Academy of Management Journal, 49: 235-262.
Pratt, M. G. & Corley, K. 2007. Managing multiple organizational identities: On identity
ambiguity, identity conflict, and members' reactions. In C. Bartel, S. Blader, & A.
Wrzensniewski (Eds.) Identity and the modern organization: 99-118. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Rao, H., Monin, P., & Durand, R. 2003. Institutional change in Toque Ville: Nouvelle cuisine as
an identity movement in French gastronomy. The American Journal of Sociology, 108: 795-
843.
Reay, T., Golden-Biddle, K., & GermAnn, K. 2006. Legitimizing a new role: Small wins and
micro-processes of change. Academy of Management Journal, 49: 977-998.
Robinson, W. 2002. Scores of priests involves in sex abuse cases: Settlements keeps scope of
issue out of public eye. The Boston Globe. January 31, 2002: A1.
Rousseau, D. 1998. Why workers still identify with organizations. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 19: 217-233.
Ryan, C., Anastario, M. & Jeffreys, K. 2005. Start small, build big: Media markets and
movement opportunity. Mobilization, Spring.
Scott, W. R. 1987. The adolescence of institutional theory. Administrative Science Quarterly,
32: 493-511.
Scott, W. R. 2001. Institutions and organizations, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Scully, M. & Segal, A. 2002. Passion with an umbrella: Grassroots activists in the workplace.
Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 29: 125-168.
Sluss, D. & Ashforth, B. 2008. How relational and organizational identification converge:
Processes and conditions. Organization Science: 19: 807-823.
56
Snow, D. A. & Benford, R. D. 1988. Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization. In
Klandermans, B., Kriesi, H. & Tarrow, S. (Eds.), From structure to action: social movement
participation across cultures. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 197-271.
Sparato, S. & Chatman, J. 2007. The effects of interorganizational competition on identity-based
organizational commitment. In C. Bartel, S. Blader, & A. Wrzensniewski (Eds.) Identity and
the modern organization. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum: 177-200.
Stinchcombe, A. L. 1965. Social structure and organizations. In J.G. March (Ed.), Handbook of
organizations. Chicago: Rand McNally & Co.: 142-193.
Thornton, P. 2004. Markets from Culture: Institutional Logics and Organizational Decisions
in Higher Education Publishing. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Thornton, P., Jones, C. & Kury, K. 2005. „Institutional logics and institutional change:
Transformation in Accounting, Architecture, and Publishing,‟ in C. Jones & P. Thornton
(Eds.) Research in the Sociology of Organizations. London: JAI: 125–170.
Toffler, B. & Reingold, J. 2003. Final accounting: Ambition, greed and the fall of Arthur
Andersen. Broadway Books.
Whetten, D. 2007. A critique of organizational identity scholarship: Challenging the uncritical
use of social identity theory when social identities are also social actors. In C. Bartel, S.
Blader, & A. Wrzensniewski (Eds.) Identity and the modern organization: 253-272.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Whyte, W. F. 1984. Learning from the field: A guide from experience. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage Publications.
Wiener, C. L. 2000. The elusive quest: Accountability in hospitals. New York: Aldine de
Gruyter.
Wilde, M. 2004. How culture mattered at Vatican II: Collegiality trumps authority in the
council‟s social movement organizations. American Sociological Review, 69: 576-602.
Yin, R. K. 2003. Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
57
Figure 1: VOTF in the News Media (January 2002 to December 2004)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Jan-02
Feb-02
Mar-02
Apr-02
May-02
Jun-02
Jul-02
Aug-02
Sep-02
Oct-02
Nov-02
Dec-02
Jan-03
Feb-03
Mar-03
Apr-03
May-03
Jun-03
Jul-03
Aug-03
Sep-03
Oct-03
Nov-03
Dec-03
Jan-04
Feb-04
Mar-04
Apr-04
May-04
Jun-04
Jul-04
Aug-04
Sep-04
Oct-04
Nov-04
Dec-04
VOTF-Pilot
VOTF-NCR
VOTF-Times
VOTF-Globe
July 2002 Conference
Cardinal Law's
Resignation
More accusations
are revealed
ArchBishop Sean O'Malley is
appointed to Boston
National Review Board
Report is published
VOTF Mass on the
Boston Common
Monthly
count of
news
items*
mentioning
VOTF
*News items include news articles, editorials and letters to the editor.
58
Table 1. Type of Data Collected and Use of Data in Analysis
Type of Data
And Dates
Amount of
Data
How Data Was Used in Analysis
Newspaper Articles
All articles mentioning VOTF or
the crisis in 4 newspapers (regional
+ national, secular + Catholic)
between January 2002 and
December 2004.
2,729 articles
Assess frequency and intensity of coverage on VOTF. Observe the corresponding
intensity of coverage of VOTF in relation to key events. Track the rise of VOTF as
distinct entity and its emergence as a media source. (see Figure 1)
Establish timeline of key events in unfolding of crisis. Add alternative paths, mentioned
or theoretically possible, at each juncture. (see Table 2)
Articles were coded to understand how VOTF positioned itself and how others,
including the Church hierarchy, portrayed its activities. (see quotes)
Primary Interviews
Interviews with founders,
members, and observers.
March – July 2004.
17 semi-
structured
interviews
(1-1/2 to 2-1/2
hours each)
Open coding yielded themes around:
Responses to the abuse revelations and efforts to cope.
Reasoning behind VOTF goals and connection to crafting a split identification.
Use of institutional practices and teachings in the change effort.
VOTF Documents
VOTF-produced reports, working
papers, press releases, materials
used to establish parish affiliates,
first two Annual Reports, meeting
minutes, leaders‟ speeches, and
other documents. 2002 – 2008.
several dozen
Reviewed to elaborate and confirm issues mentioned in interviews.
Selectively coded for how institutional practices and teachings were used once these
surfaced in interview coding
Primary source for VOTF goals, mission statement, and statement of beliefs.
Secondary Sources (Books)
Book by VOTF co-founder (2004).
Book containing survey data on
VOTF members (2007).
2 books
Elaboration on early meetings and further evidence of responses to the abuse revelations
and efforts to cope.
Survey data supports interview and VOTF document data in showing members as
highly identified with the Church.
Follow up information
Follow up interviews with founder
(2), two new leaders, and review of
2008 website and press.
4 interviews;
additional
documents &
articles.
Evidence of VOTF leaders‟ ongoing efforts in sustaining split identification.
Updated account of VOTF accomplishments and ongoing challenges.
59
Table 2. Timeline of Selected Key Events and Their Significance
* The final column contains possible alternative actions that may have been taken (but were not) at various points in the unfolding of events. We observed the
unshaded events and theorized these alternatives (shaded) as part of our analysis, to remain open to other possible ways split identification might unfold.
Date
Event
Significance for our conceptual model
Possible alternative paths*
Jan 6 2002
Boston Globe publishes first of articles
Initial triggering event
–Feb 2002
More allegations surface
Crisis for faithful, pain and anger as emotional fuel
Exit
Feb 2002
Discussion group starts at St. John the Evangelist
Church in Wellesley.
Wrestling over crisis moves from individual to
collective in a Church setting.
Individuals continue to struggle alone.
Feb 2002
Weekly discussion groups begin.
Shift from emotional support to asking ‘why did this
happen,’ and ‘what can we do?’
Remain a group for emotional support.
Feb 2002
The name Voice of the Faithful is adopted along with
goals.
Name signals attachment to the faith; goals
differentiate and assimilate group from Church.
Group remains informal rather than taking on a
presence with a meaningful name.
Mar 2002
Boston Archdiocese convenes 3,000 lay leaders to
discuss the crisis.
Top down effort to manage an identification crisis,
both for members and for public image.
Identification is restored.
Apr 2002
Cardinal Law goes to Rome and offers his resignation;
Pope declines it.
VOTF had maintained its moderate stance and had not
called for Cardinal Law’s resignation.
Leader resignation could signal changes that
would help repair identification.
May 2002
First meeting of VOTF with Church officials; offers to
help are declined.
Group is rebuffed by the Church leaders; have not yet
met with Cardinal or other senior figures.
VOTF asked to become a consultative body
within the Church.
June 2002
US Conference of Catholic Bishops establishes
Charter for the Protection of Children and Young
People and the National Review Board (NRB).
VOTF watches to see what will happen with these
guidelines and continues to call for more support for
victims and transparency in dioceses.
The Charter remedies the problem and
identification is restored.
July 2002
VOTF’s conference draws 4,200 in Boston. A few
controversial speakers are on the program.
Solidifies identity of group.
Elicits first public criticism from Archdiocese.
VOTF radicalizes and loses members strongly
identified with the Church.
July 2002
Cardinal Law refuses to accept funds from the VOTF-
sponsored Voice of Compassion Fund.
VOTF members feel rebuffed while trying to preserve
lay giving.
Church accepts the funds, VOTF comes closer
to operating within the Church.
Aug 2002
Cardinal Law bans VOTF chapters from meeting in
Church spaces.
VOTF increasingly treated as the enemy, rather than
insiders.
Exit by members who cannot withstand the
dissonance of defying a Cardinal.
Oct 2002
Cardinal Law rescinds ban for chapters formed up
until this date; ban remains for new chapters.
VOTF exerts influence directly as an oppositional
group by citing Canon law supporting lay gatherings.
VOTF yields to Church leaders’ ban and stops
meeting.
Dec 2002
58 Boston priests call for Cardinal Law’s resignation;
VOTF calls on Law to resign. Cardinal Law resigns.
VOTF signals need to see new leadership in Boston
Archdiocese in order for change to occur.
Resignation could signal end of crisis and repair
split identification.
Feb 2004
NRB-commissioned report released on extent of
abuse in US.
VOTF places ad in New York Times and op-ed in Boston
Globe calling for action stemming from report.
NRB recommendations remedy the problem
and identification is restored.
Sep 2003-
July 2004
VOTF debates extent of involvement in fighting
Church closings due to financial burden of crisis.
VOTF struggles to maintain focus on core issues of
abuse and Church governance.
VOTF loses focus and legitimacy.
Aug 2004
VOTF holds Mass on the Common to bring members
together and protest Church closings.
Increasing independence of the group’s actions and
gradual expansion of issue domain.
VOTF loses focus and legitimacy.
Dec 2004
VOTF member appointed head of Archdiocese’s
committee to oversee financing of Church closings.
VOTF may not have completely distanced its members
from the hierarchy.
VOTF gains a seat at the table through this
appointment.
60
Figure 2: A Process Model of Splitting Identification
Target of
Identification
(Catholic Church)
•Problematize the nature
of identification
•Discern normative from
organizational aspects of
target of identification
Crisis (abuse
revelations)
Response (rebuff
from church
hierarchy)
Crafting a Split
Identification
•Engage in practices which
affirm positive aspects of
identification
•Discover and deploy
normative support to
legitimate desired changes
Attempting to
Repair a Split
Identification
Sustaining a Split
Identification
•Use response to justify
sustaining a split identification
and adopting new approaches
•Articulate sensegiving voids
created by original target of
identification
Normative
aspects of
target of
identification
Organizational
aspects of
target of
identification
Emergent
reform
group
Reform
group
Reform
group
Key
•Solid black circle depicts Catholic Church as initial target of identification.
•Following crisis, solid black circle represents normative aspects (e.g., beliefs and practices) and dashed black circle
represents organizational aspects (e.g. governance) of Catholic Church.
•Grey circle (dashed then solid) represents emerging reform group (VOTF) as additional, and increasingly significant,
potential target of identification.
61
Table 3: VOTF’s Mission, Goals, and Statement of Beliefs
Motto
Keep the Faith, Change the Church.
Mission Statement
To provide a prayerful voice, attentive to the Spirit, through which the Faithful can actively
participate in the governance and guidance of the Catholic Church.
Goals
To support survivors of clergy sexual abuse.
To support priests of integrity.
To shape structural change within Church.
Statement of Beliefs
(excerpts)
We are faithful Catholics in communion with the universal Catholic Church.
We love and support our Church and believe what it professes.
We accept the teaching authority of our Church, including the traditional role of the
bishops and the Pope.
We will work with our bishops, clergy, and other members to strengthen unity and human
moral integrity in our Church.
We believe that sexual abuse by clergy and the response of bishops, protecting abusers and
forsaking the abused, have caused great human suffering and damaged the moral authority
of our Church.
We believe that the laity has the graced dignity, intelligence, responsibility and obligation
to cooperate in Church governance in a meaningful way according to the norm of law (cf.
Canon 129) to correct the profound flaws that have been revealed in the human institutional
life of our Church.
62
APPENDIX A
Interview Protocol: VOTF members
VOTF Questions
1. How/When/Why did you first get involved with VOTF?
2. What do you do at VOTF?
3. How did VOTF start? What is VOTF?
4. Do you think VOTF is different from other Catholic reform groups? How?
5. What do you think is VOTF‟s main strategy to affect change?
6. Have you seen this strategy change/evolve?
7. What do you think is the most effective way to bring about change?
8. What do you think has been VOTF‟s main accomplishment in its history?
9. Which do you think have been major highlights/milestones for VOTF?
10. What are VOTF‟s goals?
11. What has helped or hindered VOTF to achieve its goals since it‟s foundation?
12. How do you see VOTF in 5 years / 10 years?
13. Can you think of other people I could talk to? Key people?
14. Is there anything else you can think of that I have not asked?
Key Events Questions
15. What do you think the July Conference did to the relationship between VOTF and the
Archdiocese? How do you think the July Conference affected that relationship?
16. What did the meeting with Cardinal Law mean for VOTF? Why so important?
17. What was the significance of having the funds accepted by Catholic Charities?
63
Betzaluz Gutierrez (betzaluz_gutierrez@haygroup.com) is a consultant at Hay Group, Caracas,
Venezuela. She received her doctorate in organizational behavior from Boston University. Her
research interests include organizational, institutional and strategic change, culture
transformation, international management, and the alignment of strategy, culture, and people.
Jennifer Howard-Grenville (jhg@uoregon.edu) is an Assistant Professor of Management at the
University of Oregon‟s Lundquist College of Business. She received her PhD at MIT. Jennifer
studies processes of organizational and institutional change with a focus on how people change
their organizations in response to environmental and social demands.
Maureen A. Scully (Maureen.Scully@umb.edu) is a faculty member in the College of
Management at the University of Massachusetts Boston, a faculty affiliate with the Center for
Gender in Organizations at the Simmons School of Management, and a research advisor for the
Aspen Institute‟s Business & Society Program. She received her PhD in Organizational Behavior
from Stanford University. She studies employees‟ beliefs about meritocracy and the use of social
movement activism to address inequality in the workplace.
