A BALANCING ACT: HOW TO AVOID PROFESSIONAL

DISIDENTIFICATION WHEN FACED WITH STAKEHOLDER CRITIQUE

KATE E. HORTON
Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University,
Burgemeester Oudlaan 50, L4-97
The Netherlands
and
Business Administration Department, Federal University of
Pernambuco, Brazil
GABRIELE JACOBS
Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University, the Netherlands
P. SASKIA BAYERL
Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University, the Netherlands
MARLOES ROTHENGATTER
Tilburg School of Economics and Management, Tilburg University, the Netherlands
KAREN ELLIOTT
Durham University Business School, the United Kingdom
MILA GASC
Esade, Institute of Public Governance and Management, Spain
STEFANIE GILJOHANN
University of Applied Sciences of the State Police of Brandenburg, Germany
CLAUDIA LENUTA RUS
Department of Psychology, Babes-Bolyai University, Romania
ABSTRACT
Based on 148 interviews with European police officers, we explore the role of negative
external stakeholder feedback in shaping professional identities. We find that attributional
processes act as a buffer against external critique, allowing individuals to maintain positive
perceptions of their profession and avoid disidentification. We discuss the implications of these
findings for multi-level outcomes, including stakeholder relations and organizational learning.
INTRODUCTION
External stakeholders have been found to be critical in energizing workers and shaping
professional practice. Indeed, research indicates that positive feedback from stakeholders
motivates and inspires employees, facilitating work processes (Grant, 2011). However, research
has paid little attention to the effects of negative stakeholder feedback. Given the enhanced

visibility of external critique associated with social media and mass communication, we suggest
that more research is needed into this topic. Based on a sample of European police officers, we
demonstrate the strong impact of negative stakeholder feedback on professional identities and the
consequences of these processes for multi-level outcomes. We draw on three areas of literature
in developing our model; the professional (dis)identification, construed external image and
attributional behavior literature.
Professional identities have been found to be an important source of self-definition for
many employees, across a wide spectrum of professions (Johnson, Morgeson, Ilgen, Meyer &
Lloyd, 2006; Pratt, Rockmann & Kaufmann, 2006; Russo, 1998). In particular, professional
identities represent an important basis for self-esteem, self-verification and self-belonging and
individuals have been shown to develop strong identification with their professions (Hogg &
Terry, 2000; Hornsey & Hogg, 2000). However, researchers increasingly recognize that as well
as developing positive attachments to their profession, individuals can develop an active
opposition to their profession (known as professional disidentification), a simultaneous pattern of
identification and disidentification (labeled ambivalent identification) or a lack of either
identification or disidentification (labeled as neutral identification; Elsbach, 1999; Elsbach &
Bhattacharya, 2001; Kreiner & Ashforth, 2004). Taking these definitions as a starting point, we
were interested in the role that external stakeholder feedback plays in shaping officers
perceptions of their profession.
Research suggests that external parties can have a critical effect on employees
perspectives, defining the relative status and prestige of a target identity and thus shaping the
attractiveness of this identity as a basis for self-definition (Dutton & Dukerich, 1991). As such,
Organizational Behavior researchers have become increasingly interested in issues of external
image and construed external image (individuals beliefs about outsiders perceptions of the
identity; Dutton, Dukerich & Harquail, 1994). In particular, research shows that negative
perceptions of construed external image can be threatening to individuals identities, creating a
discrepancy between how employees view their own profession or organization and how it is
viewed by outsiders (Vough, Cardador, Bednar, Dane & Pratt, 2013).
Yet, individuals are not passive receivers of external feedback. Instead, they show a
tendency to redefine and reframe negative feedback in a way that allows them to maintain a
positive ingroup identity (Elsbach & Kramer, 1996). In addition, research shows that individuals
are prone to making group-serving attributions, attributing negative ingroup behaviors to external
and unstable causes, while attributing negative outgroup behaviors to stable, dispositional
features of the group (Hewstone, 1990).
Drawing on these three areas of literature, this paper aims to make three primary
contributions to the field. First, we aim to shed light on the role of external critique in
determining insiders perceptions of their profession and in creating identity discrepancies.
Second, we highlight the role of attributional behavior in shaping individuals interpretations of
this feedback. Finally, we outline the implications of these processes for stakeholder dynamics
and outcomes at individual, relational and collective levels.
METHODS
We conducted semi-structured interviews with 148 police officers, from nine European
countries between September 2012 and February 2013. Specifically, the sample included 28
police officers from Spain and 15 officers from each of Belgium, the Czech Republic, France,

Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Romania, and the United Kingdom. Officers were relatively
evenly spread across operational, supervisory and senior ranks. Seventy eight percent of
interviewees were male and the average tenure was 18.48 years. This data was supplemented by
11 external validation interviews and six workshops (three with more than 40 European police
officers in tactical and strategic positions and three with academics in the policing field) in which
the papers findings were discussed. These additional sources of data were vital in enhancing our
context knowledge and verifying our interpretations of the material.
DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Identity Discrepancies
We conducted a thematic analysis, using both theory and the emerging themes to develop
our coding scheme and theory. This analysis revealed that negative feedback created three
different types of identity discrepancies, between idealized expectations and reality (labeled as
expectation-reality discrepancy), current and past identities (labeled temporal discrepancy) and
current identity and construed external image (labeled as identity-CEI discrepancy). More
specifically, officers described discrepancies between their desires for public service when
entering the profession and their current experiences of poor citizen relations and constant
external critique. In addition, they highlighted discrepancies between the external veneration and
status, which they felt they received in the past, and the prevailing feeling of disrespect and
derision that characterized existing interactions with stakeholders. Finally, officers outlined
discrepancies between the negative image of the police held within society and the strong
principles of public service that they perceived defined their profession.
These discrepancies were found to have direct implications for officers self-esteem and
feelings of self-certainty. Yet, we found that in spite of these pervasive threats to professional
identity, officers rarely disidentified with their profession. Instead, interviewees typically showed
strong identification, and their police identity was in many cases central to their self-definition.
This evidence of strong identification in the face of extensive criticism and identity discrepancy
could be partially explained by the notion of social buffering. Specifically, research suggests
that groups that are subject to external threat, such as stigmatized professions, may develop
stronger internal bonds with other coworkers in order to cope with this perceived threat
(Ashforth et al, 2007). However, importantly, our findings suggest that attributional processes
also play a critical role in reducing discrepancies between positive professional identities and
negative stakeholder feedback, and in preventing disidentification.
The Role of Attributional Behavior
More specifically, we identified five primary attributional processes, used by officers to
reframe external critique and maintain a positive professional identity, in spite of considerable
stakeholder critique. The first three processes are labeled as ingroup-favoring attributions since
they represent the attribution of negative ingroup behavior to other subgroups and individuals
and to situational causes. Conversely the second two processes are labeled as outgroupderogating attributions since they represent the tendency to disparage the target stakeholders as a
credible source of external critique.

First, we found that officers typically attributed negative critique to situational causes,
rather than to the fault of any officer. For example, officers highlighted the considerable
demands that are placed on police resources, and suggested that stakeholders failed to consider
the context of police actions when criticizing the profession. Second, officers often attributed
negative external feedback to other subgroups within the police or to other professions. For
example, officers suggested that younger officers or officers from different geographical regions
were culpable for the poor police image. Similarly, they often blamed other professions,
including the judiciary and social services for external critique, specifically arguing that the
police were scapegoats for the failings of other professional services. Third, officers often
attributed negative stakeholder feedback to single bad apples that were unrepresentative of the
wider profession and that brought the profession into disrepute.
Turning our attention to outgroup-derogating attribution processes, we found that officers
often questioned the reliability and credibility of the external stakeholders as sources of critique.
In particular, our interviewees portrayed the media as unreliable and as a profession that lacked
integrity. Critique from media stakeholders was thus dismissed as broadly biased and unjustified.
Finally, officers attributed the negative feedback of stakeholders to their ignorance and inability
to understand police roles and processes. Interestingly, this outcome was often deemed to be a
direct result of the medias misrepresentation of the police in popular media.
Multi-level Outcomes
Furthermore, we found that these attributional processes had important implications for
outcomes at individual, relational and collective levels. For individuals, these attributional
processes were beneficial, enabling officers to maintain a positive perception of their profession
and to avoid disidentification. Thus, even though negative stakeholder critique was threatening to
officers identities, few officers showed active disidentification or contemplated turnover. At a
relational level, this external critique could be detrimental to police-stakeholder dynamics.
However the abovementioned attributional processes appeared to play a role in facilitating
positive outcomes. In particular, officers tendencies to perceive citizen stakeholders as ignorant
led to attempts to inform stakeholders about the true nature of policing and thus rebuild
relationships with this group.
Finally, negative external feedback was found to be important to collective learning. In
particular such critique had the potential to inspire officers to improve their professional
practices and minimize external critiques in advance. Yet, officers attributions of negative
feedback to external causes, bad apples and stakeholder unreliability often negated the need to
learn from such feedback. Thus, the above attribution processes limited officers proclivity to
improve or learn from their mistakes. In addition, outgroup derogating attribution processes that
reinforced us versus them categorizations were found to be broadly detrimental to
stakeholder-police relations. In particular, officers commonly displayed mutual disidentification
towards media stakeholders, defining this group in opposition to their own (positive) ingroup
(Fiol, Pratt & OConnor, 2009) and thus creating significant divides between police insiders
and stakeholder outsiders.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
This study has important implications for both theory and practice. First, we show that negative
stakeholder feedback produces three different types of identity discrepancy, which threaten

professional identities. Although the extant literature has highlighted the role of identity
discrepancies in the workplace, our understanding of the interplay between these discrepancies
and the effects on multi-level outcomes has been inadequate. We thus extend upon previous
work in the area by mapping the roles of multiple identity discrepancies and their effects on
professional outcomes.
Second, we identify five different attributional processes which enable individuals to
maintain a positive identity and avoid disidentification, in the face of strong identity
discrepancies. Moreover, we highlight the differential effects of different (ingroup-favoring and
outgroup-derogating) processes on stakeholder relations and professional outcomes. Importantly
our findings have multi-level implications. For example, we show that while self and groupserving attributional processes may be a constructive way for an individual to preserve their
positive identity, they may simultaneously be detrimental to stakeholder relations and collective
learning within the profession.
In addition, our findings have practical implications for stakeholder management and
public relations. For example, in light of the biased attributions revealed in our study, we suggest
that formal strategies may be needed in order to ensure that stakeholder feedback is impartially
reviewed and appropriately incorporated in professional practice. Formal complaints
commissions may be invaluable in performing this role in the most severe cases. However, in
order to capitalize on the everyday feedback of external stakeholders, we suggest that it is
important that managers address the widespread tendency to dismiss all forms of external
critique. Instead, we propose that by critically assessing negative stakeholder feedback,
professions may be better able to advance their profession and foster positive stakeholder
relations.
As the impact of negative stakeholder critique becomes ever more evident, in these times
of mass (social) communication and unparalleled transparency, our paper provides important
insights into the dynamics that underpin professional-stakeholder relations. We hope this
research encourages new efforts aimed at understanding the underlying processes which drive
stakeholder relations and define multi-level professional outcomes at work.
REFERENCES
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.
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.
Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V. 1994. Organizational images and members
identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39: 239-263.
Elsbach, K. D. 1999. An expanded model of organizational identification. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 21: 163-199.

Elsbach, K. D., & Bhattacharya, C. B. 2001. Defining who you are by what youre not:
Organizational disidentification and the national rifle association. Organization Science, 12:
393-413.
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.
Fiol, C. M., Pratt, M. G., & OConnor, E. J. 2009. Managing intractable conflicts. Academy of
Management Review, 34: 32-56.
Grant, A. M. 2011. How customers can rally your troops. Harvard Business Review, 89: 96103.
Hewstone, M. 1990. The ultimate attribution error? A review of the literature on intergroup
causal attribution. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20: 311-335.
Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. 2000. Social Identity and self-categorization processes in
organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25: 121-140.
Hornsey, M. J., & Hogg, M. 2000. Assimilation and diversity: an integrative model of subgroup
relations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4: 143-156.
Johnson, M. D., Morgeson, F. P., Ilgen, D., Meyer, C., & Lloyd, J. W. 2006. Multiple
professional identities: examining differences in identification across work-related targets.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 91: 498-506.
Kreiner, G., & Ashforth, B. 2004. Evidence towards an expanded model of organizational
identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25: 1-27.
Pratt, M. G., Rockmann, K. W., & Kaufmann, J. B. 2006. Constructing professional identity: the
role of work and identity learning cycles in the customization of identity among medical
residents. Academy of Management Journal, 49: 235-262.
Russo, T. C. 1998. Organizational and professional identification: a case of newspaper
journalists. Management Communication Quarterly, 12: 72-111.
Vough, H., Cardador, T., Bednar, J., Dane, E., & Pratt, M. 2013. What clients dont get about my
profession: a model of perceived role-based image discrepancies. Academy of Management
Journal, 56: 1050-1080.