Organizational personality as a metaphor for understandig organizations

A R G U M EN TA OECONOMICA N o 1 -2 (1 8 )2 0 0 6 PL ISSN 1233-5835

Adela Barabasz

ORGANIZATIONAL PERSONALITY AS A METAPHOR

FOR UNDERSTANDING ORGANIZATIONS

The author suggests viewing an organization through the prism o f a concept which until now has been applied in describing the functioning of the individual. This concept is the personality o f an organization. The theoretical foundation on which the idea o f organizational personality is based is presented as well as its scope and specificity by referring to such notions as organizational culture and organizational identity. The chief goal is to demonstrate that, by applying the concept of personality, managers gain the possibility of running organizations more effectively. Approaching an organization using categories of personality should enable management to exploit the organization’s social potential more fully, but most of all to com petently and effectively cope with the diverse crises arising in the organization, particularly those connected with change as a category of especially difficult situations for the organization’s members.

K e y w o rd s : organization, personality, culture

INTRODUCTION

The idea that an organization has a defined personality is based on the analogy betw een people and organizations. As with every analogy, this, too, has clear limitations. People are not only social, but also biological creatures, while organizations are of an exclusively social nature. H um an life is limited in time, a biologically determ ined life cycle; this does not apply to organizations, which may “die a natural death” after fifteen years or “live” as strong and alert entities for two hundred years. Although in a certain sense organizations indeed divide, com bine, grow, and shrink sim ilarly to people, one cannot speak of divestment, acquisition, or expansion when referring to people, but they are natural term s related to organizations. The concept of “personality” therefore is used here in a metaphorical sense in discussing organizational personality. If the necessary caution and critical attitude are m aintained, the analogy between the individual and an organization allows us to understand and discuss issues which would otherw ise be passed over or difficult to identify. With the concept of personality as a metaphor, we can

understand why organizations function as they do and, in particular, see explicitly why it is so difficult to implement the slightest changes within them . Another result would be that we acquire indicators of how we can m axim ize the organization’s effectiveness.

Transferring concepts from one field of science to another has a long tradition. Knowledge about psychological phenom ena and mechanisms may be useful in explaining processes at work in an organization. An organization, understood as a structured set of individuals connected in a particular way, can be an especially interesting object of research for a psychologist with clinical and psychotherapeutic experience. Identifying and understanding the emotional, automatic, and unconscious mechanisms which determ ine the functioning o f individuals and an organization, viewed as a cohesive whole, appear interesting from both a theoretical and practical standpoint. This article suggests looking at an organization from the perspective of a concept w hich until now has been applied to describe the functioning of individuals. T his concept is that o f the personality o f an organization, or simply organizational personality. T he article presents the theoretical foundation on w hich the idea of organizational personality is based as well as its scope and specificity by referring to such notions as

organizational culture and organizational identity. Approaching an

organization using categories o f personality should enable management to exploit the organization's social potential more fully, but most of all to cope com petently and effectively with the diverse crises arising in the organization, particularly those connected with change.

T h e basic source of inspiration in developing the idea of organizational personality is the aw areness of the difficulties which appear in an organization when the need fo r change arises. O bserving these difficulties, one can conclude that the concept of organizational culture, though undoubtedly important, does not explain all the problem s that arise under these circumstances. K now ledge of the phenom ena which make up the culture of an organization allow s a more or less detailed description o f the problem s, but it does not fully render the essence o f these problems with which both management and the ranks of employees, in particular those who are directly affected by the changes, are forced to grapple. The idea of organizational personality presented here also provides the possibility o f a new w ay o f viewing the organization's developm ent and the essence o f specific organizational behaviours, giving insight into the issues with which m anagers are well acquainted in practice, but w hich they do not fully

understand despite their appeals to specific theories o f organization or organizational culture.

The m ain goal is to point out the possibility o f transplanting the psychodynam ic understanding o f the personality into the field of m anagem ent theory, particularly its application in the area o f organizational behaviour, with special regard for the phenomena of change as well as crises in organizations. The organizational model presented here can be called a psychological model or, more strictly, a personality m odel. It is based on the assum ption that an organization, like people, has a personality, that is a set of features, attributes, and, m ost o f all, mechanisms w hich distinguishes it from o thers and allows us to look upon the organization as unique and exceptional. Introducing the idea of organizational personality provides concepts w hich appeal to our know ledge of the functional mechanisms of personality, but also creates the possibility of identifying it adequately. In light of the challenges which confront managers who are trying to steer organizations effectively through crises, critical situations, and changes, introducing the concept of organizational personality should help them navigate this complex area o f organizational functioning, even it they have no psychological background.

1. AN OUTLINE OF VIEWS ON PERSONALITY

To understand what a person is looking for in an organization, what he gains by creating an organizational community, a model o f the functioning of the hum an psyche is necessary. Such models are offered by the various currents o f psychology, including behavioural psychology, cognitive psychology, humanistic psychology, and also the psychoanalytic approach in its diverse variations. There is no unanimity among psychologists as to what the term “personality” means. Several decades ago, G ordon Allport (1968), author o f one of the most well-know n theories o f personality, counted approxim ately fifty definitions o f personality. W hile developing his own theory he em phasized the features which are characteristic, individual, and authentic in a person and which em erge in the structure and dynamics of behavior. A llport defined personality as a dynamic organization of psycho­ physical system s which are at the centre of the individual and which determ ine the specific methods o f adaptation, and thus determine the person's characteristic behaviours and ways of thinking. According to Allport, the personality is governed by automatic m otives w hich one cannot

reduce to biological or social stimuli. Another author, Nuttin (1968, p. 47) proposed one of the most general and shortest definitions, i.e. that the personality is the entirety o f the psychic organization o f the individual.

O ne could make a long list o f examples of known and applied definitions. It is clear that each of them is connected with a specific way of viewing the personality as a result of the theoretical assumptions on which the given definition was based. In this regard, the concept ó f personality assumes different meanings depending on the theory which it represents. Many authors have pointed out that concepts of personality are by nature “hypothetical constructs” , to which different features, attributes, dim ensions, or meaning are ascribed (Oleś, 2003; Pervin, 2002; Hall, Lindzey, 1990; Tomaszewski, 1976). C aprara and Gennaro (in: Fedeli, 2003, p. 267) listed the following types of content ascribed to the concept o f personality defined as:

• T he entirety of the hierarchically organized description;

• T he more or less diversified and structured organization of needs and possibilities;

• Lifestyle;

• That which is revealed in the individual's behaviour of the cultural reality to which he belongs;

• T he subjectivity o f the individual, his singularity and uniqueness. T h e ambiguities in content and scope attributed to the term personality in psychology form the basis for the diversity of the theories and m odels appearing within the various schools of psychology. The approach to personality in this study is generally psychodynam ic, as it explains the m echanism s governing hum an life most com pletely with regard to both individuals as well as groups. In addition, the psychodynam ic concept takes the significance of conscious and unconscious processes into consideration as w ell as their influence on hum an behaviour.

2. THE THEORETICAL BASIS OF THE CONCEPT OF ORGANIZATIONAL PERSONALITY

T h e idea of organizational personality presented here is a proposal to utilize psychological know ledge about personality. The concept of “organizational personality” often appears in literature in the field of organization and m anagem ent theory as equivalent to the concept of

organizational culture (the similarities and differences between

H ow ever, studies have appeared in recent years in w hich “organizational personality” is applied in a way w hich significantly goes beyond its cultural sense. T his is because it is em ployed in a psychological context in which personality means a kind o f com posite psychic apparatus fulfilling instrum ental and integrational functions (Oles, 2003; Pervin, 2002; Lindzey, Hall, 1990; Kozielecki, 1981). Exam ples are studies o f such authors as Stapley (1996) and Natoli (2001). The pioneers, how ever, were Kets de Vries and M iller, the authors o f “T h e Neurotic O rganization. Diagnosing and C hanging Counterproductive S tyle of M anagement” (1984) and many studies in which they described the model of a neurotic organization. This model is based on the assum ption that the neurotic personality type of representatives of top m anagem ent determines the m anner o f functioning of the w hole organization, including its strategy, culture, structure, inter-group, and interpersonal relations. T he result of transferring the features and attributes o f the personalities o f the leaders onto the way the organization functions is that individual pathology becomes organizational pathology. One would think that the connection between managers and the pathology of an organization is more apparent in small, centralized com panies or in those which have a few leaders with the same type of personality. Kets de Vries m aintained, however, that top m anagem ent with a neurotic personality type is a factor which disturbs organizational functioning in large, decentralized com panies as well. This occurs through its influence on the cultural sphere of the corporation, which becomes a kind of medium or transm itter between that which is individual and that w hich is common and present in the whole organization. On the basis of studies by the above authors, one can see that the stronger the personality of the leader, the greater the scope of the influence of his actions and ways of thinking on the organization (K ets de Vries, Miller, '984; Kets deV ries, 1980).

S tudies concerning the issues o f emotions in organizations have an essential influence on the developm ent of the concept of organizational personality, especially those o f Fineman (2000), G abriel (1998; 1991), A shkanasy, Hartel, and Zerbe (2000), and many others. The dominating belief that organizations are rational, purposeful, ordered, and integrated entities w as for a long time the reason for ignoring.the fact that emotions existed in organizations. F inem an (1996) described this situation when writing ab o u t organizations as “em otionally anorexic” objects. The situation changed, how ever, and, as G abriel (1998) vividly presented it, emotions have “m oved into” organizations in recent years. The latest studies on the subject o f leadership, identity, and organizational change indicate the

m anagem ent of emotions as a key condition for the success of an organization (vide Styhre et al., 2002; Bierema, B erdish, 1999; Senge, 1998; M aurer, 1996), and the social constructionists also contributed studies to trend studies concerning organizational culture (lin e m a n , 1993; Trice, Beyer, 1993; Deal, Kennedy, 1982). Fineman (2000), M umby and Putnam (1992), Van Maanen (1991), and others wondered how emotions form and appear in organizations and how to manage them appropriately, especially when they are of crucial im portance in a specific position. The exploration of these issues shows that the thinking about management is beginning to shift from the sphere of observed behaviour to the area of the internal world of the em ployees.

O ne o f the most often applied and popular m odels o f the functioning of the hum an psyche is that offered by psychoanalysis. It is being used ever m ore boldly in attempts to understand the com plex processes arising in organizations. This approach places particular attention on the complexity of the em otional relationships betw een the individuals and the organization; it allow s a better understanding o f both the relationships between the leader, endow ed with attributes o f pow er, and the organization, as well as the relationships between the separate individuals and the organizational com m unity. Moreover, it offers the possibility o f studying the emotions on both the individual level and that of the strength of the groups (Gabriel, Carr, 2002; Hinshelwood, Skogstad 2000; Diamond, 1993; Rutan, Stone, 1984; F oulkes, 1975; Bion, 1959). T hanks to the work of such authors as LeBon, Bion, McDougall, and Foulkes, who investigated the problems of group dynam ic processes, we can better understand the behavior of the participants in an organization. These authors described the m echanism s of the functioning of a group, understood not as a collection of individuals, but as a new quality which em erges as a result of the interaction between its individual members.

In his psychodynamic approach to groups, M cD ougall drew attention to the process which leads to intensification of the em otions in a group, called “em otional contagion” (de Board, 2003; H atfield, Caccioppo, Rapson, 1994). T his is one of the m ost important mechanisms operating in a group since it describes how em otions experienced by an individual disseminate through the whole organization. Understanding this phenom enon becomes particularly important when ju st considering individual reactions proves insufficient to influcncc a group affcctcd by strong em otions effectively. T hanks to the knowledge o f this mechanism, we acquire the opportunity o f studying emotions both on the individual level, using knowledge about em otions and such defense mechanisms as denial, transference, projection,

and introjections, and on the level o f group processes (A rm strong, 2005; Gabriel, 1998; Diamond, 1993; Sim m ons, 1981; Foulkes, 1975; Bion, 1959).

A dopting the psychodynamic approach means questioning the assumptions about the rationality of organizations, which certainly m ay arouse unease, as well as the resistance of scholars attached to the rational model of organizations. However, not only the psychoanalytical approach shows that the rationality of both the participants in the organization and the organization itself is superficial (Thompson, Fine, 1999). Studies on organizations in recent years, am ong others the experience o f the researchers gathered at the Institute of Tavistock, have directed attention to diverse irrational elements and phenom ena appearing in the lives o f organizations, giving voice to that which was hitherto denied or suppressed. It is precisely with these irrational and also powerfully emotional behaviours that the members of any organization have the most difficulty, from top m anagem ent to production staff.

In the psychoanalytic understanding of an individual’s psyche, anxiety and d efense mechanisms play an especially im portant role. Individual experiences, consciously and unconsciously, conflict with what he copes by developing a psychological system o f defense mechanisms. The contribution of psychoanalysis and the analysis of group behaviour to the study of organizations consists of broadening the theory o f organization and

m anagem ent with research into the unconscious dimensions of

organizational life, revealing the hidden aspects of the relationships of individuals with groups, and highlighting the influence o f the emotions, beliefs, and ideas of the m em bers o f the organization on their day to day functioning (cf. Durkin, 1981; R utan, Stone, 1984; H irschhorn, 1995).

The basic assumption of the psychoanalytic approach, w hich also applies to organizations, says that most behaviour which we perceive as rational is in ract determ ined by the action o f pow ers and mechanisms w hich lie outside the conscious level of cognition. In this regard, to understand what is happening in an organization one m ust not only transcend this superficial rationality, but also alter it by draw ing the hidden and denied motives, feelings, and desires to the level o f awareness. To this end it is necessary to evoke the defense mechanisms o f the organization's m em bers. These m echanism s are formed within the context of the hum an personality and define the patterns of behaviour w hich one applies in life. From such a perspective, the personality may even be defined in the sim plest way as an established and consolidated pattern of defense m echanism s applied through life which one can recognize by observing the individual’s behaviour as well as by subjecting it to introspection. It is well known that the more anxiety a

person feels, the more likely it is that he will autom atically apply behaviour patterns based on defense m echanism s (Freud, 2004). The more energy we expend on defense, the less rem ains for use to respond to real events, which, of course, makes dealing with current problems in a m ature and constructive m anner difficult. Because m echanisms of defense against anxiety are so im portant in the shaping o f individual behaviour, they also influence the social life of an organization and become crucial factors in conceiving organizational personality.

A lthough it is the individual who feels anxiety and applies defense m echanism s, such m echanism s may nevertheless b e ascribed to social system s. The extension of the psychoanalytical approach into the area of group, organizational, and institutional functioning, making use of the concept o f anxiety and defense mechanisms related to them, had already begun in the 1950s. During that time, Jaques (1953) dem onstrated that social system s can reinforce the individual in his psychological defense m echanism s against anxiety. T he author's main idea was articulated in his b elief that individuals unconsciously exploit social system s to support their defenses against anxiety. As a whole, a social system acts in a way which allow s individuals to avoid anxiety and conflict, particularly those which result from the fundamental tasks carried out by the given institution. Lyth- M enzies (1988, 1989) show ed that every individual cooperates to strengthen those facets of a social system which sustain rigid and primal (prim itive) d efen se mechanisms. These unconscious defense m echanism s are reflected in shared, socially accepted defensive attitudes, w hich are most apparent in the approach to the work perform ed.

A nother source of inspiration in the study of the concept of organizational personality is the general system theory. This theory provides a basis allow ing the integration o f different approaches and puts individual b eh aviour and the methods o f group and organizational functioning in a new light. T he system approach allow s one to view an organization as a living, open system which is in contact with its surroundings; work is carried out w ithin defined limits within which the necessary interaction takes place, thanks to which the organization is kept in a state o f dynamic balance with the environm ent. The m anagem ent staff is responsible for supervising the correct functioning of this process, and this supervision demands a huge investment of energy of the whole organization so that it can react appropriately to any sort of shift of force in its environment. Lack o f this energy pushes an organization towards a closed system, which by definition is not in a position to function efficiently.

Anxiety appears when changes must be carried out in an organization, and this initiates defensive reactions in its members. In effect, energy is expended on internal struggles and evasion of the actual problems instead of on their resolution. This demonstrates not only the need to understand the sources and nature o f the anxiety, the resistance to change, but also the necessity of undertaking effective actions to neutralize this resistance in the organization. It is thus apparent that it is here where system theory, research on emotions in organizations, and the psychodynamic view of personality meet. The beliefs, emotions, and defense mechanisms shared by members of an organization are the foundation on which the structure of the organizational personality is based.

From the popular point o f view, the way in w hich an organization develops its structure and m ethods o f activity is largely determ ined by the product and the applied technology, while from the psychological point of view an organization's culture, structure, and way o f functioning are determ ined by the psychological needs of the members o f the organization. A ccording to the psychodynamic approach, structure, habits, but most of all relations w ith people are determ ined by ways of coping with anxiety (or other threatening emotions), since the life of every organization carries with it constant tension. It provides pleasure and many other positive emotions, but it is also the source of anxiety and other negative em otions. To understand fully what is happening in an organization, one must take into account the emotional aspect of its functioning, fraught with stress and ambivalence.

A p oint of reference which allow s one to relate the social phenomena observed in an organization to a defined conceptual system may be the personality model. According to the view presented here, the concept of organizational personality is a hypothetical construct consisting of the following: Organizational personality is the totality o f the mechanisms which integrate the psychological and social activity o f the members of an organization under the conditions determined b.y its structure. The personalities of its leaders and the character of the key activity have a decisive influence on the form ation of the organizational personality. A condition fo r the shaping of the organizational personality is the frequency and intensity o f the relations betw een the members o f the organization. With low frequency and intensity o f relations, the organization remains a collection o f loosely connected individuals. With higher intensity, a “new quality” em erges whose features are a result of the personality of the most influential (dominant) m em bers. Personality is hence a dynamic instance which integrates an organization's functioning in the sphere o f interpersonal and inter-group relations, regulating the behaviour of the separate individual

m em bers in the organization’s structure. This results from the interaction of the personalities of the m em bers of the organization in connection with the kinds o f tasks to complete. Organizational personality has a dynamic character; it characterizes the organization in a unique and unrepeatable way. The personality, as the organizing psychological apparatus, lends cohesion and continuity to the processes to which the individual is subjected when becom ing a member of a group or organization.

T h e personality, understood as a psychological apparatus with the ch aracter of a superior body and which integrates the behavioural m echanism s of the people in an organization, cannot be submitted to direct observation. We can only draw conclusions about the personality based on observable, overt behaviour. T he only basis for assum ing the existence of personality as an entity enduring in time is the consistency and cohesion of the pattern of overt behaviour observed in essential areas of organizational functioning. Among these are the organization's attitude towards its internal and external environment, the m ethod and content o f its formulated strategy o f action, the way of making decisions and com m unicating, and its attitude tow ards change. The essence o f personality lies in the mechanisms which determ ine the ways in which the individual m em bers o f the organization cope w ith emotions. These depend on the members' personal predisposition, but at the same time, by being involved in the life o f the organization, they are determ ined by the conditions prevailing in the organization, among w hich the personality of the leader has dominant significance.

3. ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERSONALITY

T he concept of organizational culture contains m any diverse elements. O f its num erous definitions, that proposed by C. K luckhohn and A. Kroemer is w orthy o f quoting: “Culture consists of patterns o f thinking, feeling, and reacting acquired and transm itted chiefly through sym bols, which are the distinctive achievements of hum an groups, including their embodiment in artifacts; the essential core o f culture consists o f traditional ideas, and especially their attached values. In many respects a culture resembles a personality. It is thus a unique social personality” (quoted in: Kostera, 1996, p. 75). Sikorski (1990), in turn, stated that if the m ost essential components o f organizational culture are hidden deep within the consciousness and unconsciousness of the em ployees, then one should look for the key to

understanding the mechanisms governing the life of an organization and its members precisely in knowledge about human psychology. A t the same time it seems that the range of function and content ascribed to culture is so vast that, in a w ay, everything in an organization is culture. T his is undoubtedly one o f the reasons for the creation o f the numerous definitions with which authors attem pt to illustrate the essence of this com plex phenomenon, em phasizing elements which in their view deserve special attention.

From the viewpoint of the idea of organizational personality presented here, the w ork of G. Hofstede and that o f E. Schein on organizational culture are worth mentioning. According to Hofstede (1984, p. 14), “Culture is the collective programming of the m inds of people who live in a given environm ent. This programming is partly common to the various people, partly characteristic of the concrete person.” Hofstede differentiated three main ways o f programming: the universal, collective, and individual levels. The universal level of mental program m ing includes the needs for security, society, acknowledgem ent, and self-realization and is identical in all people. The collective level is common to social groups, e.g. nations, inhabitants of a given region, and representatives of specific professions, and the program m ing is passed on from one generation to the next, fostering identification with the group and assuring its cohesion. T h e individual level is characteristic of the individual and involves his personality; it is unique in that there are no two identical persons. This way of seeing organizational culture seem s very close to the concept of personality in the sphere of each of the three levels of programming. T his similarity is suggested all the more as the classification of organizational cultures he proposes refer to the dim ensions applied in psychological concepts of personality (for example: individualism -collectivism , m asculinity-femininity).

S chein’s (1985) concept of organizational culture;, representative of the cognitive approach, primarily em phasizes its internal or integrational function, in addition to its adaptational function. Schein also pointed out the m ultilayered character of culture, distinguishing its three levels: on the surface are artifacts, beneath there are values and behavioral norms, and at the deepest level are convictions and assumptions.

From the psychological perspective it is difficult not to agree with Lidia Zbiegien-M aci^g (1999), who considered the model o f culture which Schein proposed rem iniscent of the concept of personality form ulated by Sigmund Freud. A ccording to Schein, a com pany's culture is anchored in the level of basic assum ptions, which are generally unconscious and perm anent. They correspond to that level of personality which Freud defined as the id. This is

the most deeply hidden level of a personality and is also the key to understanding the remaining cultural levels. The second level of a company's culture are such observable phenom ena as values w hich reflect goals, ideals, standards, and norms. T his level of values is partially conscious and corresponds to Freud’s ego, or self. The third level is the superego. This consists of the ethics, socialization, and shared m eanings developed by people. Schein’s model is simultaneously a model o f culture as the product o f a group. This is also why the work of psychoanalytical groups such as those of Bion and Foulkes, as well as the contributions of those studying group dynamics, also from a cognitive perspective, are so valuable and inspirational for the idea o f organizational personality.

For observers of organizational life it seems rather obvious that a cultural explanation of what takes place in organizations is insufficient in som e

cases. Although several concepts concerning various aspects o f

organizational culture have been formulated in recent years, the application o f their conclusions in practice often does not bring the expected results, and theoreticians and practitioners agree that change in the culture of an organization is most difficult and time-consuming to carry out. W hen describing the issues connected with organizational culture, reference is usually made to its superficial appearance, w ithout touching upon much more complicated matters which lie at the source o f behaviour, above all avoiding the hidden, unconscious aspects. Even if they are mentioned, it is without an indication of the mechanisms which explain the observed behavior. However, without the possibility of understanding the relationship between that which is conscious and that which is unconscious, we are unable to explain fully what is happening in an organization. Psychological theory, in particular the concepts concerning human personality, deals with these issues. Among these, the psychodynamic approach mentioned above plays an important role.

In the literature we com e across the term organizational personality applied as equivalent in m eaning to organizational culture (cf. Sikorski, 1990, 2002; Morgan, 2001; Zbiegien-Maci^g, 1999; Robbins, 1988). A clear exam ple is a definition given by Koch, who stated that organizational culture is “an organization's personality and character which have developed through generations of em ployees and which incline those working in the organization to behave in a defined manner w ithout being aware that they are behaving precisely in this way” (Koch, 1997, p. 120). This undoubtedly interesting definition does not, however, indicate w hat that something is that inclines people to “behave in a defined manner without being aware that they are behaving precisely in this way”. It seems, then, highly justified to

attempt to fill this gap. From the psychological perspective, it is exactly the personality which is the theoretical construct which describes the mechanisms which induce individuals, the m em bers of the organization, to adopt behaviour patterns accepted in the given organization, in accordance with its norms.

In the understanding presented here, organizational personality is a concept different from that of organizational culture; it describes a different quality and it contains elem ents which go beyond organizational culture, since it reaches into the depths o f organizational life. Because these two concepts are treated interchangeably in the literature o f organization and m anagem ent, the differences betw een them should be pointed out, i.e., those features w hich should be assigned to the area of an organization's culture and those w hich fall within the realm o f the organization's personality. Although this task is not easy, it is a worthy challenge not only fo r research purposes, but also with regard to its practical application. T h e conscious and unconscious elements which m ake up the social plane of organizational function, that is culture, organizational behaviors, and personality, as well as the relations between these are illustrated in this diagram:

Figure 1. Relationships between culture, behaviour, and organizational personality Sourcc: author’s own

^

T h ere are many sources o f difficulty in distinguishing organizational cu ltu re and organizational personality. An im portant source of difficulty in d istinguishing culture and personality is that both are complex and m ultifaceted. A reflection o f this is undoubtedly the difficulties which appear when we wish to establish clear boundaries and criteria d istinguishing them. In their definitions of both culture and personality, authors see the uniqueness o f the defined object as a characteristic trait. At the sam e time, there are num erous sim ilarities betw een people and organizations, but no two organizations are exactly alike, just as no two persons are exactly alike. O ne o f the dilemmas indicating the scale of the d ifficulty in distinguishing betw een culture and personality is contained in the question to what extent a person is determ ined by biology and to what extent by social environm ent, i.e., the age-old q uestion about what shapes m an, nature or nurture. In seeking an answer, one may point to extrem e positions which em phasize the influence of only one of the factors, e x clu d in g the significance o f the other. There are also many transitional concepts in which the significance of both factors is recognized and the im portance of additional factors, such as the su b je c t’s own activity, are pointed out. However, if we assum e that in human nature there is continual interaction of the influences o f factors of com pletely diverse character, viz. that w hich is biological and innate combines with that which is social and acquired, and an individual's personality is a unique and exceptional effect o f th eir interaction, one could look upon the concept “organizational p erso n ality ” in a sim ilar m anner. At the same tim e we free it from the tendency to treat it as identical to organizational culture, although it is not the sam e as the inborn “biological” characteristics making up an individual's personality. P ersonality is not (only) culture; culture is not (only) personality. An organization possesses its culture as well as its personality, which are not the same thing. From such a perspective it should be possible to reg ard personality as a m etaphor of the o rg an izatio n , in a m anner sim ilar to regarding c u ltu re as a m etaphor for the organization.

A ssum ing that an organization is a product o f a society, and thus also o f its culture, the justification for introducing the term “organizational p erso n ality ” is that personality speaks of how particular individuals, m em bers of the organization, shape the new quality which is the organization understood as a whole, what m echanism s influence its functioning, stability, developm ent, and possible change, and what lies at the basis of its uniqueness. If we assume that it is culture which joins the

m em bers o f an organization together, then personality speaks of how the diverse elem en ts of the o rg an izatio n ’s social life, e.g., convictions, values, norm s, and, most of all, em otions and defense m echanism s, are interconnected, in other words, by what means they influence each other and how th is finds its expression in the observed behaviour o f the members of the organization.

M ost studies on organizational culture emphasize its cognitive aspects and, sim ilarly to studies on organization, one can observe a tendency to m arginalize the role of em otions. However, culture deals with areas which usually involve emotions. The essence of culture, i.e. w hat people believe, what they value, and what they expect and desire, is colored by emotions and people feel and express this appropriately using forms accepted by the given culture. F rom the perspective o f an organization’s personality, emotions are its essential element. The significance of culture in an organization’s personality is very important, as organizational culture provides the means, models, and also methods of coping with stress and em otions. Emotions are indeed ex p erien ced by indiv id u als, but they extend or flow beyond the individual into the group and e v e r larger spheres o f the organization, at which tim e culture enters the aren a, providing the c o p in g patterns for such situ atio n s which have been developed and accepted by the o rg an izatio n .

As m uch as the cultural m odel of an organization show s the elements which tog eth er create organizational culture, it is the psychological model which show s personality as an instance, a theoretical construct, which confers a specific order to these elem ents. On the basis o f the emotions and the m echanism s of coping with them , especially the intensive ones affecting many m em bers of the organization, the personality decides how the particular elem ents, including those contained in the organization’s culture, influence each other, i.e., what kind o f relationship betw een them appears in the organization. This is because the personality is a set o f mechanisms regulating the mutual relationships between these elem ents, the emotions and d efense mechanisms w hich give each organization its unique and exceptional character.

In v o k in g the concept of c u ltu re undoubtedly allo w s one to describe what tak es place in an o rg a n iz atio n , but it does not ex p lain why things happen th e way they do. It see m s that it would be v alu ab le not only to know w h at happens, but also u n d ersta n d why they h appen as they do.

4. IDENTITY AND PERSONALITY

S tatem en ts of the type: “T h is organization is se e k in g its identity” , “ A s a y o u n g com pany we are lo o k in g for our place on th e m arket. W e w ant to b u ild an im age of a c o m p an y w hich is dynam ic a n d open to its c u sto m ers” , a n d “ O u r em ployees hav e a strong sense o f identification with the co m p a n y ” , etc., surprise n o -o n e today. As a rule, it is the representatives o f th e m anagerial staff o f a c o m p a n y who form ulate a co m p an y ’s m ission and strateg y , which answ er such questions as “ w ho are w e?” and “how do w e w an t to be?” . They are co n stru ed as an e x p ressio n o f the activity and e n te rp rise o f the people lead in g the organization and dem onstrate th e ir k n o w le d g e of the gam e ru le s o f the market. F ro m h e re it is a short w ay to su ch co n cep ts as the id en tity o f an organization an d com pany image. In the D ic tio n a ry o f the Polish L a n g u a g e (1983), identity is defined succinctly as “ b e in g the same; e x p lic itn e ss.” However, p sy ch o lo g ical know ledge is re g a rd e d as the basis for explaining the m a tte r o f identity in the p sy ch o lo g ical perspective on the issues p re se n te d in this article. In p sy ch o lo g y , identity is re g a rd e d as a co n seq u en ce o f distinguishing the e le m e n t o f self in the p e rso n a lity structure (E rik so n , 2004; Pervin, 20 0 2 ; F re u d , 1999; Jung, 1971). W ith o u t a developed feelin g o f the self, one c a n n o t speak o f an in d iv id u al's identity.

T h e problem of identity is the problem o f the e s se n c e of human ex isten ce. It is a consequence o f th e fact that every p e rso n seeks more o r less co n sc io u sly his place in p e rso n a l, family, and p ro fessio n al life. The co n c e p t o f id en tity is closely c o n n e c te d with the concept o f th e self. The sense an d sig n ific a n c e of such c o n cep ts as self, ego, and id en tity are far from ex p licit. A lth o u g h that there is so m e th in g which we in tu itiv ely call our “s e l f ’ seem s o b v io u s, attem pts to d efin e a n d grasp the essence o f “ s e l f ’ nonetheless m eets w ith m any difficulties. A n ev en greater ch allen g e appears to be d e fin in g w h at the “s e l f ’ of an o rg a n izatio n is. Can one sp e a k o f an organization's “ s e l f ’? If so, how did it c o m e to be? How did it fo rm and on what d o e s it d e p e n d ? A nd, finally, how ca n w e study it? A ttem p ts to specify views on the n a tu re o f the human s e lf w ere regarded as b e in g im portant as w ell as d iffic u lt (Freud, 1999; Ju n g , 1971; Jam es, 1948). P roblem s result not so m u ch from the inco m p reh en sib ility o f the c o n c e p t, but rather from its u b iq u ity . People use it c o n sta n tly on a daily basis. A t th e sam e time it is very d iffic u lt for psychologists to define its n a tu re w ith the aid o f an u n a m b ig u o u s definition. S tu d ie s which take the intercultural variability o f s e lf (cf. M arkus, K itayam a, 1991) into account, as w ell as the ev o lu tio n ary

ap p ro ach (S edikides, S k o w ro n sk i, 1997), add itio n ally com plicate this problem .

In te re st in the problem o f th e s e lf reaches back to a n c ie n t G reece, when A risto tle introduced the d istin ctio n o f that which is m aterial and that which is im m a te ria l in man. A cco rd in g to him , the im m aterial, p sy ch ic elem ent, or soul, is resp o n sib le for the fu n c tio n in g of the m ind o f ev e ry hum an being. M uch la te r the soul began to be d escrib ed by the term “ s e l f ’. T he distinction betw een th e m aterial and im m aterial became, am o n g o th e rs, a subject of D e sc a rte s’ considerations. T h e self, i.e. the thinking a n d know ing being, becam e reco g n ized as the q u in te sse n c e o f human su b je c tiv ity . T he nature o f a hum an b e in g ’s self-ex p erien cin g becam e the subject o f inquiry of many su c cessiv e generations o f p h ilo so p h e rs, such as G e o rg e B erkeley, David H um e, J a m e s M ill, and John S tu a rt M ill. Subsequent philo so p h ical studies c o n trib u te d to the developm ent o f psychology as a sc ie n c e , including the w ork o f th e A m erican p sy c h o lo g ist W illiam Jam es w h o introduced the co n cep t o f the “ s e l f ’ in p sy ch o lo g y in 1890, were fu n d a m e n ta l in the issue o f h u m an identity.

F re u d ’s theory o f the ego h as m uch in com m on w ith th e concept of self, alth o u g h it interested such re se a rc h ers as Erich F rom m , K aren H orney, and H arry S u lliv a n significantly m o re. In psychoanalytical th o u g h t, however, it was larg e ly representatives o f th e theory of relations w ith an object who studied th e concept o f self (cf. K ernberg, 1976; K o h u t, 1977). They draw atten tio n to the developm ent o f early rep resen tatio n s of oneself, re p re se n ta tio n s of other persons, a n d relations with them . T h ey m aintain that re p re se n ta tio n s o f the self are m ultidim ensional; th ey m ay consist of a c o h e siv e w h o le, but may also be isolated from each o th e r, and even rem ain in c o n flic t; they may be o f partial character, or w hole. R ep resen tatio n s o f the self, o th e r persons, and the relatio n sh ip s with th em fo rm an organized system . A person tries to m a in tain cohesion and c o n ta c t betw een the in d iv id u al elem ents o f this sy stem . A ccording to the th e o re tic ia n s o f object re la tio n sh ip s, representations o f th e se lf are strongly sa tu ra te d with em otions and in v o lv e desires and fears.

T h e th eo retical and p ractical aspects o f the p ro b le m o f self were in ten siv ely developed by such a u th o rs as Carl R o g ers and Erik Erikson. E arlier, h o w ev er, behaviourism im p ed ed progress in re se a rc h on the self. An im p o rtan t step which accelerated th e developm ent o f k n o w le d g e in this field was th e b o rro w in g o f co n cep ts and m ethodologies a p p lied in cognitive p sy c h o lo g y . T h e adaptation o f th e theory o f patterns tak en from cognitive p sy c h o lo g y initiated the d e v e lo p m e n t of research on th e so-called “auto­

s c h e m a ta ” . M oreover, sc ie n tists turned their a tten tio n to the processes o f g ro u p dynam ics. One can o b se rv e a system atic d e v e lo p m e n t o f theory and re se a rc h devoted to the co g n itiv e , affective, and so cial aspects o f the se lf b e g in n in g in the 1970s. A c c o rd in g to cognitive p sy c h o lo g ists, patterns o f the s e lf p re se n t a cognitive stru c tu re containing g e n e ra liz atio n s on the them e o f o n e's o w n person which re su lt from past e x p e rie n c e (K ozielecki, 1981; T o m a sz e w sk i, 1976; Ł u k aszew sk i, 1974). P sy ch o an aly sts stress the im p o rta n c e o f unconscious representations o f th e self, the weight o f e x p e rie n c e s from early c h ild h o o d , and their d y n am ic m utual impact. M uch a tte n tio n is devoted to c o n flic ts betw een the individual representations o f the self. S o cial and cognitive p sy ch o lo g ists are m ore in terested in the conscious, but a ls o unconscious, p attern s o f the self, the c u rre n t representations o f the s e lf o r m em ories from the p a st, as well as ab ilities to distinguish betw een v a rio u s im ages o f the self. In the light of both th e psychodynam ic and c o g n itiv e theories, identity is a crucial elem ent in the structure o f the p e rso n a lity .

O n e speaks o f two fo rm s o f the self in p sy ch o lo g y : perceiving the se lf an d b e in g aw are o f the s e lf (E rikson, 2004; T e sse r, F elson, Suls, 2004). R e se a rc h e rs of different o rie n ta tio n generally agree th a t the self is connected w ith self-control, a sense o f o n e ’s own worth. T h e s e lf also affects how a p e rso n view s the world. T h is appears together w ith th e developm ent o f the a b ility to distinguish o n e s e lf from environm ent, d ifferen tiate oneself and o th e rs, acquiring the ability o f reflection and th in k in g a b o u t oneself. T he se lf le n d s cohesion to our b e h a v io r, it is an expression o f the integrality o f the p e rso n a lity as a system o f interconnected elem ents. T h e lack o f a sense o f in te rn a l integration is a sso c ia te d with internal c o n flic t and tension. A t the sam e tim e, the integrality o f the personality m ak es it possible to p redict h u m a n behaviour. This is im portant for both c o g n itiv e and em otional re a so n s.

B o th social psychologists and sociologists, sta rtin g from individual id e n tity , m oved on to in terest in the com m unity an d collective identity. B o k szań sk i (2005) believes th a t the concept o f id en tity based on sociology sh o u ld be especially c lo se ly tied to c o lle c tiv e s. For fear o f an th ro p o m o rp h izin g the c a te g o ry of collective id en tity , however, som e a u th o rs are against using th is concept. An ex am ple is O lb ro m sk i’s (2000, p. 16) p o sitio n that “Social id en tity in itself does not e x ist. Identity is connected w ith consciousness, w hich is a hum an feature. W h ile society is not a form o f c o n s c io u s organism su p erio r to a person, it is th e unity of non-identical ‘so c ia l e v e n ts’” . Not ev ery o n e shares this position. Je n k in s (1996) asks w hy

we have to q uestion the existence o f a collective identity s in c e it is generally accepted th a t a collective is a p lu rality of individuals w h o perceive one another as sufficiently sim ilar to sp eak of them selves as “ w e” . W hy not recognize th e insights, c o n v ic tio n s, and aw areness o f th e sim ilarity in content as collective identity w h ich , moreover, fu lfills an integrative function on th e individuals o f the g ro u p ?

In b oth psychological and so cio lo g ical literature, a d istin c tio n is drawn betw een p e rso n al and collective id en tity . Bikont (1988, p. 2 8 ) believes that personal id e n tity is com posed o f its ow n individual c h a ra c teristic s, perceived as u n iq u e, w h ile social identity is m ade up of ch a ra c teristic s w hich provide in fo rm atio n about the individual's affiliation with d ifferen t social groups and categ o ries. Steinm ann and S c h re y o g g (2001, p. 4 3 5 ), c itin g S chlenker’s d efin itio n , u nderstand identity in th e w ay a person u n d e rsta n d s him self, how he u n d e rsta n d s and exp lain s his essential traits, ex p erien ces, and ex p e c ta tio n s. Indeed, their view c o n cern s the fo rm atio n o f personal, not co llectiv e, identity, but they e m p h a siz e that the sense o f id en tity depends not only on the person him self, but a lso on the process o f his so c ia l interactions.

In th e discu ssio n co n n e c te d w ith the p ro b lem s o f organizational p e rso n a lity , w hich includes is s u e s related to the c o n c e p t o f identity, th eo ries o f so cial identity (T a jfe l, 1978, 1982) and o f so c ia l categorization (H ogg, T e rry , 2000; T urner, O a k e s , 1986) are p a rtic u la rly im portant. It is b e liev ed th a t personal id en tity c o n ta in s those asp e c ts o f the self w hich o rig in a te fro m the individual tra its o f the person, w h ile social identity in clu d es a s p e c ts o f the self w h ich are a consequence o f m em b ersh ip in the gro u p (T a jfe l, 1978, 1982; T a jfe l, T u rn e r, 1979, 1986; T u rn e r et al., 1987). R e fe rrin g to T u rn e r’s concept o f au to -categ o rizatio n , S te p h a n and Stephan (2003) s ta te that the process o f aro u sin g the c o lle c tiv e self, know n as d e p e rso n a liz a tio n , is the b asis o f all group phenom ena. Ja ry m o w ic z (1988) p ro p o se s th a t equating “I” an d “ w e ” be treated as an e x p re ssio n o f one's d e p e rs o n a liz a tio n and that o n e sh o u ld speak o f s o c ia l identity when se p a ra te re p re se n ta tio n s of “ I” , “ w e ” , and “they” arise.

H atch (2 0 0 2 ) believes that o rg an izatio n al identity is th e experiences and beliefs o f th e m em bers reg ard in g th e organization as a w h o le . O rganizational identity is focused on itself: th e c o n c e p t refers to how th e m em bers of the o rg a n iz a tio n see them selves as an organization, w h ereas th e o rganization’s im age is its likeness in the e y e s o f others. T he im a g e reflects those im p ressio n s w hich the o rg an izatio n evokes in people o u tsid e it (cf. Hatch, 2002; D u tto n , Dukerich, H arq u ail, 1994). Im age and id e n tity are related in

th e se n se that the im age an organization presents to its environm ent m ay a ffe c t how the environm ent se e s the organization.

T h e team o f authors fro m the D epartm ent o f E n terp rise Strategy and P o licy o f the HEC-IAS p re se n te d an interesting p o sitio n in the m atter o f id e n tity in their book “C o m p a n y M anagem ent. S trategies, S tructures, D e c isio n s, Identity” (S trateg o r, 1999). The au th o rs w rote: “The p h rase ‘co lle c tiv e identity’ in relatio n to an enterprise d o e s n o t mean unanim ous b e lie fs .” They believe that th e concept “identity” sh o u ld replace the term “ o rg an izatio n al culture” u sed m ore often in the literatu re (ibid., p. 503). T h e y state that the term “c u ltu re ” is passive and n eu tral, and thus m ore m an ip u lativ e. Culture rem ain s on the surface level o f events, ideas, values, o r b e lie fs and o f that w hich is usually called “ sy m b o lic space” (ideologies, m y th s, rites, taboos, as w ell as behavioural norm s w h ic h are expressions o f th e m ), w hile identity reaches th e level o f passion a n d fantasy. The question o f id en tity is therefore a q u e stio n about the w ays th e s e im ages and sym bols a p p e a r. W ith know ledge o f th e com pany's identity, o n e can approach the p ro b le m o f m anagem ent by seek in g answers to q u e stio n s of how identity c h a n g e s and w hether it is p o ssib le to m anage id e n tity . In this view, th e c o n c e p t o f identity is e x te n d e d to the m eaning w h ich in psychology is ap p lie d to the concept o f p erso n ality .

F ro m the psychological perspective, when w e sp eak o f organizational id e n tity , it seem s natural to assu m e the existence o f a personality o f this o rg a n iz a tio n , since the c o n c e p t o f identity ap p ears w ithin the context o f p e rso n a lity : if there is an id en tity , then there is a p erso n ality , which is m ore o r less integrated, more or less m ature. W hen w c sp e a k o f an o rg an izatio n ’s id e n tity it means we a c cep t the assum ption o f th e existence o f the p h e n o m e n o n o f p erso n ality , e x p re ssin g the p e rm a n e n c e , co n tin u ity , an d d is tin c tn e s s o f the sp e c ific c o lle c tiv e w hich is th e o rg an izatio n . If, th e re fo re , a collective id e n tity has been form ed, th e n w e have the rig h t to s p e a k o f a p erso n ality o f th is collective, o r o f an o rg an izatio n al p e rs o n a lity .

In sum m ary, identity is a co n cep t im m anently re la te d to the concept o f p e rso n a lity , it is an essential elem ent o f it, c o n ta in in g defined patterns o f k n o w le d g e about the broadly view ed category o f th e self. R ecognizing the le g itim a c y o f em ploying th e categ o ry o f collective id en tity , we thus have a b a se from which to tak e a further step and sp e a k o f organizational p e rso n a lity .

CONCLUSION

It is n o t difficult to im agine th a t button factories, s o ftw a re com panies, and a d v e rtise m e n t agencies fu n c tio n differently, ju st, as un iv ersities, sm all­ tow n h o sp ita ls, and civil e n g in e e rin g firm s in large, d y n a m ic a lly developing urban a re a s do. W e know that o rg an izatio n s vary in th e ir size, structure, and goals, b u t a lso in som ething m o re intangible but su ffic ie n tly essential to prom pt se v eral authors to a tte m p t an adequate d e fin itio n capturing this “so m e th in g ” . T he scope o f d istin g u ish in g features tra d itio n a lly included in o rg a n iz a tio n a l culture, ex clu d in g th e sphere of artifacts, is rather limited. M ost o rg a n iz a tio n s are in fa v o u r o f the same values, a p p ly the sam e very sim ilar n o rm s regulating p rin c ip le s o f conduct, and p re s e n t sim ilar patterns o f b e h a v io u r. W hat are, then, th e se essential factors resp o n sib le for the creatio n o f som ething so hard to g ra sp but specific to e v e ry organization? In an sw er to th is, the thesis w as fo rw a rd e d that it is p e rso n a lity , and applying this c o n c e p t opens possibilities w h ich should interest b o th theoreticians and m a n a g e m e n t practitioners. A c c o rd in g to this thesis, it is organizational p erso n a lity w hich is responsible fo r the fact that its m e m b e rs feel and react in w ays s p e c ific to the given o rg a n iz a tio n .

T h e c o n c e p t o f organizational personality in itself is n o th in g new in the field o f m an ag em en t studies. A u th o rs w ho equate o rg a n iz a tio n a l culture with p e rso n a lity , identity with p erso n ality , o r even culture w ith identity, appeal to the idea. T h e repeated notion o f p erso n ality as a sy n o n y m fo r organizational cu ltu re o r identity may d e m o n stra te that neither c u ltu re nor identity su ffic ie n tly describes the m e an in g o f that which w e a re try in g to express. T his in d u c e s us to look for a m o re satisfactory and a d e q u a te term . It seem s that in th e light o f current k n o w le d g e we can appeal to th e concept o f p e rso n a lity w ith regard to o rg a n iz a tio n s, im parting it w ith a m eaning in acc o rd a n ce w ith the p sy ch o lo g ical concept o f p e rso n a lity . U sing the m e ta p h o r o f personality with re g a rd to an organization th u s allow s us to “see that w h ich is unseen” . A bove a ll, it allows us to c o p e better with the p h e n o m e n o n o f change and w ith c rise s in organizations.

O rg a n iz a tio n a l personality is an organized com p lex o f processes which are p sy c h o lo g ic a l in character a n d typical o f the o rg a n iz a tio n . Its function consists o f developing b eh a v io u rs in accordance w ith th e o rganization’s goals, lo w e rin g the level o f an x ie ty and/or aggression in ac c o rd a n ce with the rules p re v a ilin g in the o rg an izatio n , and creating and tra n sm ittin g a system o f sh ared b e lie fs, judgem ents, ev a lu a tio n s, and ideas,’ c o m in g from the area o f o rg a n iz a tio n a l culture, in a m a n n e r subordinate to d e fe n s e m echanism s. In

e ffe c t, in dealing with o rg a n iz a tio n s o f the sam e c u ltu ra l type, we shall have d iffe re n t types o f o rg an izatio n al personalities, an d the source o f this d iv e rs ity is the defense m ech an ism s which p red o m in ate. It is the im portant le a d e rs w ho have the g reatest influence on the p ro c e ss o f anchoring th ese m e c h a n ism in the o rg an izatio n , as it is the le a d e rs’ d efense m echanism s w h ich d om inate the w ays o f expressing em otions, p articu larly those w hich are u n d esirab le from the p o in t o f view of the fu n d am en tal principles o f the o rg a n iz a tio n . On the m ost g en eral level one m ay a ssu m e that the task o f o rg a n iz a tio n a l personality is to enable shaping b eh av io u rs which are b e n e fic ia l to the organization in a given en v iro n m e n t and under specific c o n d itio n s of activity. T h is fu n ctio n would be e x e rc ise d effectively if the b e h a v io u rs which are b en eficial to the organization a b so rb as little energy as p o ssib le , but provide the m a x im a l chance of success.

I f w e w ould really like to understand the m o st crucial aspects o f o rg a n iz a tio n a l behaviour, w e m ust look more d e e p ly fo r an explanation, b e y o n d organizational cu ltu re. In this regard w e n e e d concepts w hich are u sefu l fo r interpreting the co n scio u s and u n c o n sc io u s behaviour o f the p a rtic ip a n ts in the life o f an o rg anization. W e need m e th o d s and tools w hich m ak e it easier to understand th e ir feelings and d e fe n se m echanism s and also to p re d ic t behaviours in u n ty p ical or crisis situ a tio n s. The theories o f p e rso n a lity , regardless o f the psychological cu rren t th ey represent, provide th ese and bring us c lo se r to understanding th e internal m echanism s g o v e rn in g the individuals, a lso w hen they are m em b ers o f a collective. T h is m ak es it possible to u n d e rsta n d both the c o n sc io u s and unconscious p ro c e sse s and offers the p o ssib ility to explain p h e n o m e n a arising in the sp h e re o f culture and o rg an izatio n al behaviour, in c lu d in g change and crisis.

T h e question rem ains as to how to apply th e id ea o f organizational p e rso n a lity described here. T h e com plexity o f th e problem dem ands a re se a rc h m ethodology w h o se resu lts can be tran sferred to real-life situations in th e field , and this will be th e subject o f further stu d ies.

REFERENCES

A llp o rl G .W ., The Person in Psychology. Bacon Press, B oston , 1 9 68.

A r m str o n g D ., Organization in the Mind. Psychoanalysis, Group Relations, and O rganizational Consultancy. K a m a c, London, 2005.

A sh k a n a s y N ., Martel Ch., Z erb e W ., Emotions in the Workplace. Research, Theory, and Practice. Quorum B ooks, L o n d o n , 2 0 0 0 .

B ierem a R ., B erd ish D., Creating a learning organization: a case study o f outcomes and lessons learned, “Performance Im p ro v em en t” , V ol. 38, No. 4 , 1999.

Bikont A ., Tożsamość społeczna - teorie, hipotezy, m aki zapytania [S o c ia l identity: Theory, h y p o th e s e s, q uestion marks] in: M . J a ry m o w icz (ed.): „Studia nad sp ostrzegan iem relacji “J a -in n i” : to żsa m o ść, indyw iduacja, przynależność*’ [Studies on the n o tio n s o f ‘I-others” : Id en tity, In dividuation, A ffiliation]. O sso lin e u m , W roclaw, pp. 1 5 -3 9 , 1988.

B ion W ., Experiences in Groups. T a v is to c k , L ondon, 1959.

B ok szań sk i Z ., Tożsamości zbiorowe [C o lle c tiv e Identities]. W y d a w n ic tw o N au k ow e PW N , W a rsza w a , 2 0 0 5 .

Deal T .E ., K en n ed y A., Corporate culture: The Rites and Rituals o f Corporate Life. A ddison- W e s le y , R e a d in g , M A, 1982.

de Board R ., The Psychoanalysis o f Organizations. A Psychoanalytic A pproach to Behavior in Groups and Organizations. B run n er-R ou tledge, N ew York, 2 0 0 3 .

D iam ond M ., The unconscious Life o f Organizations: Interpreting Organizational Identity.

Q u oru m , L o n d o n , 1993.

Dictionary o f the Polish Language [S ło w n ik Języka P olsk iego], V o l. III, P W N , W arszawa, 1983.

Durkin J. ( e d .), Living Groups: Group Psychotherapy and General System Theory. Brunner- M a zel, N e w Y ork, pp. 24-59, 1981.

Dutton J., D u k erich J., Harquail C. V ., Organizational image and m em ber identification,

“A d m in istr a tiv e S cien ce Quarterly” , N o . 3 9 , pp. 23 9 -2 6 3 , 1994.

Erikson E. H ., Tożsamość a cykl życia [Id en tity and Life C ycle]. Z y sk i S -k a . Poznań. 2004. Fedeli M , Temperamenty, charaktery, osobcw ości [Tem peram ents, C h aracters, Personalities].

W y d a w n ic tw o W A M , Kraków, 2 0 0 3 , p. 2 6 7 .

Finem an S ., lunation and organizing in: S . C leg g , C.Hardy, W . N ord (e d s.) “Handbook o f O rg a n iza tio n S tu d ies”. Sage P u b lic a tio n s, L ondon, 1996.

Finem an S . ( e d .), Emotion in Organization. S a g e , London, 2 0 00.

F oulk es S .H ., Group-Analytic Psychotherapy. Method and Principles. G ordon and Breach, S c ie n c e P u b lish e rs Ltd., London, 1 9 75.

Freud A ., E go i mechanizmy obronne [T h e e g o and D efen se M e c h a n is m s ]. W ydaw nictw o N a u k o w e P W N , W arszawa, 2 0 0 4 .

Freud Z ., D zieła [W orks], translated by R . R e sz k e , KR, W arsaw, 1999.

G abriel Y ., Organizations and their discontents: A psychoanalytic contribution to the study o f organizational culture, “Journal o f A p p lie d Behavioral S c ie n c e ” , V o l. 2 7 , N o. 3, 1991. G abriel Y ., Psychoanalytic contributions to the study o f the em otional life o f organizations,

“A d m in istra tio n and Society", V o l. 3 0 , N o . 3, 1998.

Gabriel Y ., Carr A ., Organization, m anagem ent and psychoanalysis: an overview, “Journal o f M an agerial P sy c h o lo g y ”, V ol. 17, N o . 5 , pp. 3 4 8 -3 6 5 ,2 0 0 2 .

Hall C .S ., L in d z e y G ., Teorie osobowości [T h eo ries o f P ersonality], P W N , W arszaw a, 1990. Hatch, Jo M ., Teoria organizacji [T h e o r y o f O rganizations], tran slated by P. Lukow,