The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Continuity–Change Duality in Narrative Texts of Organizational Identity*
Open accessAbstract
abstract This paper focuses on how continuity and change are managed discursively in narrative texts of organizational identity and thus helps move forward the discussion about persistence and change in organizational identity. The study reports on the content, context and authorial elements of the evolving narrative composed by a Canadian bank's senior managers. The analysis indicates that the discursive strategies employed by organizational authors to establish confluence (or simultaneous continuity and change) include the selective reporting of elements from the past, present and future, the juxtaposition of the ‘modern and attractive’ with the ‘outdated and undesirable’, the persistent use of expansive labels that allow the addition and subtraction of meanings attached to the labels, and the importation of selected themes from the wider macro‐discourses. In keeping with the view that organizations are plurivocal, evolving narratives of the organization in the business press are also presented. These narratives contribute themes that are at times concordant with senior managers’ accounts and thus confirm the value of the changes in identity elaborated by management; at other times, press accounts are discordant with senior managers’ narratives and provide alternative evaluations of the changes. The paper concludes with reflections on the indeterminacy of both organizational identity – for the texts that constitute it remain open to multiple readings and to subsequent re‐writing that continually destabilize it – and the narrative research enterprise that falls short of providing comprehensive and incontrovertible accounts of the voices that constitute organizations.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches
Suchman, M. C. (1995) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258788 · Cited by 19,903
Ricoeur, P., & DePaul University (1991) · Philosophy Today · doi:10.5840/philtoday199135136 · Cited by 591
Cited by
Paradox research in management science: Looking back to move forward
Schad, J., Lewis, M. W., Raisch, S., & Smith, W. K. (2016) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/19416520.2016.1162422 · Cited by 1,385
Contradictions, Dialectics, and Paradoxes in Organizations: A Constitutive Approach
Putnam, L. L., Fairhurst, G. T., & Banghart, S. (2016) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/19416520.2016.1162421 · Cited by 1,116
Seeing the Forest and the Trees: How a Systems Perspective Informs Paradox Research
Schad, J., & Bansal, P. (2018) · Journal of Management Studies · doi:10.1111/joms.12398 · Cited by 266
Metadata
- Authors
- Chreim, S.
- Venue
- Journal of Management Studies
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2005-04-14
- Volume
- 42
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 567-593
- ISSN
- 0022-2380 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-6486
- OpenAlex
- W2095403712
- Cited by
- 263
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 13.21
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.