IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ororsc/v8y1997i1p43-58.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Ubiquity and Potency of Labeling in Organizations

Author

Listed:
  • Blake E. Ashforth

    (Arizona State University, Department of Management, P.O. Box 874006, Tempe, Arizona 85287-4006)

  • Ronald H. Humphrey

    (Virginia Commonwealth University, Department of Management, Richmond, Virginia 23284-4000)

Abstract

Drawing on categorization theory, semiotics, and labeling theory, we argue that categories and labels are widely utilized by individuals in organizational settings to help structure and simplify the social environment, primarily for reasons of understanding, consensus, and control. Based largely on such situational criteria as role and rank, people are sorted into various categories and are perceived and treated as exemplars or prototypes of the category. The labels attached to these categories coalesce when individuals triangulate their perceptions of category members with the perceptions that credible peers and powerholders have of category members. Labels distill a complex and perhaps contradictory array of data into concise and coherent packages, and thus provide a potent means of interpreting, representing, and conveying organizational experience and cuing action. However, labels are inherently arbitrary, labels cause individual category members to lose their individuality and assume the affective tone of the category, and labels tend to become reified as objective and normative accounts of social reality. The ubiquity and potency of labeling processes are illustrated with applications to individual-level (service encounters), group- level (intergroup conflict), and organization-level (identity, image, and reputation) phenomena. We speculate that both the process of labeling and the content of labels are similar across levels.

Suggested Citation

  • Blake E. Ashforth & Ronald H. Humphrey, 1997. "The Ubiquity and Potency of Labeling in Organizations," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 8(1), pages 43-58, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:8:y:1997:i:1:p:43-58
    DOI: 10.1287/orsc.8.1.43
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.8.1.43
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/orsc.8.1.43?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:8:y:1997:i:1:p:43-58. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.