Identity and Learning

Identities are cognitive maps that facilitate making sense of a situation and structuring the unknown (Ring & van de Ven, 1994; Schwenk, 2002; Stryker & P. Burke, 2000; K. E. Weick, 1979). Integrating, according to most prior literature, requires that individuals and groups first overcome the barriers to learning inherent in different identities and find an acceptable overarching goal that integrates efforts and provides direction to the learning process (A. Brown & Starkey, 2000; Hong & O, 2009; Nag et al., 2007; Rodrigues & Child, 2003; M. Sherif & C. Sherif, 1956). By looking at inter-organizational learning between “enemies” this dissertation considers whether integration is possible in the absence of an overarching shared goal.

As discussed above, identity provides the context, be it the industry, profession, or the community, within which learning takes place and is in turn altered by the process of learning. Organizational resources, especially knowledge, skills, and expertise, are likely to be influenced by the basic assumptions that organization members use to define “who we are” as an organization (Kogut & Zander, 1996). For instance, Dutton and Dukerich (1991) found that members‟ sense of the organization‟s identity was associated with a set of routines or standard procedures. When activated by conflict over a specific issue, these routines were identified as “typical” of the organization. Corley and Gioia (2004) found that changes in organizational identity corresponded with behavioural changes among the organization‟s members, especially those in leadership positions.

This connection between identity and behavioural expectations, as well as behaviour change, has been described using the concept of scripts (Abelson, 1981; Barley & Tolbert, 1997; D. Gioia & P. Poole, 1984). Scripts are a subset of knowledge structures or schemas and are primarily concerned with

understanding behaviour in routine situations at the individual (Abelson, 1981) and organizational level (D. Gioia & P. Poole, 1984). Whereas a schema is a generalized cognitive framework that serves as a guide to interpret information, actions, and expectations (e.g. Daft & K. Weick, 1984) a script is a schema that describes behaviours appropriate for a particular context or situation (D. Gioia & P. Poole, 1984). Scripts represent shared, agreed cultural and social knowledge. Barley and Tolbert describe scripts as the behavioural regularities which are “observable, recurrent activities and patterns of interaction characteristic of a

particular setting” (1997, p. 98). Individuals perpetuate existing behavioural expectations such as those attached to a role identity through their actions

because they have internalized those expectations as guiding principles of action (Barley & Tolbert, 1997; Giddens, 1979; Jarzabkowski, 2008).

An individual‟s identities are linked to scripts in that a role or affiliation with a group can be considered a special case of a script (D. Gioia & P. Poole, 1984). A role or a social identity can be thought of as a higher level script governing

situation specific behaviour. Given that scripts are individual cognitive structures, they may differ in some aspects from typical social and role expectations

reflecting that individual‟s unique interpretation. An individual will activate their salient identity or the identity they believe is required in a given situation and that in turn will activate a script. To paraphrase March & Heath (1994), the

appropriate script in one‟s repertoire would answer the question: “what should a person like me [identity] do in a situation like this [relevant script]”. When

individuals encounter novel situations they may consciously enact new behaviours. In doing so they develop new scripts or alter existing scripts, i.e. experiment. Conversely, individuals may continue with the practices and behaviours they attach to their salient identity and in so doing block learning or distort the knowledge (Nag et al., 2007).

Organizational identities are also linked to scripts. Barney et al (1998) suggest that once a firm determines “who they are” it is very easy to determine what they “must do” (p. 113). Barney and his colleagues (1998) also suggest that a firm can begin with a clear action or behaviour and develop “who they are” out

of that action. A “theory of we are” or an organizational identity is interdependent with, and requires a corresponding “theory of action” or script.

For example, Koch Industries of Wichita, Kansas, identifies itself as a “discovery company”, not as the institutionalized organizational identities of oil and gas company or resource company (Barney et al., 1998); and this identity has “a profound impact on behavior inside Koch” (p. 109). Employees are expected to always be “discovering” new ways to add value to the firm, new businesses to leverage existing skills, and new or improved practices. Similarly, an organization that identifies itself as a “learning” organization will facilitate the enactment of behaviours in support of exploration and experimentation.

At both levels scripted behaviours are often performed unconsciously, although active cognition is involved during the process of script development and when encountering unusual, novel or unconventional situations (D. Gioia & P. Poole, 1984). A generic script may be developed that is appropriate to a category of situations such as strategy retreats or responding to media criticism (D. Gioia & P. Poole, 1984). When an individual or organization encounters a new situation that shares some common elements with previous experience they compare it to their existing scripts. Information that “generally” matches a script signals that active thought and analysis is not necessary and the script can be enacted (D. Gioia, 1992). This often occurs without any adjustment for

differences in information about the current situation that may be important, as illustrated by Gioia‟s description of Ford‟s reaction to the Pinto fires (1992).

The aggregation of scripts associated with each of an individual‟s discrete identities represents their behavioural repertoire. An individual will activate their

salient identity or the identity they believe is required in a given situation and that in turn will activate a script. When individuals encounter novel situations they may employ a generic script within that repertoire, or they may consciously enact new behaviours. This suggests that by choosing to enact new behaviours individuals develop new or alter existing cognitive scripts which in turn may shift their interpretation of their identities.

Organizations develop their scripts through a variety of direct experiences and observations including interacting with regulators or through rewards and reinforcement such as market share increases. Indirect means of script

development at the organizational level might come for example, from portrayal in the media or from a social movement‟s description of appropriate organizational behaviour in a given situation. Modeling provides another means of script

development for organizations (D. Gioia & Manz, 1985; D. Gioia & P. Poole, 1984). Observing the positive experience of a role model provides an indication of the right behavioural script for certain situations. As is the case with

individuals, changes in behavioural scripts may modify cognitive scripts and ultimately organizations‟ institutionalized learning. Extant research typically depicts organizational identity as existing in the minds of organization members with limited attention given to its behavioural expressions (D. Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991; Nag et al., 2007). In this research I consider the implications of the