1

Accepted for Publication in:

2

Elasticity and the Dialectic Tensions of Organizational Identity:

How Can We Hold Together While We’re Pulling Apart?

ABSTRACT

Given the ever-changing nature of contemporary organizations, members often

renegotiate how they view the identity of their organization. One way they do so is by expanding

or contracting their conception of organizational identity. In studying these processes, we

develop the construct of “identity elasticity” – the tensions that simultaneously stretch, while

holding together, social constructions of identity. To explicate the parameters of elasticity, we

problematize previous conceptions of the three foundations of organizational identity –

centrality, endurance, and distinctiveness – and document the dialectic tensions experienced in

their social constructions. We show how identity is experienced not only through a listing of

attributes but also by negotiating a set of processual tensions. In so doing, we also bring together

two competing views on organizational identity – process and characteristic. We show how

experiencing and navigating the tensions of elasticity is a type of organizational identity work

(process) that changes organizational members’ constructions of identity (characteristic). We

develop our findings as a result of a ten-year-long multiple method study of an organization

undergoing significant growing pains in its identity – the Episcopal Church. Further, we position

elasticity as a crucial construct with implications for how organizational identity is viewed.

3

“I think there are two perceptions—those who think the Episcopal Church is prophetic

and moving forward and those who see it as adrift into oblivion.”

“The Episcopal Church has ripped a hole in the side of its hull below the watermark, and

it’s going to be sinking… Now, we need to rebuild. We need to replace it… It feels like a

marriage with a wayward spouse. You love her but, my gosh, she’s just doing things that

are just so totally destructive of your marriage and her own identity.”

- From research interviews with Episcopal Church leadership

Members of contemporary, pluralistic organizations are continually faced with the need

for their organizations to change. On the one hand, members see their organizations expanding as

they adopt new values, reach more markets, develop new products, or merge with other

companies (e.g., Clark, Gioia, Ketchen & Thomas, 2010). On the other hand, members may

perceive these expansions as becoming too extreme, interests becoming too divergent, or

economies of scale becoming too redefined. As a result, organizations are often broken apart or

spun off from one another through schism, divestitures, or partner splits, resulting in a

contraction of the organization. These macro influences toward organizational expansion and

contraction provide the context in which members’ social constructions of organizational identity

may be renegotiated and altered (Bouchikhi & Kimberly, 2007). Yet we know little about how

organizational members experience, interpret, and affect such ebbs and flows. The purpose of

this paper, therefore, is to describe the process through which individuals socially construct

expansions and/or contractions of organizational identity, and the consequences of this process

on how organizational identity is viewed.

In investigating this process, we develop the construct of organizational identity elasticity

– the socially constructed tensions that simultaneously stretch identity while holding it together,

akin to the boundaries of a balloon or rubber band expanding and contracting. We demonstrate

how these social constructions of elasticity involve organizational identity work – the processes

4

organizational members employ to create, maintain, and share organizational identity1. Our

findings will suggest that elasticity is central to understanding identity. We show the expanding

and contracting of identity constructions reflects identity’s dynamic nature and should be

considered more carefully in identity research. Specifically, we demonstrate how an

understanding of elasticity sheds light on the characteristics used to define organizational identity

– centrality, endurance, and distinctiveness. In contemporary organizations, members face the

need to balance stability and change amidst an ever-more complex environment. Indeed, the

Academy of Management Journal itself recently acknowledged a goal of maintaining its mission

and core values while expanding to include under-represented topics and methods.

Our case study provides a context for examining critical issues of identity elasticity. We

document differences in how members constructed the identity of the Episcopal Church in the

wake of an identity challenge spurred by the Church’s election of its first openly gay bishop. The

event led to numerous members leaving the Church, while others have lauded and joined the

Church for its inclusive policies. Ripples have been felt in other denominations as well as they

wrestle with policies around gay clergy and leaders. Indeed, this case mirrors what members and

leaders of many complex organizations face as they grapple with the perceived expansion or

contraction of “who we are.” We focus on how individuals wrestle with the simultaneity of

changing and preserving organizational identity – how to stay together when we’re pulling apart

– particularly when diverse members construct identity in very different ways.

Extant literature on organizational identity does not provide sufficient answers to explain

the dynamic tensions we found in our data as individuals negotiated “who we are” as an

organization. In consideration of that, we take a problematization approach to research (Alvesson

1 Consistent with past research (e.g., Knapp, et al. 2013), we use the term “organizational identity work” to refer to

processes involved in the construction of organizational identity by members. This terminology distinguishes it

from the more generic “identity work,” which is often used to refer to individual or professional identity.

5

& Sandberg, 2011), in which we question long-held assumptions about the quality or makeup of

what constitutes identity, moving beyond a traditional “gap-spotting” approach. That is, in

asking our research questions and conducting our analysis, we were not only sensitive to locating

and filling “gaps” in organizational identity theory, but our data led us also to problematize the

underlying assumption that identity is more or less “thing-like” in its attributes (Alvesson &

Sandberg, 2011: 262). Indeed, we found that identity is treated and described in a “thing-like”

way by organizational members, but is manifest through the process of organizational identity

work. Our findings, then, contribute to the emerging debate on whether identity is process or

characteristic (e.g., Schultz, Maguire, Langley & Tsoukas, 2012) by arguing that it is both.

We take this approach primarily because we found repeatedly in our data evidence of

tensions that individuals faced in negotiating identity. We found that although individuals do

draw on attributes to describe their organization’s identity, identity is experienced not only as a

listing of those attributes but also experienced as a set of ongoing tensions—dialectic claims in

play that both subsume and refine the notion of “central, enduring, and distinctive” in more

complex ways. Hence we also draw on and contribute to the literature on dialectics. A dialectic

has been defined as a type of process that is “a contradiction-ridden, tension-filled unity of two

embattled tendencies” (Bakhtin 1981: 272), and we will show how dialectic tensions undergird

social constructions of identity. This problematization of root metaphor assumptions (Alvesson

& Sandberg, 2011) opens to scrutiny the nature and importance of identity and identity change.

To orient the reader to our findings and theory building, we begin by identifying key

challenges in the organizational identity change and identity work literatures. Second, we

describe our ten-year in-depth case study, multi-method research design and analytic procedures.

Third, we describe how elasticity was manifest in competing perceptions of Episcopal identity,

the dialectics of elasticity that simultaneously enable and constrain elasticity, and the work

6

associated with them. Finally, we put forth a conceptual model that integrates our findings, and

consider the contributions and implications of elasticity to the organizational identity literature.

ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTITY CHANGE

According to Albert & Whetten’s (1985) original conceptualization, an organization’s

identity comprises that which members consider to be most central, relatively enduring, and

largely distinctive about the organization. Identity answers questions such as “who are we?”,

“how are we different from others?”, and “what is most important to us?” Organizational identity

is socially constructed2, often differently by various internal stakeholders. Within a given

individual’s social construction of organizational identity, multiple attributes may be ascribed to

the organization. These attributes can be constructed as complementary, supplementary, or

competing (Glynn, 2000; Golden-Biddle & Rao, 1997; Seo, Putnam, & Bartunek, 2004), by

individuals (intrasubjective, or how “I think our identity is…”) or groups (intersubjective, or how

“we think our identity is…”), or ultimately become deeply taken for granted by the collective

(generic subjective constructions, or “our identity is…”) (Ashforth, Rogers, & Corley, 2011).

Despite the importance of organizational identity, and despite the construct being in its

“aged adolescence” (Corley et al., 2006), we know relatively little about how organizational

members and leaders negotiate identity given the volatility and dynamism inherent in today’s

dynamic environment and the prevalence of organizational change. An emerging debate is

whether organizational identity should be considered as a characteristic or a process (Schultz et

al., 2012). Traditionally, most scholars have invoked characteristic-like language to describe

organizational identity (e.g., “we are competitive”, “we are nimble”). But recent calls argue for a

2 We recognize that a debate exists for many identity scholars between the social construction and social actor

approaches to organizational identity. However, recent work (e.g. Gioia et al. [2010], Gioia & Patvardhan [2012])

has provided a bridge between these two. Hence, we do not repeat herein the previous arguments between these two

perspectives, but rather, simply highlight the social construction approach we take in our study.

7

treatment of organizational identity as process, which “prioritizes activity over outcome, change

over persistence, novelty over continuity, expression over determination, and becoming over

being” (Schultz, et al., 2012). After decades of a primarily characteristic focus in our language

about identity, a shift in thinking is not easy, as noted by Pratt (2012). Yet, social psychologists

have conceptualized identity as at least partially processual for quite some time (Breakwell,

1986). Indeed, Breakwell (2010:6.3) notes that individual identity “can be described in terms of

both its structure and in terms of its processes. People are normally self-aware and actively

monitor the status of their identity.”

What might this process focus look like in regard to organizational identity? Pratt (2012)

articulates three bases for merging process studies with organizational identity – relational,

behavioral, and symbolic – and notes that identity involves individuals doing, acting, and

interacting. Similarly, Gioia and Patvardhan (2012:53) provide an apt analogy – that a process

approach to organizational identity considers a full motion picture, whereas a characteristics

approach to identity examines only one frame “as if” it were fully representational of the film.

Furthermore, despite noting the “Herculean task” of studying organizational identity as process,

they encourage researchers to incorporate a process view since it “might just create the

opportunity to conduct some rather original organizational identity research that could generate a

unique view of an organizational phenomenon” (2012: 59). Our work contributes to this process

versus characteristic debate. We examine the applicability of the tripartite definition of

organizational identity to members of contemporary organizations that face escalating

complexity and radical change. Hence, we argue that a new scrutiny and more comprehensive

analysis of each of the three components of identity is needed, especially in light of the process

versus characteristic debate. Indeed, through our problematizing approach, we demonstrate how

organizational identity is experienced as both characteristic and process.

8

Endurance of Identity

Given the ubiquity of change in contemporary organizations, it is not surprising that

research on organizational identity change has emerged in the past two decades. In some cases,

researchers have studied planned organizational changes (e.g., a merger or spinoff) that have

prompted re-examination and revision of identity. For example, Clark et al. (2010) investigated

organizational identity change as a result of an additive organizational change—the merger of

two healthcare organizations—while Corley and Gioia (2004) studied organizational identity in

the context of a subtractive organizational change—a spin-off within a Fortune 100 company.

Researchers have also studied identity change in the context of the creation of an online division

(Brown & Gioia, 2002); changes in strategy (Nag et al., 2007); continuity of sensemaking when

a planned organizational change is canceled (Mantere, Schildt, & Sillince, 2012); and a new

organizational vision (Gioia & Thomas, 1996).

In addition to these planned organizational changes, researchers have studied unplanned

changes that have triggered revisions in organizational identity constructions, including identity

threats (Elsbach & Kramer, 1996); loss of group memory as a result of turnover of leaders or

members (Meyer, Bartunek, & Lacey, 2002); and organizational responses to environmental

changes (Ravasi & Schultz, 2006) and external pressures (Dutton & Dukerich, 1991). As with

planned changes, these unplanned changes often resulted in ambiguity as well as dissonance

between current and desired future identity or image, prompting organizational identity change.

Managers leverage ambiguity as they use narratives to simultaneously construct consistency and

change in organizational change initiatives (Sonenshein, 2010). These studies make it clear that

not only do social constructions of organizational identity change, but that these changes can be

adaptive, yielding better management of organizational change and more efficacious responses to

environmental threats and demands (Gioia, Schultz, & Corley, 2000; Gioia & Thomas, 1996).

9

Over a decade ago, Gioia and colleagues (2000:76) noted that our understanding of

identity endurance was problematic; they urged researchers to study “how organizational

members work to maintain continuity.” Yet, this call has largely gone unanswered. As Anteby

and Molnar (2012: 116) recently pointed out, “how identities actually endure over extended

periods of time remains empirically poorly understood…. identity endurance is rarely seen as a

puzzle to be explained; it is assumed as relatively unproblematic and remains empirically

neglected.” Hence, further investigation into understanding endurance during identity change is

warranted, and our gaze on Episcopal identity over time allows us to conduct this investigation.

Distinctiveness of Identity

Although the “enduring” component of organizational identity has come under scrutiny,

the “central” and “distinctive” components have been largely unexamined since Albert and

Whetten’s (1985) original conceptualization. In an exception to this, Gioia, Price, Hamilton, and

Thomas (2010) focused on the distinctiveness needs associated with the emergence of a new

organization. Given the dynamic environment of contemporary organizations, one might ask:

What might centrality and distinctiveness mean in such environments? We problematize

distinctiveness and centrality more fully in our findings, but provide a brief review here of their

definition and use in the literature to date.

Distinctiveness is largely seen as a property by which organizational members discern

how they are different from other organizations. Institutional theory argues that the natural

tendency is for organizations to look more like each other over time (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983).

For example, benchmarking and consolidations will typically lead to homogeneity. Yet, working

against these forces is the countervailing force that organizational leaders and members will

strive for “optimal distinctiveness,” a balance between similarity to other entities and uniqueness

from them. Although this process has been applied to individual identity (Brewer, 1991; Kreiner,

10

Hollensbe, & Sheep, 2006) it is much less understood in terms of organizational identity

constructions. Indeed, distinctiveness has unfortunately been taken for granted in organizational

identity research – a shortcoming we attempt to remedy by showing data and findings that

problematize assumptions of identity distinctiveness.

Centrality of Identity

The third component of organizational identity, centrality, argues that for something truly

to be part of organizational identity, it must be a vital feature – not merely something that is

casually or neutrally accepted by organizational members (Albert & Whetten, 1985). Centrality

deals with what members define as mattering most deeply. Such central values and beliefs

provide a hub of shared understanding around which identity dynamics generate (Whetten &

Godfrey, 1998). Yet, similar to distinctiveness, the notion of centrality has been taken for granted

in organizational identity studies. Hence, it can also benefit from a fresh examination – how is

centrality determined when disparate voices claim different elements as central? We therefore

unpack data and findings that problematize what is “central” to identity.

Organizational Identity Work

In our findings, we demonstrate how navigating the tensions of elasticity is a type of

identity work. The term “identity work” has been used primarily to refer to individual identity,

with only a handful of instances in the literature in which “organizational identity work” is

mentioned rather informally. Snow and Anderson (1987: 1348) defined identity work as the

“range of activities that individuals engage in to create, present, and sustain personal identities

that are congruent with and supportive of the self-concept.” More recently, there has been an

effort to focus on how individuals and organizations try to impact social structures. This work,

referred to as the “turn to work,” includes identity work (Phillips & Lawrence, 2012: 224).

Identity work involves “people being engaged in forming, repairing, maintaining, strengthening

11

or revising the constructions that are productive of a sense of coherence and distinctiveness”

(Sveningsson & Alvesson, 2003: 1165). The literature on individual identity work has rapidly

advanced over the past decade (e.g., Beech, 2008; Knapp et al., 2013; Kreiner et al., 2006), and

its definition has expanded to incorporate more explicitly social elements. For example, Watson

(2008: 129) added that identity work is a “struggle to come to terms with and, within limits, to

influence the various social-identities which pertain to them”—identity work thus projects

outwardly as well as inwardly. This notion is especially important as we consider how members

construct organizational identity, as these projections become shared (and often contested).

Even as some of the above studies (e.g., Beech, 2008) have used a tensional framework

to generate theory about individual identity work, there is still much that we need to learn about

what (and how) identity tensions might be involved as members construct organizational

identity. We therefore define organizational identity work as the cognitive, discursive, and

behavioral processes in which individuals engage to create, present, sustain, share, and/or adapt

organizational identity. This definition emphasizes agency as a part of organizational identity

work, acknowledging that “members are active participants in the shaping of themselves and

others” (Kunda, 1992: 21). Hence, organizational identity work is an ongoing, agentic effort that

we propose can enlighten understanding of the complexity of identity.

Research Questions

We did not begin the project with an eye toward the elasticity construct, but it emerged

as part of our inductive approach detailed below. Rather, we began with this fairly broad

research question: How do organizational leaders and members negotiate organizational

identity in the context of a controversial event? As is often the case with inductive research, our

initial research question became refined (Charmaz, 2006). As we dug deeper into the naturally

unfolding case, following a process of iteratively comparing our existing and emerging data, the

12

conceptual importance of elasticity became increasingly apparent to us. As events in the

Episcopal Church unfolded over time, and as we fine-tuned our data collection and analyses to

follow those events, we found that members in the Church were struggling both with how to

stay the same (e.g., maintain organizational tradition and history) and how to change (e.g., adopt

or interpret new aspects of identity). For many employed leaders and members, this struggle

resulted in the classic “should we stay or should we go?” decision. Yet, for others, “go” was not

framed as a realistic option; their question was more akin to “how do I stay?” As members

attempted to negotiate answers to these questions, we found that they framed differently the

identity of the organization during this “profound organizational circumstance” (Whetten, 2006:

226). Their processes were more complex than existing theories and interpretations of

organizational identity theory would adequately explain; thus, we sought to understand better

those processes as we observed them in our data. Hence, our refined research question became:

Refined Research Question: (a) How do organizational leaders and members expand

and contract their constructions of organizational identity? (b) What challenges are

experienced in this process? (c) What are the consequences of this process?

METHODS

Research Context – The Episcopal Church

Our study focuses on the two-million-member Episcopal Church, a Christian church

located predominantly in the United States. The Church is affiliated with the 80-million member

Anglican Communion, a global federation of 44 member churches (including the Church of

England), headed by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Within the Episcopal Church, there are 111

dioceses (regional, geographically distinct entities) led by bishops, which are composed of

parishes or congregations (approximately 7,000 across the Church) led by priests. The head of

the Episcopal Church is the Presiding Bishop.

In the summer of 2003, the Episcopal Church elected its first openly gay bishop, the Rev.

13

Gene Robinson. This event triggered considerable debate, not only in the United States, but

across the globe as members of the Anglican Communion argued both in favor of and against

this precedent-setting action. In response to this controversial event, five of the Episcopal

Church’s dioceses and dozens of its parishes have thus far voted to secede from the Church.

Although the Church reported gains in attendance by certain groups (e.g., gays and others

favoring the more inclusive policies), during the period between 2003-2009, Church membership

declined by approximately 278,000 individuals (12%).3 A network of these breakaway U.S.

congregations was formed (Anglican Church North America, ACNA) that claims a membership

of 100,000 individuals in over 900 congregations and 29 dioceses across the U.S. and Canada4.

Bishop Robinson’s ordination heightened a debate on contested organizational identities,

with beliefs about “who we are” clashing among self-described “conservatives” (who typically

reject what they term “the gay rights agenda”) to the the more “liberal” camp (who typically

accept gay rights). Beyond the headlines of this story, however, a more nuanced and theoretically

important story remains. For example, in the end, most self-described conservatives actually

chose to stay in the Church. Although departures have occurred, they have been far fewer than

had initially been forecast. That is, although over 40 percent of the Church leadership voted

against Bishop Robinson’s ordination, only a fraction of those conservatives have left despite

profound differences in theology and how they saw the identity of the Church. Contrary to the

dire predictions about a destructive schism shortly after Bishop Robinson’s ordination, the

organization has by most standards held together, creating an interesting dynamic we investigate.

Indeed, the fact that so many conservatives have stayed despite their opposition allows this to be

a case of elasticity and not merely change.

3 “Episcopal Domestic Fast Facts Trends”; www.episcopalchurch.org.

4 http://anglicanchurch.net/?/main/page/about-acna

14

The initial idea for this research project was spawned by Bishop Robinson’s election.

Members of the research team had worked previously in research and consulting capacities with

the Episcopal Church and its affiliate organizations; hence, our knowledge of and access to the

organization were at that time already strong. Shortly after Bishop Robinson’s consecration, we

approached Church leadership with a proposal to study the organization even more

systematically as it responded to this landmark event. In our agreement, we received permission

to conduct a wide range of data collection procedures, detailed below. Hence, our data spans

before, during, and after the event.

Data Sources

We drew upon multiple data sources, including Church publications, internal

communications, news media, on-site observations, and 72 in-depth semi-structured interviews

with a diverse array of Church leaders and employees. Our multi-method approach allowed us to

capture over an extensive period of time the multiple tensions and dynamism of identity

elasticity. Highlights of each data source are explained below; an inventory of the supplemental

data we gathered is found in Table 1, with interview and on-site data in Table 2.

[Insert Tables 1 & 2 about here]

Shortly after Gene Robinson’s election in the summer of 2003, we began systematically

reading, archiving, and analyzing publicly available news sources, including worldwide,

national, and local sources such as newspapers, radio, and television. We also read and analyzed

news media data that had been created before Bishop Robinson’s election in order to ensure a

longer-term view of organizational identity. In addition, our informants inside the Church

regularly provided us with internal documents, such as emails from listserves, drafts of

forthcoming documents, notes and slides from Executive Committee meetings, and research

conducted internally by Church sociologists and statisticians. Documents included emerging

15

reports as well as historical reports, again corroborating the longer-term identity issues in play.

We also conducted on-site observations and took copious field notes from visiting

Church headquarters and attending leadership meetings, regional and international Church

conferences and workshops. We began the primary data collection portion of the project by

interviewing four informants within the Church. These interviews were broad, undertaken to

further sensitize us to the current issues the Church faced, its structure, and identity. Follow-up

interviews, email exchanges, and conversations occurred with informants throughout the study.

Following “purposeful sampling” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) and based on media accounts

and informant interviews, we interviewed 37 Church leaders (e.g., bishops and deputies) and

people in two other classifications – (1) 18 “representative stakeholders (RS),” a term we used

for people who were official representatives of groups affiliated with the Church (e.g., leaders of

gay rights groups, conservative movements) and (2) 13 “persons of interest (POI)” – individuals

not representing any group per se, but whose positions gave unique vantage points.5

We asked all interviewees questions dealing with organizational identity, the challenges

faced by the Church, and how various groups and individuals were responding. This structured

component allowed for comparisons across interviews as we strove to understand how members

framed and reacted to the Church’s identity. In addition to these standard questions across time,

we also tailored questions based on (a) emerging trends in the data and (b) the unique vantage

point offered by particular interviewees. Interviews were audio recorded and professionally

transcribed verbatim. Appendix A includes a sample of our key interview questions.

Data Analysis

In our coding and analysis, we took a social constructionist approach in which we view

5 As other authors have pointed out, interviews involve active interactions (Potter and Wetherell, 1987) and “co-

construction of interviewer and interviewee subjectivities” (Ashcraft & Mumby, 2004: 104). Thus, they are active

(rather than static) interactions involving co-construction.

16

identity elasticity as a construction produced by actors instead of an a priori or generalized state

that is objectively “out there” to be discovered (Charmaz, 2006). Rather, identity elasticity is

based on diverse, precariously maintained interpretations (Tsoukas & Chia, 2002), and the

tensions that produce it are discursively produced/modified and cognitively perceived/retrieved

(Leonardi & Barley, 2010), in part through drawing on the past as a resource. Our inductive,

qualitative approach involved deriving insights iteratively from the multiple sources of data

previously described (Charmaz, 2006; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). This

analytic method has been used successfully in multiple studies on individual and organizational

identity (e.g., Ashforth, Kreiner, Clark, & Fugate, 2007; Corley & Gioia, 2004; Kreiner et al.,

2006). Using constant comparison (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), insights from earlier data drove

decisions about subsequent data collection and analysis.

Our data analysis unfolded in two parallel processes. First, we used data from public

media, official Church publications, internal memos, and on-site observations to continually

deepen our understanding of the organization and its processes throughout the ten years of the

study. These data were analyzed broadly through categorizing field notes, classifying articles,

writing researcher memos (Charmaz, 2006), and logging quotes from meetings and media

reports. In all, over 2,300 articles, statements, and video and audio files were catalogued.

Our second data analytic process was more detailed and involved coding interview

transcripts, following the procedures used by past researchers including Ashforth et al (2007),

Kreiner et al. (2006) and Treviño et al. (2014). Coding is an established method of “meaning

condensation” (Lee, 1999: 89) whereby researchers abstract the most relevant themes (“codes”)

from the data, arrange them in a hierarchy to track their relationships, and document their

meanings in a dictionary, which develops during data analysis. We coded 72 interviews, which

averaged 20 single-spaced pages for a total of over 1,400 pages. We used a two-step coding

17

system in which codes were derived inductively from interviews and ultimately agreed upon by

the authors. In the first step, each transcript was independently coded by two members of the

research team. With this method, a code or codes are assigned to a section of text when

phenomena are observed. Our codes consisted of in-vivo codes (i.e., language used by the

informants; Strauss & Corbin, 1998), theory-based codes, as well as our own description to

categorize and capture interview themes. In the second step, we analyzed batches of two or three

transcripts in joint meetings in which the two coders compared and discussed their independent

coding to arrive at a consensual coding for the transcript. The dialogue at these meetings helped

us form ideas as well as to develop and refine themes.

Our coding process involved mapping the data with codes, while at the same time,

arranging these codes in a hierarchy. That is, rather than coding all of the data, then looking for

higher order themes, we were attentive to themes as we coded, consolidating, moving, and

rearranging codes in the dictionary as the data and our growing understanding of it dictated. By

mapping the data in this way, we were able to develop a clear picture of the data based on the

accounts of organizational members. We were also able to integrate theoretical and in-vivo codes

into a coherent whole. For example, in looking over all of the coded passages of text, we noted

that two codes that might seem contradictory (e.g., “Episcopal identity: multiple: conflicting”

and “Episcopal identity: multiple: congruent”) often coexisted on the same passages of text. The

presence and juxtaposition of contradictory codes led us to consider dialectics as a framework

that captured the relationships we found in our data and, ultimately, to identity elasticity as a

plausible way to account for these relationships. Figure 1 illustrates our data structure (Gioia,

Corley, & Hamilton, 2013) and how we uncovered tensions that simultaneously pull toward

holding together and breaking apart “who we are.” Similar to data structure displays in Corley

(2004), Harrison & Corley (2011), and Nag et al. (2007), we show findings on both sides of the

18

dialectic tensions of our overarching theme of elasticity – simultaneous social constructions of

pulling apart and keeping together identity. However, since our thematic development occurred

concurrently with our coding, we do not refer to our codes as strictly “first-order” or “second-

order.” We used the NVivo software program for data management and analysis.

[Insert Figure 1 about here.]

By engaging in these two parallel data collection and analyses processes—broad

(categorizing field notes, classifying articles, writing memos) and more detailed (fine coding and

analyzing interview transcripts)—we were able to regularly compare multiple types of data

(archival, media, interview, etc.) to further refine our thinking and generate theory. As analysis

progressed, we observed the recurring themes of identity elasticity and dialectic tensions. Further

analysis led to better understanding of these two major themes, resulting in the findings

presented below. At several stages during the data analysis process, we conducted “member

checks” of our emerging findings, not only with our key informants, but also by presenting them

to organizational leaders and stakeholders to ensure the trustworthiness of our coding scheme,

emergent findings, and theoretical model (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Trustworthiness was further

ensured by our engagement with the Church culture before, during and after our study; our use of

multiple methods (e.g., participant observation, archival data, interviews); drawing on multiple

and diverse sources (primary and secondary), and our length of time in the field (ten years). All

of these steps helped ensure verisimilitude between the data and our interpretation of it.

FINDINGS

Identity Elasticity

To preview our findings, and to serve as a guide for the processes described herein, we

present a conceptual model in Figure 2. We found that individuals dealt with organizational

identity in terms of both process and characteristic; organizational identity work reflected the

19

process that resulted in social constructions, ways in which organizational identity was viewed.

For example, although members were quite lucid in explaining how they saw the characteristics

of Episcopal identity, many also emphasized a processual approach. Indeed, one Church-posted

video showed a clergy member declaring that identity is “a verb, not a noun.” In a follow-up

interview we conducted with this priest, he described to us his stance that identity is not merely

about being but also becoming, and that labels about identity were inherently too constricting to

reflect the ongoing nature of change. Moreover, many members did not construct identity as if it

were merely static attributes or unproblematic (or neutrally received). Rather, tensions emerged

as members discussed identity, often using “thing-like” labels, but imbuing those labels with

different features and processual, tensional descriptions. As demonstrated in Figure 2,

negotiating these tensions represents organizational identity work, the process in which members

negotiate tensions regarding “who we are.” The consequence of these negotiations—the

constructions of organizational identity as “being” elastic or inelastic—then become the

characteristics of identity individuals ascribe to the organization. As described in detail below,

(re)negotiated identity can be viewed as expanded, static, or constricted. We show how our

findings contribute to both the identity and dialectics literatures, as these dialectic tensions

underlie the social construction of identity. We also note that although elasticity is cognitively

and/or discursively constructed as a result of identity work, consequences of elasticity (or

inelasticity) can be manifest behaviorally, such as individuals or parishes departing the Church.

Hence, in Figure 2 we see social (re)construction of identity through dialectic tensions, which

can result in expanded, static, or contracted constructions of identity.

[Insert Figure 2 about here]

In our data, we found pulls in oppositional directions as individuals constructed

organizational identity – a pull toward the expansion of identity, and a pull toward the

20

constriction of organizational identity – creating the tensions of elasticity. We therefore defined

identity elasticity as the extent to which these socially constructed tensions serve to stretch

organizational identity while simultaneously holding it together. Elastic constructions of identity

favor expansion, whereas inelastic constructions constrict identity. An expanding view of

identity allows for the incorporation of new facets of identity as legitimate and desirable,

whereas a constricting view disallows such incorporation. As one interviewee explained:

The idea is critical mass… The straw that is before the straw that breaks the camel’s back

is the same size and weight as the straw that breaks the camel’s back… You look at the

straw and say, “Since this one didn’t break the system, therefore the next one won’t.”…

And the problem is, it does. Every system has its tipping point, and the problem with this

is the Episcopal Church has gone past its tipping point. Or to change metaphors, it’s a

bridge too far. (RS #7-male)

This interviewee eloquently describes a point he sees at which identity expansion no

longer becomes tenable. In contrast, other interviewees constructed such expansions as not only

tenable, but desirable and crucial to maintain a “creative tension”—giving rise to our findings

about how members construct such tensions in ways that shape identity as elastic or inelastic.

Manifestations of identity elasticity. Just as opposing forces (simultaneously stretching

apart while also holding together) produce the possibility of elastic stretch in the boundaries of a

balloon or a rubber band, so it is metaphorically with identity elasticity. However, a more useful

metaphor for elasticity lies deeper in physics and subatomic forces6. Many identity labels of the

Episcopal Church were viewed by members in clearly non-neutral, charged terms much in the

same way that parts of an atom have “charges.” The highly dynamic yet unitary aspect of the

atom is preserved by simultaneous forces exerted when opposite charges attract very dissimilar

particles. What we classify as a particular kind of atom would quickly devolve into a chaos of

6 We note that in describing “forces” throughout the paper, we are still maintaining our social construction approach.

When discussing identity, as opposed to physics, these forces are constructed by individuals in their sensemaking on

identity dynamics, not absolute forces at play.

21

waves/particles lacking cohesion or identity absent the forces holding it together. Thus, the

dynamic forces at work in the seemingly stable world of matter are more like the simultaneous

push and pull of identity constructions that constitute elasticity. Although identity claims can be

perceived as neutral, they can also be highly biased with what amounts in members’ discourse to

magnitude and direction of a force, just as a vector in physics. Some identities are constructed as

attracting (pulling the organization together) while others are constructed as repelling (expanding

the limits outward or pulling it apart). Such perceived identity claims can be said to be in elastic

tension if they are held simultaneously in an interplay such that the constructed identity of the

organization does not fragment. When inelasticity of identity is constructed, by contrast, the

identity is perceived as split (as in nuclear fission, atomic nuclei may be “split”) with more

constrained, stable, or even completely different views of “who we are.”

Thus, elasticity is not so much determined by simply increasing plurality, but by the

conflicting and contradictory qualities of the constructed identity claims. The resulting tensions

inherent in elasticity are found when attempts to accommodate multiple claims of organizational

identity simultaneously shape identity, but in opposite directions — (1) claims that push to

expand outward to a wider and revised definition of “who we are” and (2) those that restrict and

resist identity expansion. In short, the stretch from identity elasticity can occur precisely and only

because multiple constructions are held in an ongoing interplay, a dynamic “both/and” tension.

Conversely, inelastic framing of identity takes an “either/or” perspective; one identity claim

predominates at the expense of its opposite. Diversity and plurality in constructions of identity

are often the very drivers of elasticity because they stimulate individuals to frame identity in a

more expansive way. As one of our stakeholders (#3-male) noted, “what I call true Anglicanism

is its comprehensiveness, or to quote Desmond Tutu, its ‘messiness’.”

Elasticity within identity labels. A major label of Episcopal identity that emerged in our

22

study was that of inclusion. This term and related ones (e.g., diversity, plurality) were labels that

members repeatedly used in describing the organization’s identity, regardless of their ideological

bent. However, we found elasticity tensions within this label – it was interpreted quite differently

by particular ideological camps to frame identity. Vantage point matters in identity construction

(Corley, 2004) and can directly influence the degree to which identity is constructed as fluid or

stable, and as elastic or inelastic. The identity label of inclusive was omnipresent in our data; in

fact, this theme is the sine qua non of Episcopal identity, captured in the sign “The Episcopal

Church Welcomes You” found outside all Episcopal churches. However, various members

interpreted this aspect of identity in markedly different ways. While liberal-leaning members

described inclusion in terms of increasing the diversity of members, to conservatives, inclusion

was often described as losing the Church’s theological and spiritual core. Hence, the more liberal

orientation was to frame identity in an elastic way (open to stretch and change), whereas the

more conservative orientation was more inelastic (not wanting to expand the definition of

“inclusive”). Thus, although some identity labels were shared by different camps, the meanings

and degree of elasticity of these “shared” labels were often hotly contested.

Elasticity between identity labels. In addition to elasticity within a given identity label,

we found organizational members constructing multiple views of organizational identity with

varying degrees of elasticity. While others have noted identity plurality (e.g., Pratt & Foreman,

2000), elasticity is not determined simply by increasing plurality but by the conflicting and

contradictory qualities of constructed identity labels. In other words, multiple constructions of

identity are held in dynamic interplay. Specifically, we found a pattern in which views of identity

were constructed as either congruent (compatible) or incongruent (conflicting) depending on

one’s ideological stance. More liberal-leaning individuals tended to frame these various views as

compatible with the ongoing trajectory of identity work, whereas conservatives framed them as

23

conflicting and a departure from the trajectory of identity work over time. For example, a liberal-

leaning Church leader (RS #3-male) told us, “If people don’t, to some degree, find attraction to a

comprehensiveness, then I think they really are always going to be unhappy until they find a

more lock-stepped denomination.” This interviewee pointed to conservatives’ unhappiness with

the lack of doctrine – a theme that recurred throughout our study. However, liberal-leaning

leaders often emphasized how multiple viewpoints could co-exist. As an example from our

secondary dataset, Bishop Robinson (in an interview with Larry King) described this

phenomenon as striving for “unity, not unanimity” – a turn of phrase that allows for diversity

and cohesion. Conversely, conservatives highlighted the inability to compromise when divergent

views of identity collided. For example, one conservative leader noted a key problem was that:

…the idea of tolerance, which is a very good idea, got smuggled down into the essentials.

And the problem with that is that it’s not compatible. I mean, if you say ‘Jesus is Lord,’

and I say ‘Jesus isn’t Lord,’ and we compromise and say ‘Jesus is sometimes Lord,’ that’s

not a Christian Church. (RS #7-male)

This interviewee’s declaration that the issue is one in which compromise (by saying “Jesus is

sometimes Lord”) would not work represents an inelastic construction of identity and directly

confronts the more elastic “idea of tolerance” supported by the liberal side of the debate.

Two other groups merit discussion to illustrate the identity work involved as elasticity is

negotiated. One group is conservatives who chose to stay in the Church in spite of ideological

differences. In some cases, liberal leaders engaged in proactive organization identity work to

keep these conservatives as members. As an example, a liberal bishop noted:

I would say that, historically, this diocese has been to the left of center, and I think that’s

reflected in its commitment to social justice, inclusivity.… I think it remains that way,

but it worked very hard not to abandon those to the right…. My role is to continue to

minister to all the people of the diocese, and all the congregations of the diocese… [and]

protect the place of every congregation and every communicant. (Bishop #6-male)

In this case, the liberal leader has chosen to avoid “abandon[ing] those to the right,” essentially

living with the identity tension, whereby expanding his construction of organizational identity.

24

Conservative leaders and members who remained also engaged in organizational identity

work. As one example, some conservative-leaning leaders who stayed chose to emphasize the

“Anglican” rather than “Episcopal” label, but to maintain the structural affiliation. (Recall that

the Episcopal Church is a member of the global Anglican Communion.) As one conservative

bishop (Bishop #15-male) noted, “We are the Anglican Church here, and we will stay a part of

the Episcopal Church… That’s given people another fixed point of unity in the midst of

diversity.” Other conservatives who stayed described both feeling alienated, as well as efforts

made to “genuinely value us and the witness we have, even though they respectfully disagree

with where we are” (RS#18-male).

A second group who articulated an elastic identity construction is the liberals who chose

to stay in predominantly conservative dioceses for years preceding the diocese’s defection. These

individuals bore the brunt of criticism in their dioceses, as can be seen in this quote from a priest

reflecting on her decision to stay in one of the most conservative dioceses in the Church:

Living where I live, it is a daily decision: Do I stay in the Episcopal Church or not? By

staying in the Episcopal Church in this place, am I being complicit in my own

oppression? I have to ask that question all the time, particularly after one of our diocesan

conventions when it has been so nasty. When someone like me stands up to speak, you’re

booed by the floor. It makes me wonder, “Why am I here?” (RS#14-female)

In both of these cases—conservatives staying in the Church and liberals staying in conservative

dioceses—members and leaders frequently reported ambivalent feelings, a tension between their

construction of the Church’s identity and their role in it. Focusing on a different identity referent

(e.g., Anglican vs. Episcopalian) within the larger organization allowed some members to

maintain their sense of organizational identity rather than abandon it altogether, illustrating

another way in which elasticity was maintained through organizational identity work.

Dialectics of Elasticity

We turn now to a focus on the specific dialectic tensions of identity elasticity and the

25

ensuing identity work we observed. We found individuals holding a creative dialectic tension, an

“articulation together of opposites” kept in “tension and play” (Mumby, 2005: 23). Our findings

show that identity dualities/contradictions may be held indefinitely in the tensions that produce

the push-pull “stretch” accomplished in members’ organizational identity work. The persistent—

yet unbalanced and unequal—stretch and contraction of these tensional dualities constituted what

we observed in our data as identity elasticity. We thus put forth a contemporary view of

dialectics (versus a more traditional Hegelian, synthetic view) as more precisely capturing the

negotiable interplay of these dualities. In the dynamics of identity elasticity, stability is only

momentary and fleeting, at best. Rather, disequilibrium must be attended to creatively in an

ongoing tension (without necessarily being synthesized or resolved) if the organization is to

survive intact as a whole. Otherwise, identity groupings within the organization in which an

inelastic condition has been predominantly constructed will ultimately fragment into new

organizations or groups.

We now outline four dialectics experienced as organizational members engaged in

organizational identity work (See Table 3). The first dialectic is an overarching one that provides

coherence to the remaining three dialectics (centrality, endurance, and distinctiveness).

------------------------------

Insert Table 3 about here

------------------------------

Overarching Elasticity Dialectic: “Hold Together vs. Push Apart”

Elasticity as tension. Each of the dialectics presented below is a manifestation of an

overarching elasticity dialectic – a socially-constructed tension between holding identity together

while simultaneously pushing identity apart. This tension was expressed often in our primary and

secondary data, surfacing in various usages of two phrases: “creative tension” and “the diverse

center.” For example, the Report of the Inter-Anglican Theological and Doctrinal Commission

(Virginia Report, 1997) stated: “The life of the Communion is held together in the creative

26

tension of Provincial autonomy and interdependence.” Ten years later, the phrase was still being

used in the Church’s discourse to express this tension. For example, in the House of Deputies

Committee on the State of the Church Report (2007), the question was posed: “To what extent

can we unite around key elements considered essential to faith and order and live with the

messiness of creative tension around the rest?” Such statements expressed the tension of

elasticity as experienced by those living in the tug between polarities. As one bishop told us:

The great thing about our heritage is… that we seek not compromise for the sake of

peace, but comprehension for the sake of truth. That’s not an easy thing to understand,

but that comprehensiveness is about holding together things which need each other and

not letting ourselves be torn into different subgroups or sub-identities. (Bishop #15-male)

Inherent in this viewpoint is the valuing of an inclusive stance toward others and their opinions.

Moreover, the Bishop constructs a tension of “holding together things” that might otherwise

result in being “torn into different subgroups or sub-identities.” He privileges comprehensiveness

over compromise, and in so doing, evidences an assumption of contemporary dialectics—i.e.,

that the tension must be contained as a unity because of (not in spite of) an ongoing interplay

among the unresolved differences brought on by the diversity of comprehensiveness. As

described earlier, one of the most prevalent themes in our data is the Episcopal value of

inclusion, which emphasizes the need to hold together despite differences of opinion. We also

see the dialectic interplay between unity and difference in the following example from our

interview with the former Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold, who drew upon the Biblical analogy

of the Church being like a human body:

I’m so struck by Paul’s use of the body analogy. The eye cannot say to the hand, I have

no need of you. And so my own feeling is that we are limbs and members of the body of

Christ, all with our distinctiveness. Paul also makes the point that if all the body parts

were the same, the body would have no coherence. So you need the differentiations

within the body. So if you carry that a step further, then you need people who embody the

Gospel in different ways and one sees this and one sees that as central and crucial. You

need all that stuff. And you really can’t just say because I don’t like you, we’re quits,

because Paul says you can’t do that. I think heresy, I mean wrong belief, is to be

preferred over schism, which is an actual fracturing in the body.

27

The value of inclusion and cohesion is an enabling force toward constructing elasticity –

a coherent and compelling rationale for the majority of Episcopalians to stick together in unity

despite strong differences. This value is so strong, so deeply held, that during the first three years

after Bishop Robinson’s election, the majority of even staunchly conservative Episcopalians tried

to reform the Church (i.e., have it undo Robinson’s election) rather than leave the Church. Only

after those attempts at reform failed did many of them leave. As one lay General Convention

deputy who opposed Robinson’s election told us during those early years, constructing her own

limits (i.e., “some point”) beyond which identity became inelastic:

We’re doing what we can for reformation… We don’t have an intention of splitting away

from the national Church; we want to work on reformation from within, but we just feel

like there’s some point beyond which you can’t agree to disagree. There are some points

that are negotiable, but like on this issue, there is just not room… for negotiation. Either

you believe that scripture condemns an act of homosexual lifestyle or you don’t. (Lay

deputy #8-female)

By stating that there was “not room…for negotiation,” and by casting a do-or-don’t dichotomy

about beliefs, this lay leader demonstrates the inelastic condition wherein the rationale for

pulling apart exceeds the rationale for holding together.

Changing stances on elasticity. Although elasticity simultaneously comprises beliefs of

holding together and pulling apart identity, we found clear patterns in our data that people could

change their stance on the elasticity of the Church’s identity. These shifts were often illustrated

through metaphors such as the process of divorce or resolving interpersonal conflicts. These

processual metaphors showed how people’s positions about elasticity were negotiated and

changed. Drawing on the marriage metaphor, many of our interviewees described philosophical

camps in the Church (conservative, liberal) as marriage partners and used language such as

separation, divorce, and reconciliation. This language is useful in illuminating elasticity

dynamics as a process, as it (a) sheds light on how deeply individuals felt the tension and (b)

28

illustrates a temporal component in negotiating elasticity – that it can change. For example, as

current Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts-Schori noted:

It may be a time of walking apart, or encouraging people to find a separate place where

they’re going to be more at peace, and then when there’s a little more peace, to begin to

have conversations again. In a domestic violence situation, if people are throwing things

at each other, you separate them and let them calm down before there’s any hope of

finding some reconciliation. And in some places, that’s where we are, certainly not

everywhere.

Hence, a temporary “pushing apart” can sometimes allow for a longer term “holding

together,” demonstrating a temporal ebb and flow of elasticity. Conversely, in their discourse,

conservatives often used words like “irreconcilable” in drawing on the marriage metaphor,

suggesting a more identity-constricting and inelastic stance. We asked Bishop Robinson to

comment on those who constructed the possibility of reconciling identities as “impossible”:

Until about a year ago I thought that we were all working for reconciliation, but we were

not able to achieve it...Starting about a year ago, and confirmed in what you hear now,

the [conservative] folks began to be honest, apparently – or maybe they had just come to

this place – that they were no longer interested in working for reconciliation. They think

it’s an impossible moment. They think it’s irreconcilable. Well, my feeling is, then, that

nothing is irreconcilable unless we decide it is… When one side says it’s irreconcilable,

then what do you do with that? It’s like in a marriage. One spouse is saying, “Let’s go to

counseling.”, and the other one’s saying, “You know what? I’m not interested in

counseling”. They began to use the image of divorce that I first heard a year ago this past

summer, when they said just straight out, “All we’re interested in is dividing up the

furniture”. Well that’s a whole different situation. I’ve never wanted to give up on being

reconciled to one another, because [of] our roots…

This quote illustrates the socially constructed nature of elastic (reconcilable) versus inelastic

(irreconcilable) tensions as he declares that “nothing is irreconcilable unless we decide it is.” He

describes conservatives as “no longer interested in…reconciliation.” Drawing on the divorce

metaphor (“dividing up the furniture”), the situation is discursively constructed as inelastic.

As can be seen in the examples above, identity is constructed as more or less expanded or

constricted according to the cognitive and discursive constructions declaring it so, and,

importantly, these constructions can vary from one person to the next and be changed over time.

29

This, we argue, is the heart of organizational identity work relating to elasticity – that

organizational members and leaders address and negotiate their stances on the elasticity of their

organization’s identity. Over time, this organizational identity work (process) can lead to

changes in the view of “who we are” (revised social construction of identity). We argue that

there are three potential elasticity-related results from organizational identity work: (1)

expansion, wherein an elastic stance allows new/changing identities to be accommodated; (2)

stasis, wherein identity constructions hold together but are neither expanded nor constricted; or

(3) constriction, wherein an inelastic stance not only disallows expansion, but results in dismissal

of some identity claims. This leads us to our overarching proposition:

Proposition 1: The process of organizational identity work facilitates constructions of

identity as expanded, static, or constricted.7

We turn our attention to three specific dialectic tensions we observed in our data, each of

which relate directly to the seminal tripartite definition of identity—central, enduring, and

distinctive—proposed by Albert and Whetten (1985). Based on our data, we problematize these

features and suggest reframing them as tensions of elasticity. Within each of the three dialectics,

we also identify organizational identity work in which organizational members engaged.

Centrality Dialectic: “Core vs. Peripheral”

We observed key differences in how members constructed what was core versus what

was peripheral to organizational identity. We found that identity work was fueled by

disagreement about what constituted the core features rather than the peripheral features of

organizational identity. This centrality dialectic – which deals with the priorities of identity

claims – directly affects elasticity in at least two ways: it frames the “center” that holds together

what is core to organizational members, and it marginalizes other aspects of identity as highly

7 To avoid overuse of the term “social construction” throughout all our propositions, we simply remind the reader

that we treat organizational identity and elasticity as social constructions.

30

negotiable and/or insignificant. Identity is contested terrain (Gioia et al., 2000), and the centrality

dialectic involves staking out the center (that holds the organization together) versus the fringe

elements (that push the organization apart). In our data, we found repeated use of “the center”

metaphor in various forms. For example, in a 2004 interview with Episcopal News Service,

former Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold referred to Church members who were “fully

participating, representing a variety of views, representing what I like to call the ‘diverse center’

of our Church.” Similarly, in a 2003 interview with Episcopal News Service, Bishop Neil

Alexander of the Diocese of Atlanta stated, “…while on other matters related to homosexuality

we are not of a common mind, the center of the communion is holding.”

Returning to our atomic metaphor, an analogy is the “centrality” feature of electrons. The

closer an electron is to the nucleus of an atom, the more energy required to separate it (pull it

apart) from its nucleus. Similarly, core aspects of identity may be viewed as the positively

charged nucleus; more central surrounding aspects are bound more tightly to that nucleus,

legitimized and framed as essential. Peripheral aspects are constructed as less essential and

therefore relatively negotiable, even expendable, an inappropriate issue for division. Thus, while

identity plurality has been theorized by others as a matter of number of identities and how

closely they are connected in the aggregate, as if the couplings could be averaged across the

board (e.g., Pratt & Foreman, 2000), we propose that the dialectic tension of core vs. peripheral

is a matter of highly differentiated couplings of singular identity claims to what is “core” or

central. Moreover, which identity claims are constructed as “core” and which ones are

categorized as “peripheral” varies considerably by ideological positioning. We turn now to the

organizational identity work to maintain the centrality dialectic: (1) classifying plurality as core

vs. peripheral and (2) subordinating vs. problematizing conflicting identity claims.

Classifying identity plurality as core vs. peripheral. Whether organizational members

31

embrace identity plurality or prefer to construct a more monolithic identity can greatly shape

organizational identity work. As noted, the classification of core vs. peripheral can vary greatly

among organizational members. Indeed, it is the dispersion of opinion about what is core or

central that makes this a compelling identity challenge. We found that organizational members

disputed the degree to which plurality of identity and ideology should be central or peripheral.

The more conservative-leaning members argued against identity plurality’s centrality and balked

when that plurality was seen as going too far. An example appears in this vignette, told to us by

an Episcopalian gay rights leader about her professional relationship with a conservative leader:

We spent an entire year having lunch together once a month, with 8 other clergy, at the

behest of our bishop, talking through issues of diversity around conversations about the

catechism, trying to look at what we had in common, what we believed, what we held in

difference. Again and again we came down to – we held 98% of what we believed in

common, but for us the 2% was the diversity that makes this Church great. For them it

was the deal-breaker, the straw that broke the camel’s back. (RS #13-female)

First, in this story, the leader describes interactions in which she and a conservative-leaning

leader hashed out commonalities, beliefs and differences, which illustrates the ongoing

interpersonal negotiations around identity. The leader interpreted the “2%” of disagreement as

the sticking point for the conservatives—excessive emphasis on plurality was not something that

they would accept. This construction was consistently corroborated in our data by conservative

members who used such metaphors as “the straw that broke the camel’s back” to position the

over-extending of diversity as a “deal-breaker” of elasticity. In contrast, the more liberal-leaning

members sought to celebrate and showcase differences in favor of the “big-tent” approach.

How members variously prioritize what is central to identity and what is peripheral

directly informs how they construct the limits of identity elasticity. From these observations, we

can deduce that when organizational members prioritize plurality (peaceful co-existence of

multiple interpretations of identity) as a core aspect of identity, elasticity is enabled. Therefore:

Proposition 2a: Prioritizing plurality as core to organizational identity facilitates an

32

elastic stance toward organizational identity, expanding identity, whereas diminishing

plurality as peripheral to identity facilitates an inelastic stance toward identity,

constricting identity.

Subordinating vs. problematizing conflicting identity claim(s). One of the central ways

in which Episcopal identity is known is its worship service, which is called the Eucharist and

involves (in part) reading passages from the Book of Common Prayer. This ceremony was

routinely articulated as central to Episcopal ideals. The Eucharist – though similar in process to

some other Churches – held a great deal of symbolic power for Episcopalians as a key source of

unity that binds members together despite a host of philosophical differences. At Eucharist, all

come together in unity regardless of their peripheral beliefs and values, allowing for plurality

(and therefore enabling elasticity). We asked Bishop Robinson if, with so many conservatives

threatening to leave, there was there a way for the Church to stay together. His response was:

Absolutely. It’s called the Eucharist… It is our classic tradition that [though] we disagree

about virtually everything, we all find our way to the communion rail, where we kneel

and receive the body and blood of Christ with as much humility as we can muster, and we

find our unity there, and we go back to the pews and we fight about everything. Stem cell

research, abortion, who should be President, name it.… We can do that because of this

distinction between sort of core doctrine and other issues of morality.

In this quote, Bishop Robinson articulates the logic that certain identity-defining practices

(Eucharist) are strong enough to provide a “core” around which “other issues” (stem cell

research, abortion, etc.) can be subordinated and therefore tolerated. The rallying around the

Eucharist as a symbol of unity allows for elasticity in secondary identity claims – e.g.,

political/ideological/moral positions by which the Church is variously defined. Church members

can disagree about identity constructions that are cast as preferential, and yet still come together

for what is said to matter most—essential worship practices core to “who we are.” When this

rallying point breaks down, elasticity reaches its limits. Indeed, we witnessed first-hand an

occasion in which some conservative bishops refused to participate in Eucharist with Bishop

Robinson. It was a strong symbolic action to show their unwillingness to include a gay bishop in

33

their worship, and more broadly, an unwillingness to expand the inclusiveness of the identity.

For most organizational members, increased elasticity was not accomplished when two

identity claims were constructed as core to the organizational identity and conflicting with one

another. In contrast, when two identity claims were constructed as conflicting yet true-but-

peripheral to identity, members were able to “make room” for the claim that they found

disagreeable. Hence, elasticity is, in part, a function of what identity claims are constructed as

core and what claims are constructed as peripheral. In fact, a process that we observed among

liberals in trying to increase identity elasticity was to subordinate identity claims that conflicted

with what was seen as core to the Church, thereby lessening their perceived importance and

creating enough “wiggle room” for their co-existence. Conservatives, however, problematized

identity claims that they perceived conflicted with core aspects. Hence:

Proposition 2b: Subordinating conflicting identity claims as peripheral facilitates an

elastic stance toward organizational identity, expanding identity, whereas emphasizing

conflicting claims facilitates an inelastic stance toward identity, constricting identity.

Endurance Dialectic: “Continuity vs. Change”

According to Albert and Whetten’s (1985) original conceptualization, organizational

identity is “enduring” and some recent research reiterates this, such as how collective memory

can preserve identity (Anteby & Molnar, 2012). Other theorizing has focused more on the

fluidity of identity (e.g., Gioia et al., 2000). Yet, narratives can comprise elements of both

consistency and change (Sonenshein, 2010). We found that a part of organizational identity work

was to construct identity as both enduring and fluid – in a state of continual opposition, the

dialectic tension of continuity versus change. In many ways, these findings render moot the

ongoing debate in the identity literature about enduring versus fluid, because both approaches

can occur simultaneously. For example, we found different members engaging in discursive and

cognitive tactics outlined below for both identity change and identity continuity concurrently.

34

Indeed, several members questioned the “enduring” aspect of identity. For example, one

conservative leader (RS #11-male) told us, “I’m not sure anything is enduring anymore. I have a

feeling [the Church] may fall apart – not only the Episcopal Church, but the whole communion.

We’re in deep crisis.” At the same time, liberal respondents often described the Church as on a

“trajectory” quite consistent with historic conceptions of identity.

Elasticity tension occurs when members see new interpretations of identity as too

qualitatively different to be comfortably added to the mix of “who we are.” The new

interpretations pose a question of congruence with the current version of “who we are” and

provide the context within which identity elasticity or inelasticity is manifest. Consider the

following quote from a conservative-leaning interviewee:

Historically, what has been central, distinctive and enduring has been our emphasis on

worship, liturgy, biblical teaching. What has changed… has been our emphasis on

inclusion and political correctness. And this is like Wal-Mart starting to sell mink coats.

It’s such a difference in the brand name that we’ve had for so long, it’s bound to cause

difficulties. (RS #12-male)

As this quote indicates, organizational members feel strongly about what they perceive to

be changes in or deviations from what they believe the organization’s identity to be and

represent. The endurance dialectic – which deals with continuity versus change in identity –

involves framing a contested aspect of identity as consistent with or a change from the past.

Essentially, “who we were” becomes an argument for “who we are” or “who we should be.” To

facilitate elasticity, controversy or objections to a contested identity claim are positioned as

consistent with identity rather than as a true identity change. Specifically, we found

organizational members engaging in organizational identity work regarding endurance by: (1)

framing the organization’s present as a trajectory of (consistent) or deviation from (inconsistent)

the past; and (2) normalizing or problematizing controversy about the contested identity.

Framing present as trajectory of vs. deviation from the past. Individuals can draw on

35

past events and organizational history in diverse ways to advance their own interests (Suddaby &

Greenwood, 2005). In an elasticity context, how one interprets the past helps frame a preferred

expansion or contraction of the identity the organization is recognized as having. Because

interpretations of the past are malleable, they contribute to what Gioia, et al. (2000) call the

“adaptive instability” of identity. Drawing on past events that are consistent with the contested

“inclusion” identity claim allows for greater elasticity—more expansion in response to

conflicting claims. In many cases, individuals wrestled with the duality of old and new identity

claims that comes with elasticity. The following exchange is telling of the complexity of drawing

on the past to make sense of the present. After one interviewee described the present Episcopal

identity, the interviewer asked him, “Would you say that’s a big change in how the Church sees

itself, or is it a continuation of a previous identity?” His response:

Both, both. It’s very intriguing… It is a continuation, I think, of the actions of the

previous conventions about the ordination of women, making that mandatory... I sat in on

those hearings too and the committee meetings, and some of the language about the

dioceses who weren’t ordaining women: so harsh. “They don’t belong with us and let

them go.” So in that sense, it’s a continuation. But it’s the first time really... I’ve always

been able to say “There are people who disagree with me theologically, but the teachings

of the Church, what we say we believe, I’m in line with.” Now that has shifted. So it’s

both continuation and discontinuous. (POI #14-male)

Unlike this interviewee, most Church leaders did not incorporate both views of history

into their descriptions; rather, most used history to promote one side of the argument or another.

For example, consider these statements from two liberal-leaning stakeholders:

We should have expected this... it was in the DNA; it’s not a change; it’s absolutely part

of the trajectory. (RS #2-male)

I see the ordination of women and the abandonment of embracing slavery... completely

on the same trajectory with the idea that we can and should fully embrace gay and lesbian

people into the body of Christ. (RS #13-female).

With this perspective, an argument is made to continue expanding the notion of inclusion

by coupling the current dilemma to successful past expansions of inclusivity. Compare that

36

approach to how one conservative leader decoupled the past from the current debate:

This is the most significant crisis in the history of the Episcopal Church. There is nothing

anywhere close to parallel to it because of the international aspects of it, as well as its

relationship to our claimed authority. Whereas with Bible or civil rights, that was deeply

rooted in scripture. Here there is no way to use the scriptures, which we claim to be our

foundation, to argue for the change… you had a huge international, very strong outcry

pleading with the Episcopal Church not to do this, which you didn’t have with either civil

rights or with women’s ordination. And so it’s a very different situation. (RS #7-male)

This commentator overtly positions the current crisis as different from past expansions of

“who we are” – not the same as the Church ordaining women, not the same as the Church

embracing “civil rights” – and therefore delegitimizes drawing on the past to legitimize gay

rights in the Church. Note also that by not including gay rights in the category of civil rights, he

further disentangles the current circumstance from past identity expansions. Thus, we propose:

Proposition 3a: Framing current identity-defining events as being consistent with

previous ones facilitates an elastic stance toward organizational identity, expanding

identity, whereas framing current identity-defining events as being inconsistent with

previous ones facilitates an inelastic stance toward identity, constricting identity.

Normalizing vs. problematizing identity conflict. We also found that members

normalized identity conflict by arguing that the current identity challenges were “business as

usual,” or problematized it by contending these challenges were exceptional. One way the former

occurred was to cast the current in-group/out-group debate about gays as similar to debates from

the past. As Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts-Schori told us in our interview with her:

The Church has always wrestled with who’s in and who’s out, where the boundary lies…

The place of gay and lesbian Christians is simply the latest expression of that long series

of struggles over who’s in and who’s out.

In other words, the contested identity issue of “who is in” and “who is out” is framed as

merely another of many struggles in the history of the Church. Several members drew on past

struggles to support their view of how elastic the Church should be in regard to inclusivity,

including the Church’s early embrace of civil rights (in the 1960s); the ordination of women as

priests (in 1974) and bishops (in 1989); the revision of the Book of Common Prayer (in 1979),

37

and the ordination of openly gay priests (as opposed to higher-ranking bishops) (in 1989).

Similarly, we observed an interesting pattern in how people normalized controversy

about change as unexceptional, consistent with identity, or alternatively, positioned the

controversy as a drastic, or even catastrophic, change in identity. In our interview with Bishop

Robinson, he normalized the current controversies in the Church by playing up the Christian

history of contention, noting that “most of the New Testament was only written because the

Churches were fighting.” Using this lens, it was perfectly normal that members would be

fighting over key issues. Other leaders highlighted the potential problems inherent in a change in

identity, such as the metaphor above likening the switch to Wal-Mart selling mink coats. Hence:

Proposition 3b: Normalizing identity controversy facilitates an elastic stance toward

organizational identity, expanding identity, whereas problematizing identity controversy

facilitates an inelastic stance toward identity, constricting identity.

Distinctiveness Dialectic: “Enhancement vs. Loss”

With distinctiveness, Albert and Whetten’s (1985) third core identity feature,

organizational members discern how their organization differs from other organizations.

Previous research, such as Dutton and Dukerich’s (1991) study of the Port Authority, has

demonstrated how outside influences can effect change in organizational identity. One way is

through changing how members perceive the organization to be different from other

organizations. Similar to the social processes associated with individual identity (Brewer, 1991;

Kreiner et al., 2006), organizational members, too, seek an optimal level of distinctiveness in

organizational identity, balancing similarity to and uniqueness from other organizations (Gioia et

al., 2010). The distinctiveness dialectic models this balancing act, illustrating how organizational

members can construct distinctiveness in ways that either enable or constrain elasticity. Unlike

past research, we found this striving toward distinctiveness operating simultaneously in both

external and internal ways as individuals would look outward (comparing the organization to

38

others) or inward (comparing a preferred identity claim to those of others) to fashion points of

distinctiveness. We found members engaged in organizational identity work with each approach.

Eschewing vs. embracing inclusive external trends. Organizational members, in some

cases, were willing to draw on outside influences to construct identity. However, they varied in

the particular outside influences that they were willing to incorporate. The main external

influences we observed were those associated with so-called “inclusive” trends in society toward

more tolerance of homosexuality. As we will show, the extent to which these external trends

were perceived as problematic also depended on the particular referent to which organizational

distinctiveness was compared, and referents differed between ideological camps.

A key question we found organizational leaders and members wrestling with is to what

degree they should draw on outside influences in constructing organizational identity. For

example, liberal-leaning members tended toward embracing many aspects of an increasingly

“inclusive” societal culture, whereas conservative-leaning members tended toward eschewing

these “inclusive” cultural influences. Specific components of the societal culture that were

debated included: changes in public perceptions of gays (e.g., a gradual but consistent increase in

their acceptance) and advances in science (e.g., research arguing homosexuality is not a choice,

but biologically programmed). Conservative-leaning members argued that incorporating

society’s growing acceptance of gay rights was making the Church just like a secular

organization, diluting its position and standing as a religious institution. This argument positions

the inclusion of gays into the Church leadership, then, as a loss of distinctiveness, with the

comparison being between the Church and secular institutions. Conversely, liberal-leaning

members argued that by being the first major Christian denomination to widely accept gays, the

Church was setting itself apart from other religious organizations. This argument positions

embracing gay rights as the enhancement of distinctiveness, with the comparison being between

39

the Episcopal Church and other churches. Hence, the dialectic of distinctiveness greatly depends

on one’s reference point and agenda and can be used differentially to advance each agenda.

We can therefore link the distinctiveness dialectic directly to the issue of elasticity. As

more outside influences (e.g., societal movements, cultural trends) are embraced by members,

they are drawn on in constructing organizational identity, facilitating elasticity. In contrast,

eschewing outside influences preserves the identity status quo – an inelastic position. The

following quote, from a field visit with a parish priest who left the Church along with the

majority of his parish, illustrates this point. He says that the Church is:

…a body that has put inclusivity ahead of scriptural authority. I think it identifies with

our culture and with the voices of culture, and with the world view that comes out of

culture. To my way of thinking, what they’ve done is looked at Holy Scripture and

looked at Christ’s admonition to love one another and just made that paramount to the

point where there really is no sin in their theology, in their doctrine. And without sin,

then there’s really no need for redemption or for a Redeemer and for Jesus. I was talking

to someone today and they said “Did you see the catalog from the National Cathedral

[which belongs to the Episcopal Church]?” I said, “No, I asked them not to send it to me

anymore. They’ve got things for Buddhism [now].” (POI #10-male)

The final portion of this priest’s comments represents a sentiment we observed multiple

times in our data – that non-Christian religions and their practices were unduly influencing how

the Church’s identity was constructed. For example, an Episcopal priest in Seattle was

simultaneously practicing the Muslim religion while being an active priest, raising the ire of

many conservatives who said it represented an impurity of faith. By framing this as an impurity,

the priest is articulating the expansion of “inclusivity” as an inelastic identity construction – i.e.,

that it diminishes the distinctions between the Church and non-Christian religions.

We note that, given our case, our discussion has focused on “inclusive” external trends.

Had the outside influences discussed been conservative and right-wing, the tables would be

turned. That is, embracing external trends from outside the organization could well be perceived

by liberals as a loss of distinctiveness (of the inclusive identity label) and by conservatives as a

40

gain in distinctiveness (of the grounded in scripture identity label). In either case—liberal or

conservative—embracing what are held to be identity-consistent outside trends would enable

elasticity. Distinctiveness, then, is a function of the perceived consonance of outside trends with

preferred identity. For example, liberals let the “outside” in to increase distinctiveness

(perceiving consonance with a preferred inclusive view of identity), leading to elasticity.

Conversely, conservatives held the “outside” at bay to preserve distinctiveness (perceiving

dissonance with a preferred scriptural view of identity), leading to inelasticity. Hence:

Proposition 4a: Embracing inclusive external trends facilitates an elastic stance toward

organizational identity, expanding identity, whereas eschewing inclusive external trends

facilitates an inelastic stance toward identity, constricting identity.

Crafting versus rejecting internal distinctiveness. While the above discussion focuses on

how members construct loss or gain of distinctiveness as a result of external trends, we also

observed efforts within the Church to craft a distinctive place internally through organizational

identity work. One Church leader described this identity crafting as producing (going left to right

ideologically) “bridge-burning liberals, then bridge-building liberals, then left-leaning centrists,

centrists, right-leaning centrists, bridge-building conservatives, and bridge-burning

conservatives” (Bishop #12-male). These ideologically diverse camps sought distinctiveness in a

couple of ways. For some of the camps, organizational identity work involved crafting an

optimally distinctive space within the Church, often in response to issues. For example, one

conservative camp banded together in opposition to the issue of the ordination of women

(Forward in Faith), and another to address the ordination of gays (Anglican Communion

Network), which one Church deputy described as “trying to create a space for people who have a

different position within the Episcopal Church” (Clergy Deputy #5-female). Other camps, for

example, the “bridge-burning” conservatives, were unable to craft such an optimally distinctive

space within the organization. Holding views too incommensurate with the Church, they rejected

41

these attempts at internal distinctiveness, ultimately abandoning the organization altogether.

In contrast to those who left, we noted seven national groups that differed on divisive

issues yet stayed in the Church. They did so by carving out distinctiveness within its borders. As

noted earlier, this is another way in which elasticity can be accomplished. This staying-though-

distinctive behavior was a common response to divisive issues facing the organization:

The Episcopal Women’s Caucus was formed more than 30 years ago around the issue of

the ordination of women. There had been several women working toward this, and in

1973, well, I guess it was three years prior to that the House of Bishops had decided they

were going to have yet another study for the ordination of women. Up to that point it had

been studied for, like a hundred years. So several women decided “enough was enough.”

They said “We’re not participating in this” and…women who were on track to be

deacons and hoping to be priests, and lay women, got together in someplace in NY state,

I think, and organized the EWC around the issue of promoting and working toward the

full inclusion of women in the life of the Church. (RS #13-female)

Unlike the focus of past research classifying managerial responses to identity plurality

(e.g., Pratt & Foreman, 2000), we observed an emergent, proactive grassroots response by some

members to events in the Church. Members who disapproved of the Church’s response chose to

stay and carve out a distinctive space within the organization while still claiming membership in

the larger Church. Crafting optimal distinctiveness (cf. Brewer, 1991) within the Church allowed

them to stay in the larger organization while, at the same time, differentiating themselves from it,

thereby affording more elasticity. Hence:

Proposition 4b: Crafting internal distinctiveness facilitates an elastic stance toward

organizational identity, expanding identity, whereas rejecting internal distinctiveness

facilitates an inelastic stance toward identity, constricting identity.

DISCUSSION

Leaders and members of organizations are often expected to expand what they do for

stakeholders, whether driven by the need to develop markets, create new products, or merge with

other companies. Conversely, organizational spinoffs, divisions, or schisms can involve

considerable identity challenges for members as taken-for-granted assumptions about identity

42

seem to disappear. These macro contextual pressures can result in members (re)negotiating “who

they are” as an organization. We have examined the critical issue of identity elasticity and how it

is constructed. Hence, this case mirrors what many organizational members face as they grapple

with socially constructing the expansion or contraction of their organization’s identity. Our data

give deeper insight into organizational identity and the processual dialectic tensions that we

argue revise what is meant by identity centrality, endurance, and distinctiveness.

Identity as Characteristic and Process

We have shown how elasticity is managed through organizational identity work, locating

our study within the emerging debate between identity as process and identity as characteristic.

The more recent voices advocating a process approach emphasize “doing” over “being” (Pratt,

2012), We found that this “doing” of identity work is undertaken as members manage a set of

ongoing dialectic tensions that reflect the simultaneous push and pull of elasticity. These

dialectic tensions reflect identity as process, and provide a window into the dynamism of

organizational identity. Identity elasticity shows how organizational identity work is an

adaptively unstable process responsive to ongoing competing claims regarding (a) what is

essential or negotiable (centrality); (b) what is consistent or changeable (endurance); and (c)

what links or separates “who we are” vis-à-vis other organizations (distinctiveness). Our data

demonstrate how identity can be fashioned as flexible, elastic, and moveable in ways that

simultaneously allow for adaptation, while also maintaining the sense of being distinct with a set

of values that extend over time. In addition, we have developed propositions that describe how

identity elasticity is constructed, and how organizational identity is fashioned as expanding

and/or contracting as members grapple with the issues of what is central, enduring and

distinctive. We know from past empirical work that organizational identity can be cast as more

“fluid” than “enduring” (e.g., Chreim, 2005; Gioia et al., 2000; Ravasi & Schultz, 2006), yet we

43

knew very little of the tensions and processes at play with this fluidity. Our study contributes by

demonstrating how this fluidity can occur and be contested – by managing dialectic tensions that

allow for the ebb and flow of identity. The expanding and contracting of identity labels and their

meanings allow for more “wiggle room” or “breathing space” demanded by the dynamism that

defines the contemporary, pluralistic organization, yet our approach to elasticity also preserves

the anchors in the original definition of organizational identity. We therefore contribute to the

emerging debate on whether identity is a process or characteristic by agreeing with Gioia and

Patvardhan’s (2012) call for a “both-and framing” and providing empirical evidence showing

that it is both and should be treated as such. We have shown how individuals describe identity in

“thing-like” terms (similar to historic characterizations of identity) but arrive at this point by

engaging in organizational identity work, (re)negotiating the meaning underlying identity labels,

and in doing so, face three identity-relevant and ongoing dialectic tensions (demonstrating how

identity is also process). Hence, while our analysis echoes the fluidity of identity, it also explains

how and why identity endures: because it can be constructed as versatile – malleable, stretchable,

and negotiable – yet also constructed to maintain a link to the past and preserve central meaning.

Hence, elasticity provides an explanation for how identity can simultaneously be enduring and

fluid – a more robust, flexible view of identity as a set of dialectic tensions allowing holding

together while pushing apart. While previous research typically focuses on either changing or

preserving identity, we demonstrate how individuals can simultaneously construct both.

The tensions we found consistently in our data deepen and expand our understanding of

organizational identity as traditionally defined—i.e., not simply as a set of central, enduring, and

distinctive characteristics, but as a dynamic and organic integration of tensions in ongoing

interplay—a dialectic of centrality (core versus peripheral), a dialectic of endurance (continuity

versus change), and a dialectic of distinctiveness (enhancement versus loss). Contributing to the

44

literature by merging identity and dialectics research, we also found organizational members use

a wide array of means to hold dualities in tension in a continual interplay of difference and unity

(e.g., Bakhtin, 1981; Mumby, 2005). Rather than members following a logic of traditional

Hegelian, synthetic dialectics that presumes a resolution of dualities, we found that members

negotiate dualities as ongoing tensions productive of elasticity (or, to some, inelasticity),

justifying them through expansive language of “inclusion” or constricting language of

“irreconcilability.” As noted earlier, without tension, there is no elasticity. This finding opens an

avenue for investigating the construction and consequences of dialectical tensions to inform and

expand our understanding of a specific theory of organization.

More specifically, our data revealed members in an ongoing struggle to include and

contain, while simultaneously to predominate and contest, the varying ways in which identity

tensions were being constructed for the organization. The persistent—yet unbalanced and

unequal—stretch and contraction in these tensional dualities constituted what we observed in our

data as elasticity of the organization’s identity. Moreover, dialectics also accounted for

conditions of dualistic struggle that became too unbalanced—i.e., when boundary conditions

were reached such that ongoing interplay among opposites was overcome by identity

contestation. In such constructions, identity tensions reached an inelastic condition as the point

was reached beyond which the expansive stretch of organizational identity was seen as no longer

able to be accommodated within a single body—i.e., one identity claim must win and the other

lose, an either-or choice. Such polarity led some members to leave the organization. In contrast,

some members were able to construct identity as sufficiently elastic to remain in the Church –

despite their underlying disagreement with its actions. As a whole, this set of findings provides a

framework for enabling organizational change in a new way – by facilitating leaders’ and

members’ constructions of identity as elastic.

45

We have put forth a contemporary view of dialectics as more precisely capturing the

continually negotiable interplay of these dualities. While others have applied such a view of

dialectics in management studies in both explicit and implicit ways (e.g., Ashcraft, 2001;

Benson, 1997; Farjoun, 2010; cf. Creed, DeJordy, & Lok, 2010; Lok, 2010), our empirical

findings show how members employ such dialectic logics in their organizational identity work.

We thus contribute to a more dynamic view of organizational identity, while also contributing to

an expanded understanding of how dialectic tensions apply in organization studies by showing

how members construct these tensions in ways that problematize more conventional notions of

organizational identity. Our study then adds to a sparse body of research that empirically grounds

dialectics categories then applies them to specific phenomena or concepts (e.g., Tracy, 2004).

Our study also highlights how the concept of identity elasticity is conceptually distinct

from identity change – change merely involves movement or modification from past identity to

present, whereas elasticity requires an increase in the plurality and diversity of identity claims. In

other words, members’ constructions of organizational identity do not merely move left or right,

or between this or that identity claim, but stretch in the pluralistic accommodation of both—

sometimes to a point where the “limits of our breadth” (as one interviewee put it) come into

sharper focus. In addition, we have noted throughout that identity elasticity is distinct from

identity plurality (e.g., Pratt & Foreman, 2000). While multiple constructions of identity make

elasticity possible, it is not merely pluralism, but the dynamic interplay between these

constructions that constitutes the stretch associated with identity elasticity.

Interestingly, we noted a similarity in our analysis to the processes articulated by Weick

(1995) and Ashforth, et al. (2011) regarding three levels of subjectivity in regard to identity – the

intrasubjective level (what “I think” our identity is); the intersubjective (what “we think” our

identity is) and the generic subjective (what identity “is”). Our data focus on the intrasubjective

46

and intersubjective levels, and we witnessed both through our interviews and observational data

how the sensemaking surrounding identity both “bubbled up” as individuals argued for

(in)elastic positions via public statements and “trickled down” as individuals changed their

stances based on the shared debates. As an example, at a session we attended at the 2006 General

Convention, members discussed the Church’s response to the Windsor Report, a public

document issued by the Anglican Communion requesting restraint on the Church’s position on

issues relating to homosexuality. Some members argued that resisting the requested restraint

would constitute an “impossible moment in holding [the organization] together”; others

countered that complying would be a “folly of adopting a false identity.” In this process,

members were constructing not only a response to the report, but also hammering out “who they

thought they were.” Hence, the characteristics of “who we are” as a generic subjective

construction of identity were shaped by the processes of dynamic dialectic tensions manifest in

intrasubjective and intersubjective sensemaking. Indeed, the linkages among intra-, inter-, and

generic subjective levels present a rather slippery slope, making precise diagnosis of levels of

analysis particularly problematic. We see this as a major challenge for identity research moving

forward – as we accept that identity is both process and characteristic, the lines between levels of

analysis become considerably blurred. Future work will need to address these multi-level

implications, and we believe our findings can provide a useful foundation for doing so.

Future Research

Our findings demonstrate that identity is much more relative than the “central, enduring,

and distinctive” triumvirate suggests. Indeed, we argue that understanding elasticity is central to

understanding identity – that the dialectic tensions outlined in our study are likely to be present

whenever identity is contested, emerging, or changing. They may even underlie identity during

less turbulent times. We therefore urge future research to carefully consider elasticity as a core

47

construct in studies of organizational identity.

Our study has suggested several paths for future research via the propositions embedded

in our findings. One clear question for future research is: How do the dialectics we identified

operate in other contexts? A concern that typically is raised about inductive case studies is their

transferability to wider domains (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). There are many parallels between the

elasticity story of the Episcopal Church and identity struggles seen in other contemporary,

pluralistic organizations. First, like many organizations, the Church faced identity challenges in

the past; identity conflicts tended to lurk under the surface for many years. While the particular

event in our case study (the ordination of Gene Robinson) was unique to the organization we

studied, the processes associated with elasticity and organizational identity work are quite

transferable to other organizations. For example, although mergers and acquisitions have

dominated the business media during the past two decades, most of them fail miserably. We

argue that this failure may be due to a lack of managers’ understanding the factors that can

strategically facilitate or shape identity as (in)elastic, suggesting that future research should

examine how the elasticity dialectics play out in other contexts. Another example of elasticity

tensions (provided by a reviewer) comes from within academia, wherein some departments

define themselves quite narrowly while others take a “big tent” approach. More broadly within

academia, one finds purists attempting to create narrower definitions of a field whereas others

promote pluralism (e.g., Cannella & Paetzold, 1994; Pfeffer,1993).

Similarly, we suggest future research consider the circumstances under which elasticity

would be good or bad for a given organization. Hence, we encourage future research to examine

the limits or boundary conditions of elasticity. If we consider elasticity as a continuum, there is

likely a point at which constructions of identity expansion and contraction occur at such a level

or rate that members lose sight of who they are as an organization. In these cases, non-

48

responsiveness to internal and/or external pressures—or inelasticity—might allow the

organizational members a much-needed breathing period to gain clarity about who they are.

Examples include organizations that have undergone multiple shifts in identity—perhaps through

a series of mergers and divestitures. Such organizations may reach a point in which identity

becomes overly ambiguous and “threateningly unfamiliar” (Clark et al., 2010: 397) as identity

labels are renegotiated. One could also envision cases in which elasticity becomes lopsided; there

is so much expansion that identity labels become so diffuse and diluted that they are no longer

meaningful. As Kreiner and Ashforth (2004) note, it is hard to identify with a fog. In these cases

of attempting to be everything to all people, expansion of identity claims may be detrimental.

Therefore, an examination of particular benefits and costs associated with (in)elasticity would be

an interesting topic for future research.

Another avenue for future research would be to search for additional dialectic tensions as

well as document additional approaches used in, and outcomes of, the elasticity struggles and

processes we describe in this study. We addressed several tensions arising as individuals

construct identity elasticity, but space constraints do not allow us to delve into all the dialectics

that emerged. (For example, we also found dialectics concerning organizational structure and

language usage.) We suggest that future researchers continue to expand on the various

manifestations of elasticity. Although we have demonstrated cognitive, behavioral, and

discursive manifestations of identity elasticity, much more can be investigated about additional

underlying processes and outcomes. In addition, we would encourage future researchers to study

how leaders within organizations might use particular tensions in strategic ways. For example,

might prioritizing identity plurality as core be a way to gain acceptance among members for

broadening organizational goals?

Future research might also further consider the interplay between organizations and their

49

environments with respect to elasticity. Our data begin to touch on the recursive effects as

individuals draw on institutional or cultural forces in constructing identity, but future work can

examine this further. For example, researchers might explore how social movements and

institutional change are drawn on in negotiating identity elasticity. Indeed, the notion of elasticity

might be applied to social movements as well – how much can people engaged in a social

movement stretch identity claims without diluting the message or dissolving impact? More

broadly, future research might examine the conditions under which particular types of elasticity

(e.g., within identity labels or between them) are most likely to emerge, and with what effects.

Finally, we look forward to future research that applies the notion of identity elasticity to

individual identity. Whereas our focus has been on how individuals construct organizational

identity, the basic issues and processes likely apply to individual identity as well. A lens of

elasticity can likely shed much-needed light on how individuals manage to meet the demands of

an ever-changing, ever-more-complex identity and internal conflict regarding their identity. For

example, as individuals engage in identity work, they face decisions about whether or not to

expand or contract who they are, holding in tension multiple views of self simultaneously, such

as comparing their current selves to past selves (who they were) (Albert, 1977); possible selves

(who they may become) (Ibarra, 2003; Markus & Nurius, 1986), ideal selves (who they might

ideally be) (Higgins, 1987), and alternative selves (who they could have been) (Obodaru, 2012).

By prioritizing plurality of self as core, they enable a more elastic construction of who they are.

In sum, we have developed the construct of organizational identity elasticity and

demonstrated its centrality to identity processes, providing a new dialectic approach to identity.

We have detailed dialectic tensions that are at the heart of understanding identity and elasticity.

We believe this work can help guide organizational identity change by showing how balancing

key dialectic tensions can help strike an all-too-elusive balance between change and stability.

50

REFERENCES

Albert, S. 1977. Temporal comparison theory. Psychological Review, 84: 485-503.

Albert, S., & Whetten, D. A. 1985. Organizational identity. In L. L. Cummings, & B. M. Staw

(Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 7: 263-295. Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. 2011. Generating research questions through problematization.

Academy of Management Review, 36: 247-271.

Anteby, M., & Molnar, V. 2012. Collective memory meets organizational identity:

Remembering to forget in a firm's rhetorical history. Academy of Management Journal,

55: 515–540.

Ashcraft, K. L. 2001. Organized dissonance: Feminist bureaucracy as hybrid form. Academy of

Management Journal, 44: 1301-1322.

Ashcraft, K. L., & Mumby, D. K. 2004. Reworking gender: A feminist communicology of

organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Ashforth, B. E., Kreiner, G. E., Clark, M. A., & Fugate, M. 2007. Normalizing dirty work:

Managerial tactics for countering occupational taint. Academy of Management Journal,

50: 149-174.

Ashforth, B. E., Rogers, K. M., & Corley, K. G. 2011. Identity in organizations: Exploring cross-

Level dynamics. Organization Science, 22: 1144–1156.

Bakhtin, M. M. 1981.The dialogic imagination. M. Holquist, ed. Austin, TX: University of

Texas Press.

Beech, N. 2008. On the nature of dialogic identity work. Organization, 15: 51–74.

Benson, J. K. 1977. Organizations: A dialectical view. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22: 1-

21.

Bouchikhi, H., & Kimberly, J. R. 2007. The soul of the corporation: How to manage the

identity of your company. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Breakwell, G.M. 1986. Coping with threatened identities. New York: Methuen.

Breakwell, G.M. 2010. Resisting representations and identity processes. Papers on Social

Representations, 19: 6.1-6.11

Brewer, M. B. 1991. The social self: On being the same and different at the same time.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17: 475-482.

Brown, M. E., & Gioia, D. A. 2002. Making things click: Distributive leadership in an online

division of an offline organization. Leadership Quarterly, 13: 397-420.

51

Cannella, A. A., & Paetzold, R. L. 1994. Pfeffer’s barriers to the advance of organizational

science: A rejoinder. Academy of Management Review, 19: 331-341.

Charmaz, K. 2006. Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative

analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Chreim, S. 2005. The continuity-change duality in narrative texts of organizational identity. The

Journal of Management Studies, 42: 567-593.

Clark, S. M., Gioia, D. A., Ketchen, D. J., & Thomas, J. B. 2010. Transitional identity as a

facilitator of organizational identity change during a merger. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 53: 397-438.

Corley, K. G. 2004. Defined by our strategy or our culture? Hierarchical differences in

perceptions of organizational identity and change. Human Relations, 57: 1145-1178.

Corley, K. G., & Gioia, D. A. 2004. Identity ambiguity and change in the wake of a corporate

spin-off. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49: 173-208.

Corley, K. G., Harquail, C. V., Pratt, M. G., Glynn, M. A., Fiol, C. M., & Hatch, M. J. 2006.

Guiding organizational identity through aged adolescence. Journal of Management

Inquiry, 15: 85-99.

Creed, W. E. D., DeJordy, R., & Lok, J. 2010. Being the change: Resolving institutional

contradiction through identity work. Academy of Management Journal, 53: 1336–1364.

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.

Dutton, J. E., & Dukerich, J. M. 1991. Keeping an eye on the mirror: Image and identity in

organizational adaptation. Academy of Management Journal, 34: 517-554.

Elsbach, K. D., & Kramer, R. M. 1996. Members' responses to organizational identity threats:

Encountering and countering the Business Week rankings. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 41: 442-476.

Farjoun, M. 2010. Beyond dualism: Stability and change as a duality. Academy of Management

Review, 35: 202–225.

Giddens, A. 1984. The constitution of society. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Gioia, D.A., Corley, K.G., & Hamilton, A.L. 2013. Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive

research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16: 15-

31.

Gioia, D.A. & Padvardhan, S. 2012. Identity as process and flow. In M. Schultz, S. Maguire, S.

& H. Tsoukas (Eds.), Constructing Identity in and around Organizations, 50-62.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

52

Gioia, D.A., Price, K.N., Hamilton, A.L., & Thomas, J.B. 2010. Forging an identity: An insider-

outsider study of processes involved in the formation of organizational identity.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 55: 1-46.

Gioia, D. A., Schultz, M., & Corley, K. G. 2000. Organizational identity, image, and adaptive

instability. Academy of Management Review, 25: 63-81.

Gioia, D. A., & Thomas, J. B. 1996. Identity, image, and issue interpretation: Sensemaking

during strategic change in academia. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41: 370-403.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. 1967. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative

research. Chicago: Aldine-Athestor.

Glynn, M. A. 2000. When cymbals become symbols: Conflict over organizational identity within

a symphony orchestra. Organization Science, 11: 285-298.

Golden-Biddle, K., & Rao, H. 1997. Breaches in the boardroom: Organizational identity and

conflicts of commitment in a nonprofit organization. Organization Science, 8: 593-611.

Harrison, S.H., & Corley, K.G. 2011. Clean climbing, carabiners, and cultural cultivation:

Developing an open-systems perspective of culture. Organization Science, 22: 391-412.

Higgins, E. T. 1987. Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review,

94: 319-340.

Ibarra, H. 2003. Working identity: Unconventional strategies for reinventing your career.

Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Knapp, J., Smith, B., Kreiner, G. E., Sundaramurthy, C. & Barton, S. 2013. Managing

boundaries through identity work: The role individual and organizational identity tactics.

Family Business Review, in press.

Kreiner, G.E., & Ashforth, B. E. 2004. Evidence toward an expanded model of organizational

identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25: 1-27.

Kreiner, G. E., Hollensbe, E. C., & Sheep, M. L. 2006. Where is the 'me' among the 'we'?

Identity work and the search for optimal balance. Academy of Management Journal, 49:

1031–1057.

Kunda, G. 1992. Engineering Culture: Control and Commitment in a High-Tech Corporation.

Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Lee, T. W. 1999. Using qualitative methods in organizational research. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Leonardi, P. M., & Barley, S. R. 2010. What’s under construction here? Social action,

materiality, and power in constructivist studies of technology and organizing. The

Academy of Management Annals, 4: 1–51.

53

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. 1985. Naturalist Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Lok, J. 2010. Institutional logics as identity projects. Academy of Management Journal, 53:

1305–1335.

Mantere, S., Schildt, H. A., & Sillince, J. A. A. 2012. Reversal of strategic change. Academy of

Management Journal, 52: 172-196.

Markus, H., & Nurius, P. 1986. Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41: 954-969.

Meyer, J. P., Bartunek, J. M., & Lacey, C. A. 2002. Identity change and stability in

organizational groups: A longitudinal investigation. The International Journal of

Organizational Analysis, 10: 4-29.

Mumby, D. K. 2005. Theorizing resistance in organization studies: A dialectical approach.

Management Communication Quarterly, 19: 1-26.

Nag, R., Corley, K. G., & Gioia, D. A. 2007. The intersection of organizational identity,

knowledge, and practice: Attempting strategic change via knowledge grafting. Academy

of Management Journal, 50: 821-847.

Obodaru, O. 2012. The self not taken: How alternative selves develop and how they influence

our professional lives. Academy of Management Review, 37: 34-57.

Pfeffer, J. 1993. Barriers to the advance of organizational science: Paradigm development as a

dependent variable. Academy of Management Review, 18: 599-620.

Phillips, N., & Lawrence, T. B. 2012. The turn to work in organization and management theory:

Some implications for strategic organization. Strategic Organization, 10: 223 –230.

Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. 1987. Discourse and social psychology: Beyond attitudes and

behavior. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Pratt, M. G. 2012. Rethinking identity construction processes in organizations: Three questions

to consider. In M. Schultz, S. Maguire, S. & H. Tsoukas (Eds.), Constructing Identity in

and around Organizations, 21-49. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Pratt, M. G., & Foreman, P. O. 2000. Classifying managerial responses to multiple

organizational identities. Academy of Management Review, 25: 18-42.

Ravasi, D., & Schultz, M. 2006. Responding to organizational identity threats: Exploring the role

of organizational culture. Academy of Management Journal, 49: 433-458.

Schultz, M., Maguire, S., Langley, A., & Tsoukas, H. 2012. Constructing Identity in and

around Organizations, 1-18. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Seo, M., Putnam, L. L., & Bartunek, J. M. 2004. Dualities and tensions of planned organizational

change. In M. S. Poole, & A. H. van De Ven (Eds.), Handbook of organizational change

and innovation: 73-107. New York: Oxford University Press.

54

Snow, D. A., & Anderson, L. 1987. Identity work among the homeless: The verbal construction

and avowal of personal identities. American Journal of Sociology, 92: 1336-1371.

Sonenshein, S. 2010. We're changing—or are we? Untangling the role of progressive, regressive,

and stability narratives during strategic change implementation. Academy of

Management Journal, 53: 477-501.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. 1998. Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for

developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Suddaby, R., & Greenwood, R. 2005. Rhetorical strategies of legitimacy. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 50: 35-67.

Sveningsson, S., & Alvesson, M. 2003. Managing managerial identities: Organizational

fragmentation, discourse and identity struggle. Human Relations, 56: 1163-1193.

Tracy, S. J. 2004. Dialectic, contradiction, or double bind? Analyzing and theorizing employee

reactions to organizational tensions. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 32:

119-146.

Treviño, L.K., den Nieuwenboer, N., Kreiner, G.E., & Bishop, D. 2014. Legitimating the

legitimate: A grounded theory study of legitimacy work among ethics and compliance

officers. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 123: 186-205.

Tsoukas, H., & Chia, R. 2002. On organizational becoming: Rethinking organizational change.

Organization Science, 13: 567-582.

Van de Ven, A. H., & Poole, M. S. 1995. Explaining development and change in organizations.

Academy of Management Review, 20: 510-540.

Watson, T. 2008. Managing identity, identity work, personal predicaments and structured

circumstances. Organization, 15: 121–143.

Weick, K. E. 1995. Sensemaking in Organizations. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Whetten, D. A. 2006. Albert and Whetten revisited: Strengthening the concept of organizational

identity. Journal of Management Inquiry, 15: 219-234.

Whetten, D. A., & Godfrey, P. C. (Eds.). 1998. Identity in organizations: Building theory

through conversations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

55

FIGURE 1: DIALECTIC TENSIONS OF IDENTITY ELASTICITY

Org. Identity Work Tactics Dialectic Tensions Org. Identity Work Tactics

Constricting Identity Expanding Identity

Prioritizing plurality as

core to identity

Subordinating conflicting

identity claims

Core

Crafting internal

distinctiveness

Embracing inclusive

external trends

Enhancement

Diminishing plurality as

peripheral to identity

Peripheral

Emphasizing conflict-

ing identity claims

Framing present challenge as deviation

from past

Problematizing identity

controversy

Eschewing inclusive

external trends

Rejecting internal

distinctiveness

Change

Loss

Framing present

challenge as trajectory

Normalizing identity

controversy

Continuity

Proposition 2: Centrality Dialectic: Core vs. Peripheral

Proposition 3: Endurance Dialectic:

Continuity vs. Change

Proposition 4: Distinctiveness Dialectic:

Enhancement vs. Loss

Proposition 1: Overarching Dialectic

56

FIGURE 2: ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTITY CONSTRUCTION VIA DIALECTIC

CONSTRUCTIONS OF (IN-)ELASTICITY

Social Construction of

Organizational Identity

Revised Social Construction of

Organizational Identity

Constricted Static Expanded

57

TABLE 1: SECONDARY DATA INVENTORY

Data Type Quantity Original Data Sources Examples

Superordinate authoritative texts used by organization

21 Anglican Communion Book of Common Prayer (1928, 1979); Anglican Covenant Drafts; General Convention Resolutions

Official statements/ reports from authoritative organizational sources

142 files

Anglican Communion Primates, Archbishop of Canterbury, the Episcopal Church Presiding Bishop, House of Bishops, House of Deputies, other Church councils

Primates Statement of October 16, 2003; Special Commission on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion (SCECAC) Report; Official Communiqués and Letters to the Church; Bishop letters to their dioceses

Historical texts 2 Anglican Communion and Lambeth Commission

Elizabethan Settlement of 1559; Windsor Report (2004)

Internal organizational news services (text and pictures)

566 ENS stories 370 ACNS stories

Episcopal News Service (ENS) and Anglican Communion News Service (ACNS)

Detailed daily coverage of all major Church events, news, and communications—e.g., General Conventions, Executive Councils, Diocesan news, ongoing Church news

Internal organizational news services (video and audio)

97 video files 24 audio files

Episcopal News Service (ENS) and Anglican Communion News Service (ACNS)

Detailed multimedia coverage of all major Church events—e.g., House of Bishops meetings, Anglican Consultative Councils, interviews with Presiding Bishop, Lambeth Conference 2008

Mainstream mass media news reporting (text and pictures)

1047 files Time magazine, New York Times, CNN online, Washington Post, various local newspapers for Diocesan stories, UK newspapers for Anglican Communion news, etc.

“A House Divided: Will the Episcopal Church find a way to survive the controversial election of its first openly gay bishop?” Time Magazine, August 18, 2003 (Wallis)

Mainstream mass media news reporting (video and audio)

10 video files 17 audio files

NPR, NBC, C-SPAN, CNN, BBC, and other television networks

News interviews and public speaking engagements with key organizational leaders (e.g., Gene Robinson, Presiding Bishops, House of Deputies President)

58

TABLE 2: PRIMARY DATA SOURCES

SITE VISITS (42 TOTAL)

We collected observational and/or interview data at 42 different events between 2004 and 2011.

Each event was attended by one or more of the first three authors. Each event lasted between one

day and one week. These include, but are not limited to:

Triennial General Conventions of the Church, 2006, 2009

House of Bishops meetings (4)

Church headquarters visits (3)

Site visits to dioceses and parishes across the U.S., including New Hampshire, South

Carolina, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Kansas, California, Virginia, New York, Ohio, Texas,

Illinois

CREDO Institute and Boards of Directors Meetings (6)

INTERVIEWS (72 TOTAL)

Informants

Directors and advisors of funding institute (4)

General Convention Deputies (14)

Bishops (High level leaders in the Church)

Current and former Presiding Bishops (2)

Other bishops (21, including Bishop Gene Robinson)

Representative Stakeholders (Groups represented)

AAC (American Anglican Council, a conservative group that spearheaded departures of

parishes, dioceses) (3)

College for Preachers (group providing post-ordination training for clergy)

Integrity (liberal group advocating gay rights) (3)

Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh (liberal group within extremely conservative

diocese)

Episcopal Women’s Caucus (women’s group for the Church)

Anglican Communion Institute (conservative-leaning think tank)

Claiming the Blessing (liberal group advocating gay rights) (2)

Anglican Mission in America (church that broke off from Episcopal Church previously)

Via Media (liberal-leaning group that tried to keep Church together)

Anglicans United (conservative group)

Forward in Faith North America (church that previously broke off from Episcopal

Church)

Union of Black Episcopalians (advocacy group for African Americans in the Church)

Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes (conservative break-off group)

Persons of Interest (Individuals with unique/important vantage points)

Seminary deans (2)

Assistants/advisors to the Presiding Bishop (2)

Manager of Episcopal News Service

House of Deputies leadership (2)

Researchers (e.g., statistician, historian) employed by Church (2)

Advisor to New Hampshire diocese

Canonical expert (lawyer familiar with church policies, procedures, legal implications)

Priests whose parishes left the Episcopal Church (2)

59

TABLE 3: DIALECTICS OF IDENTITY ELASTICITY

Dialectic

Descriptions of Elasticity Dialectics

Illustrative Quotes

Overarching Elasticity Dialectic: “Hold Together vs. Push Apart”

“Force”: cohesive or unifying vs. contested or polarizing identity claims

So the revolution of the culture of the world has come to the Anglican Communion and the question is “Is what joins us strong enough to overcome what divides us?” (Person of Interest #9-male) It’s not so easy to split the Communion because we’re connected at so many different levels. You can’t split the Communion. You can have parts of it not talking to other parts of it. You can have meetings at which not everybody is invited, but we are children of the same mother and we’re brothers and sisters in Christ and nothing’s going to change that and nothing is going to change the kind of relationships that we have that are going to continue. (Bishop #16-female) Communion also implies difference. There would be no communion between the Father and the Son if there were no distinction between them…. Communion requires differentiation in order that love can go forth from itself and find another to love…. There are many challenges to the life of communion God so deeply desires. One of these is the inherent tension between the call to embody the gospel locally and the need for sensitivity to the perspectives and understandings of the wider church. (Secondary data: Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold official statement, June 23, 2004)

Centrality Dialectic: “Core vs. Peripheral”

Priority: identity claims deemed as essential/ constitutive vs. preferential/ negotiable to “who we are”

We can have differences because what unites us is our commitment to Christ, our gathering together as the body of Christ around the sacramental life is more important than those things about which we differ. And the Anglican early Anglican writers talked about essentials and secondaries. And this whole sex thing is very much a secondary. And so I think they would expect us to not only be open to this but to keep our mouth shut about it. (Representative Stakeholder #2-male) We said that the essentials are the two creeds, the Scriptures as part of our tradition of the Old and New Testament, and we're specific about what's in there; the historic Episcopate as locally adapted; and … the two Dominical Sacraments, Baptism and Eucharist. Those are our essentials. And we said that very clearly in the 1870s and that's been the bottom line for our ecumenical conversations. And there's a whole lot of room in that box….very roomy. (Current Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts-Schori) “When we attempt to bring the margins into the center we necessarily push the center to the margins.” (Secondary Data: The Rt. Rev. Douglas E. Theuner, Sermon at the Consecration of V. Gene Robinson as Bishop Coadjutor of the Diocese of New Hampshire, November 2, 2003)

60

Endurance Dialectic: “Continuity vs. Change”

Fluidity: new identity as a logical extension of vs. a radical departure from past identity/heritage

I think it’s very much a continuation. In one sense, I see it merely as this generation’s test of those things we …the Church has sort of lived into itself over the last 40 years. I think it’s entirely consistent. Between the prayer book change that has opened us much more to the world and focused, so much more so than in the past, on the common ministry of baptism, the ordination of women and a greater attentiveness to the issues of racism that have plagued the Church, this is just another step along that path. (Representative Stakeholder #8-male)

I would say that because while it is the case that those who perceive that opening ordained ministry to women was somehow a radical change, from my perspective, women in leadership in the Church has been part of the life of Christians and Jews throughout scripture, so that while it was perceived by some to be a radical change, it was not, I think, for many. Whereas the movement to open ordained ministry to those living non-celibate homosexual lifestyles is different. Scripture nowhere commends this behavior; nowhere is it exampled for us, so it is truly a break from all that we would consider historical. (Clergy deputy #12-male)

Distinctiveness Dialectic: “Enhancement vs. Loss”

Boundary permeability: extent to which external versus internal referents should shape identity distinctiveness

And the reality is this: People got caught up in being able to be the church on the cutting edge. (Representative Stakeholder #7-male) One of the things that brings me pride, or satisfaction, or for which I’m grateful, maybe I should say, is that our Church does not shy from bringing the issues of society and culture into the Church, and to deal with them there. So I think that it is the Church’s vocation to reflect on society and respond. I also think it’s the Church’s vocation to be influenced by society and culture to the extent that that means that it engages it and takes it seriously and responds to it. (Bishop #6-male) There’s an old expression that there are three kinds of Episcopalians: low and lazy, broad and hazy, high and crazy. So we’ve all managed to get together. I’d also point out that historically, whenever something is booming, the prophets of doom go into overdrive. (Representative Stakeholder #10-male)

61

APPENDIX A: SAMPLE QUESTIONS FROM INTERVIEWS

Examples of questions asked throughout data collection

1. How would you describe the identity of the Episcopal Church (i.e., what is central,

distinctive and enduring about it)? How does the Episcopal Church differ from other

denominations?

2. Has the identity of the Church changed over time? If so, how?

3. Do you think the Church has multiple identities? Do you think these multiple identities

are compatible or conflicting? How so?

4. What would a “perfect” Episcopal Church be like?

Examples of more detailed questions about elasticity added to later protocols

1. How important to you, if at all, is keeping the Episcopal Church together?

2. What do you see as the key issues and challenges regarding keeping the Episcopal

Church together?

3. With so many differing views in the Church, how do you stay together?

4. What tensions are involved in staying together? How do you overcome them?

Examples of questions tailor made for specific groups and individuals For Bishops

1. What do you see as your role in managing conflict during the past few years?

2. Have any priests or churches left your diocese? Can you describe that process for us?

3. With so many stated differences of opinion among the bishops of the Church, how do you

maintain communion as a body?

For Representative Stakeholders

1. We have included you in our interviews because of your leadership position within

[group name]. Can you tell me about [group name]? How and why was it formed? What

are its mission, purpose and function?

2. How does your organization relate or connect to the Episcopal Church as a whole?

3. To what extent is Bishop Robinson’s ordination consistent with the mission of [group]?

For General Convention Deputies

1. Can you tell me a bit about how you arrived at your vote (for or against Gene Robinson’s

ordination)?

2. How has your parish or diocese reacted to or been impacted by the ordination?

3. Were there consequences for your parish or diocese, for example, for membership,

donations, or other things? How did you manage them?

For Current Presiding Bishop, Katharine Jefferts-Schori

1. What is your role in trying to prevent schism within the Church? What, in your view,

should be done by other people/groups in the Church to prevent schism within the

Church?

2. In an interview you did with The New York Times, you were asked about being a liberal.

In your response you said, in reference to the Church, “We’re not about being either left

or right. We’re about being comprehensive.” What happens when a comprehensive

Church develops factions that seem to be incompatible with one another?

For Bishop Gene Robinson

1. Why do you think your election and ordination to bishop (as an openly gay man)

occurred when it did (e.g., as opposed to earlier or later in the Church’s history)?

2. What long-term effect/impact do you think your ordination to bishop will have on the

Church’s identity and composition?