warwick.ac.uk/lib-publications

A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of PhD at the University of Warwick

Permanent WRAP URL:

http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/89704

This thesis is made available online and is protected by original copyright.

Please scroll down to view the document itself.

Please refer to the repository record for this item for information to help you to cite it.

Our policy information is available from the repository home page.

For more information, please contact the WRAP Team at:

wrap@warwick.ac.uk

WARWICK BUSINESS SCHOOL

Reconceptualising Organizational

Identity: A Critical Realist and

Historical Case Study of

Walgreens Boots Alliance

(1892-2002)

Gary Kerridge

B.A. (Hons), MSc.

September 2016

Submission for the award

of Doctor of Philosophy

UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK

Abstract

What is organizational identity like? A simple question yet a complex issue since

organizational identity has been conceptualised in multiple ways based on

competing ontological paradigms, that when explored, reveal dualistic debates. My

thesis makes an original contribution to these by circumnavigating ontological

duality by using critical realism to develop an explanatory, but ontologically based

account of organizational identity that addresses issues of temporal endurance vs.

changeability alongside structure vs. agency. This was achieved by undertaking an

historical and longitudinal embedded case-study of organizational identity at

Walgreens Boot’s Alliance, a multinational health and beauty corporation.

Specifically, I thematically generated organizational identity from historical

documents across four time units from 1892-2002, and explained dynamics across

these time units using concepts from critical realism. From this, I was able to

demonstrate that an historically situated and ontologically independent

organizational identity explained empirical identity dynamics over time, allowing

organizational identity to be conceptualised as a dual phenomenon. The result

being, that previous ontological divisions in conceptualising organizational identity

were syncretised, the endurance vs. changeability debate reinvigorated and calls

for a more critical stream within organizational identity scholarship advanced.

Additional to these theoretical contributions, were organizational-level reflections

on management of organizational identity with limitations and opportunities for

further research discussed.

Contents

Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................. 7

Declaration ............................................................................................................................... 8

Figures, Tables and Abbreviations ........................................................................................... 9

Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 10

Chapter 1 ................................................................................................................................ 20

Literature Review ............................................................................................................... 20

Introduction

........................................................................................................................ 20

Realist Approaches to Organizational Identity

.................................................................. 21

The Social Psychological Perspective of Organizational Identity

....................................... 28

Social Constructionism and Organizational Identity

.......................................................... 30

Moving Toward Conceptual Integration

............................................................................ 34

Organizational Identity and History

................................................................................... 38

Summary

............................................................................................................................ 42

Research Questions

............................................................................................................ 45

Chapter 2 ................................................................................................................................ 48

Methodological and Epistemological Considerations ............................................................ 48

Introduction

........................................................................................................................ 48

Core Assumptions of Critical Realism

................................................................................. 48

Critical Realism and Case Study

......................................................................................... 56

History, Social Science and Critical Realism

....................................................................... 58

Historical Data

................................................................................................................... 62

Summary

............................................................................................................................ 65

Chapter 3 ................................................................................................................................ 67

Devising, Constructing and Undertaking the Research ......................................................... 67

Method .................................................................................................................................. 67

Introduction

........................................................................................................................ 67

Developing a Research Framework

.................................................................................... 68

The Case Study

................................................................................................................... 73

Periodisation of the Case

................................................................................................... 76

Method Selection

............................................................................................................... 79

Operationalising Organizational Identity

........................................................................... 82

Ethical Considerations

........................................................................................................ 87

Conducting the research ........................................................................................................ 90

Data Sources

...................................................................................................................... 90

Data Extraction, Organisation and Theme Generation

..................................................... 92

Chapter Summary

.............................................................................................................. 99

Chapter 4 .............................................................................................................................. 100

Results I: Identity Genesis .................................................................................................... 100

General introduction

........................................................................................................ 100

Introduction to T1

............................................................................................................ 103

Boots Identity at T1 (1892-1920) ..................................................................................... 104

Boots as a “chemists”

................................................................................................... 104

Boots as a “public service”

........................................................................................... 108

Boots as “nationalistic”

................................................................................................ 111

Boots as “socially idealistic”

......................................................................................... 114

Boots as a “caring” organization

................................................................................. 116

Boots as “capable”

....................................................................................................... 119

Boots as “assured”

....................................................................................................... 121

Boots as “trustworthy”

................................................................................................. 123

Explaining Boot’s OI at Time 1

......................................................................................... 124

Chapter 5 .............................................................................................................................. 130

Results II:

Identity Elaboration and Emergence ................................................................... 130

Introduction

...................................................................................................................... 130

Boots Identity at T2 (1920-1949) ..................................................................................... 131

Boots as a “healthcare and medical service

................................................................ 131

Boots as a “public service”

........................................................................................... 135

Boots as “nationalistic”

................................................................................................ 138

Boots as a “pro-social” organization

........................................................................... 141

Boots as “nurturing” – to staff

..................................................................................... 145

Boots as “service oriented”

.......................................................................................... 148

Boots as “assured quality”

........................................................................................... 151

Boots as “trustworthy”

................................................................................................. 154

Boots as “relational”

.................................................................................................... 158

Boots as “capable”

....................................................................................................... 162

Boots as “innovative”

................................................................................................... 164

Explaining Boots OI at T2

................................................................................................. 166

Chapter 6 .............................................................................................................................. 174

Results III: Identity Under Threat ......................................................................................... 174

Introduction

...................................................................................................................... 174

Boots Identity at T3 (1950 – 1977) .................................................................................. 175

Boots as a “chemist”

.................................................................................................... 175

Boots as a “public service”

........................................................................................... 179

Boots as “pro-social”

.................................................................................................... 183

Boots as “expansionist”

............................................................................................... 187

Boots as “innovative”

................................................................................................... 189

Boots as “self-confident”

.............................................................................................. 193

Boots as “assured”

....................................................................................................... 196

Boots as “customer service oriented”

.......................................................................... 199

Boots as “trustworthy”

................................................................................................. 203

Boots as a “nurturing” company

.................................................................................. 206

Boots as “relational”

.................................................................................................... 212

Boots as “historically grounded”

.................................................................................. 216

Explaining Boot’s OI at T3

................................................................................................ 218

Chapter 7 .............................................................................................................................. 228

Results IV: Death and Resurrection of Identity .................................................................... 228

Introduction

...................................................................................................................... 228

Boots Identity at T4 (1978 -2002) .................................................................................... 230

T4 Early Period (1978-1989)

............................................................................................. 230

Boots offer ‘quality’

...................................................................................................... 231

Boots as “socially responsible”

..................................................................................... 233

T4 Middle Period (1990-1999) ......................................................................................... 236

Boots as a “chemist”

.................................................................................................... 236

Boots as a “shareholder focused” “business”

.............................................................. 239

Boots as “knowledgeable”

........................................................................................... 241

Boots as “socially responsible”

..................................................................................... 243

Boots as “community oriented” – CSR

......................................................................... 246

Boots as “environmentally concerned” – CSR

.............................................................. 248

Boots as “relational”

.................................................................................................... 249

Boots as a “supportive” employer

................................................................................ 252

Boots as “customer service oriented”

.......................................................................... 255

Boots as “historically grounded”

.................................................................................. 257

T4 Late Period (1999 -2002/03) ....................................................................................... 260

Boots as a “chemist”

.................................................................................................... 261

Boots as “customer service oriented”

.......................................................................... 262

Boots as “trustworthy”

................................................................................................. 263

Boots as “knowledgeable”

........................................................................................... 264

Boots as “communitarian”

........................................................................................... 265

Boots as “socially responsible”

..................................................................................... 267

Boots as “relational”

.................................................................................................... 268

Boots as “grounded in history”

.................................................................................... 270

Explaining Boots OI at T4

................................................................................................. 270

Chapter 8 .............................................................................................................................. 283

Discussion............................................................................................................................. 283

Introduction

...................................................................................................................... 283

Toward Developing a New Account of Organizational Identity

....................................... 284

From Chaos to Cohesion in Conceptualising Organizational Identity

.............................. 294

The Enduring versus Changeability Debate

..................................................................... 301

Expanding the Horizons of Organizational Identity Scholarship

...................................... 303

How Do We Know Who We Are?

..................................................................................... 308

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 315

Theoretical Summary and Contributions

......................................................................... 315

Limitations

....................................................................................................................... 317

Further research

............................................................................................................... 320

Appendix A ........................................................................................................................... 324

Appendix B ........................................................................................................................... 329

References ........................................................................................................................... 337

Acknowledgements

I owe a substantial debt of gratitude to those who have supported me in developing

not only this PhD thesis but for also standing by me through what has been a

remarkable journey of personal growth. Beginning with my first year, I would like to

thank the D.T.C. tutors who delivered the initial training programme that shaped

and prepared me for undertaking this work. Through improving my understanding

that social reality is nuanced and complex, I have grown as a researcher and as an

individual. Personal friends made along the way have also nurtured my growth. I

would particularly like to thank Celia Bernstein and Haley Beer (both fellow PhD

students) for their support and friendship as we have bounced our ideas around

together, learning from and encouraging each other. Fielding the goal posts

however, have been my supervisors. Graeme Currie, whose encouragement and

belief in me every step of the way gave me the self-belief to keep going and Kevin

Morrell, for his supportive guidance and availability. Finally, Sophie Clapp, the

Archive and Records manager at Boots UK who spent many months along with her

archivists, Judith Wright and Charlotte McCarthy, tirelessly supporting my data

collection and promoting my research within the company. From Walgreens Boots

Alliance, I would also like to thank Richard Ellis and Alex Gourlay for sponsoring my

research and members of the WBA/Wellcome scientific steering committee for

their encouragement and interest in my work. I would also like thank those who

have supported me throughout my PhD in a myriad of ways: Rob and Lesley

Moseley, Rob Barnard, Ken Wells, Celia Stewart and the guys in Brighton for our

wild camping expeditions. Finally, I thank the UK Economic and Social Research

Council for their award (Grant number: 1381532) and who funded this research.

Declaration

I have read and understood the rules on cheating, plagiarism and appropriate

referencing as outlined in my handbook and I declare that the work contained in

this assignment is my own, unless otherwise acknowledged.

No substantial part of the work submitted here has also been submitted by me in

other assessments for this or previous degree courses, and I acknowledge that if

this has been done an appropriate reduction in the mark I might otherwise have

received will be made.

Signed candidate__________________________________________________

Figures, Tables and Abbreviations

Figures

Figure 1:

Three Overlapping Domains of Reality in the

Critical Realist Ontology ....................................................................52

Figure 2:

The Five Facet Model of OI

Reproduced from Soenen and Moingeon (2002)..............................83

Tables

Table 1:

Identity Matrix Table for T1 with Themes from

Different Identity Facets....................................................................97

Table 2:

Matrix of Global Identity Themes Across all Four Time

Periods...............................................................................................98

Table 3:

Thematically Ordered Parallel Matrix of Global Identity Themes

Across all Time Periods....................................................................102

Table 4:

Purchases by Boots Pure Drug Co., 1892-1902 (£000s)

(Chapman, 1973).............................................................................105

Abbreviations

(Organizational identity)

NHS

(National Health Service)

(Corporate citizenship)

CSR

(Corporate social responsibility)

(Venereal Disease)

T.U.C.

(Trade Union Congress)

(United Kingdom)

U. S. / U.S.A

(United States – of America)

Introduction

“Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards”

ren Kierkegaard

This well-known quote by the existential Danish philosopher, Kierkegaard,

highlights the importance of engaging with the past for the development of

understanding. Yet how often is history used as an approach for generating theory

comparative to offering a narrative or rhetorical account of the past? This was a

question highlighted by Booth and Rowlinson (2006) and others (Clark & Rowlinson,

2004; Zald, 2002; Kieser, 1994) who have claimed historical approaches to

understanding organizational issues are rare with calls for this to be remedied. To

an extent this call has been answered with some scholars attempting to use history

to extend, generate or challenge organizational theories (Anteby & Molnar, 2012;

Ravasi & Phillips, 2011; Trompette, 2011; Schreyogg, Sydow, & Holtmann, 2011;

Clark & Blundel, 2007; Chreim, 2005). However this is still a nascent approach and

history and organizational studies to an extent remain uncomfortable bedfellows

(Greenwood & Bernardi, 2014; Rowlinson, Hassard, & Decker, 2014). Thus, using

historical approaches to develop a better understanding of organizational issues is a

specific area in which further research has been welcomed.

One area of organizational research where history and organizational issues

intersect is organizational identity (Gioia, Schultz, & Corley, 2000). Indeed,

connected to notions of “who we are as an organization” is “who we have been as

an organization” (Ravasi & Schultz, 2006; Ravasi & Phillips, 2011). Moreover, in

managing organizational identity, managers may revise an organizational history

(Gioia et al., 2000); ignore history (Anteby & Molnar, 2012), or dress up current

organizational practices in history (Rowlinson & Hassard, 1993) suggesting that

history and organizational identity share a common ground. Indeed, within the

literature a way that history has been brought to bear on organization studies is by

consideration of its use in how organizational identity is manipulated and

constructed (Gioia, et al., 2000; Hansen, 2007; Mordhorst, 2014).

While previous work has looked at how the past is used in managing and

constructing organizational identity, as an object of study there are a plurality of

perspectives (He & Brown, 2013; Ravasi & Canato, 2013). In effect, there is

considerable confusion about what organizational identity is like, leading Whetten

(2006) to suggest that the very concept of organizational identity is of itself in the

midst of an identity crisis. One of the most salient issues surrounding organizational

identity pertains to whether or not it is enduring or changeable (Gioia et al., 2000;

Ravasi & Schultz, 2006). During the mid-1980s, the concept of organizational

identity was defined by Albert and Whetten (1985) as that which is central,

distinctive and enduring about an organization and was based on realist

assumptions that an identity is something an organization possesses. Some fifteen

years later, what had been taken as a normative definition was challenged by

scholars (i.e. Gioia et al., 2000), in which it was argued that organizational identity is

an ongoing process rather than something belonging to a given organization.

Consequently, that organizational identity was a process rather than a property

brought a challenge to the understanding that organizational identity was enduring.

Notions of endurance and changeability in organizational identity invoke notions of

temporality (Brunninge, 2009) and calls for more temporal approaches to

organizational identity research have been made (Schultz & Hernes, 2013). Given

this, it seemed that there was scope to better understand organizational identity by

using an historical approach. Indeed, that research typically explores how history is

used to construct organizational identity, rather than understand organizational

identity as phenomenon which of itself is temporally situated (and thus historical),

an opportunity became apparent in which an historical approach to gaining

understanding of the ontology of organizational identity was surfaced. In particular,

a central question that may be addressed by such an approach was whether

organizational identity is enduring or changeable. It was to this objective that my

thesis was oriented.

Central to the endurance versus changeability debate were notable differences in

ontological perspectives. On the one hand realism, in which organizational identity

is considered relatively enduring as an essential property of an organization that

has causal powers (Whetten, 2006). Meanwhile, on the other hand, it is from social

constructivist ontology that the idea of a malleable and negotiated organizational

identity has arisen (Hatch & Schultz, 2004). Embedded within this polarisation are

issues of structure and agency (Reed, 1997), in which it can also be understood that

agents are determined by an organizational identity (Haslam, Postmes, & Ellemers

2003) of which they themselves also construct (Gioia, et al, 2000). Thus,

complicating the picture further was the presence of an unresolved structure versus

agency issue in which some agents are determined by an organizational identity

while others construct it. In this case, the ontology of organizational identity can

also be considered a psychological epiphenomenon (Haslam et al., 2003) in which

endurance in organizational identity is perceived by some, and constructed to

appear that way by others. Consequently, notions of endurance and changeability

in organizational identity incorporated a third way to conceptualise organizational

identity – a quasi-independent psychological phenomenon.

Entering into this arena it was clear that the picture has become clouded by divided

ontological assumptions and disciplinary preferences which have prompted

theoretical work to settle the situation and develop greater conceptual unity (Hatch

& Schultz, 2000; Soenen & Moingeon, 2002; Ran & Golden, 2011). To date,

development of a unified account of organizational identity has had some success

but typically, realist perspectives have been excluded meaning opportunities

remain to re-attempt conceptual integration (van Rekom, Corley, & Ravasi, 2008).

This endeavour was the second objective of my thesis. Noting that ontological

differences rather than epistemology have been a diversity driver, I adopted a

critical realist position (Bhaskar, 1979; Archer, 1995; 1996), which has been

suggested as able to steer between polarized ontological positions and be

compatible with history (Steinmetz, 1998). Moreover, because I wanted to drill

down into whether organizational identity is enduring or changeable and

constructed or independent of agents, then positioning my thesis within critical

realism enabled me to take an ontological voice in answering these questions

(Sayer, 1992; Reed, 2005). Thus, additional to using an historical approach to

understand organizational identity, I explicitly adopted a critical realist perspective.

Critical realism is a relatively recent approach to research and lacks an associated

method (Yeung, 1997). Consequently, there has not been a great deal of strong

empirical work using critical realism with articles seeming to take a more

theoretical perspective (for example: Ackroyd & Fleetwood, 2000). While I could

have perhaps critiqued existing empirical research on organizational identity by

using critical realism, given the level of conceptual and epistemological plurality (He

& Brown, 2013; Ravasi & Canato, 2013), I wanted to undertake my own empirical

study. On this inductive basis, I planned to advance a theoretically inclusive

ontological account of organizational identity and one that addressed key questions

of structure vs. agency and enduring vs. changeable. To enact my research

objectives, I undertook an historical case study of organizational identity using a

critical realist methodology. In particular, I adopted a critical realist approach to

explaining empirical dynamics of change and endurance in organizational identity of

a multinational, health and beauty corporate organization - Boots the Chemist

(currently known as Walgreens Boots Alliance) - from 1892-2002.

Organizational identity was generated using thematic analysis of primary source

data collected from the company’s archive over four chronological time units.

Starting with Boot’s nascent organizational identity in 1892, these time units were

generated inductively from the data itself, reflecting periods in which it would have

been theoretically expected that organizational identity would have been likely to

change. Periodisation of the data in this way, additional to reconstructing historical

data with a theoretical construct in mind, resulted in what Rowlinson et al. (2014)

have described as an analytical history. From this, the longitudinal identity

dynamics of the company’s identity were explained using the critical realist method

of retroduction (Bygstad & Munkvold, 2011) and incorporated ideas drawn from

Archer’s (1995; 1996) analytical dualism. In doing so, I was able to advance a new

account of organizational identity, generating multiple theoretical statements that

described organizational identity thereby enacting my research objectives and

making a theoretical contribution.

As a whole, my thesis has eight chapters (followed by a conclusion) that were

structured as follows. In chapter one, I reviewed the organizational identity

literature to surface and articulate some of the issues that are present in existing

organizational identity scholarship. Given the ontological differences in

conceptualising organizational identity, I used this as a template beginning with

realist accounts and bridging the distance to social constructionist perspectives with

psychological approaches to organizational identity. I then critically traced

integrationist theories before moving on to consider the relationship between

organizational identity and history. This led to the development of two research

questions and proposing how they may be investigated. In the following chapter

(chapter two), I then explored some of the methodological issues that were

important in the study that I had envisaged. This included a presentation of the

assumptions of critical realism, its relationship with case study (Easton, 2010), and

discussion of some of the epistemological complexity surrounding the fusion of

history and historical data with organization studies and critical realism (Rowlinson

et al., 2014).

Having established a methodological position, in the third chapter, I developed a

detailed method. For historical research, method is typically assumed as a critical

approach to sources when re-constructing the past (Donnelly & Norton, 2011).

However, since my research was multidisciplinary and critical realism doesn’t

favour a specific method (Yeung, 1997), it was both pertinent and necessary to

include a detailed method section. Thus, in this chapter, I developed a step-wise

research framework and a research strategy. This was followed by a detailed

outline of the case setting and how I developed my periodisation into analytical

units before selecting and justifying a method for generating organizational identity

from archival data (my principal data source). Moreover, because the very concept

of organizational identity itself was under scrutiny, I also reflected on and selected

an appropriate way in which to operationalise the concept. In closing, I finally

considered the ethical issues relevant to my research since although historical; the

company I used for my case study is still operational today and thus corporate

reputation was at stake. Despite this, the company were supportive of the research

and did not restrict or manage use of their records.

The next four chapters (four to seven) presented the historical data in terms of the

organizational identity themes I generated. These chapters related to each of the

four analytical time units and were organised by the themes as sub-headings under

which I offered primary historical data combined with elaboration and description.

This resulted in development of a chronologically sequenced and narrative, but

analytical account of the dynamics in Boot’s organizational identity over the entire

time period. Following presentation of themes, in a second section to each of the

results chapters I used a retroductive style of reasoning to develop an explanation

for the dynamics in the identity themes comparative to the previous generation. To

do so, I drew on mid-range theories and critical realism to explain what had been

empirically observed leading to incremental development of an explanatory

account of organizational identity dynamics at Boot’s for the whole analytical

period.

In the final eighth chapter of my discussion I brought together the data and the

explanations I developed for it, to bear upon my research questions. In doing so I

was able to advance four theoretical propositions that described organizational

identity from a critical realist perspective. This represented a novel theoretical

contribution since an empirically based, critical realist account of organizational

identity has not been offered before. Following this, I applied my account of

organizational identity to some of the issues surfaced in my literature review

leading to three contributions to the literature. The first was development of a

syncretic way in which to conceptualise organizational identity incorporating ideas

arising from both realist and social constructionist ontology. A second contribution

was by way of reinvigorating the endurance versus changeability debate by

demonstrating that organizational identity is stratified and both of these things.

Although the debate has been claimed resolved (Gioia, Patvardhan, Hamiltion, &

Corley, 2013), my research showed this is unlikely to yet be the case.

My findings also prompted a call for a more critical stream within organizational

identity scholarship based on an observation that socio-political contexts had a

notable relationship to organizational identity. For example, my findings suggested

that adoption of neoliberal values are reductive and to be relevant to wider society,

organizational agents construct identity to give social meaning to what would

otherwise be an economic entity. Thus, in a neoliberal context, organizational

identity is likely to be both encountered and understood as being somewhat more

of a construction than a concrete, independent phenomenon. Moreover, given that

scholarship of organizational identity has largely been conducted post-1980s in

which a neoliberal environment has been widespread, what is known about

organizational identity may also have been influenced by the socio-political context.

This call to criticality within organizational identity scholarship was a third

contribution my study made.

Finally, I considered the relevance of my research for organizational-level

management of organizational identity which showed that my account had utility

for what business organizations can reliably claim about their identity. To facilitate

this, I used Boots as an example to demonstrate the importance of reflexivity and

caution when attempting to gain strategic advantage by leveraging past

organizational identity (Suddaby et al., 2010; Zundel, Holt, & Popp, 2016). Thus, the

importance of my research was both academic and practical. In closing my thesis by

way of a parenthetical conclusion, I summarised my account of organizational

identity and the contributions made but also reflected on the potential limitations

of my research. This was followed with recommendations for further work, which

demonstrated that by purposefully looking backward to gain understanding; my

thesis offered a potential springboard for propelling organizational scholarship

forward.

Chapter 1

Literature Review

Introduction

Until the mid-1980s, the concept of organizational identity (henceforth referred to

as OI) received little scholarly attention but following Albert and Whetten’s (1985)

work on defining the concept, interest became rejuvenated. This was facilitated by

their definition of OI as that which is “central”, “distinctive” and “enduring” about

an organization. Despite this concrete description being ubiquitously invoked since

in the OI literature, the concept has become increasingly chaotic through a

multiplicity of perspectives on OI leading to concerns that ‘organizational identity is

suffering an identity crisis’ (Whetten, 2006 p. 220). Given this, it was important to

review the literature to understand how OI has been conceptualised over the past

two decades. Some reviews conducted previously by other scholars have looked at

theoretical conceptions of OI (He & Brown, 2013; Corley et al., 2006), the research

methods used in its study (Ravasi & Canato, 2013), as well as more general texts

(Hatch & Schultz, 2004). Through surveying the literature, it became apparent that

there were debates centred on whether or not OI was enduring or changeable

(Ravasi, & Schultz, 2006; Ran & Golden, 2011). Probing deeper revealed that this

debate reflected differences in the ontological positioning of different scholars.

In particular, three dominant paradigms were identifiable: Essentialist perspectives

rooted in a type of ontological realism with OI considered as an independent

property belonging to an independent organization. Social psychological

perspectives follow suit but take a softer stance in that OI is conceptualised as an

independent causal phenomenon to the extent that individuals perceive an OI to be

“real”. This perspective acted like a bridge to social constructionist and post-

modern approaches to OI which assume that the identity of an organization is

discursive and relationally constructed. In this chapter, I initially traced these three

approaches before reviewing others attempts to create conceptual unity through

syncretic accounts. Further identified from the literature was that OI overlaps

significantly with notions of organizational history because change and non-change

in OI requires temporality (Brunninge, 2009). Thus, after discussing theories of OI, I

went on to explore the relationship between OI and organizational history. To

consolidate, at this point I offered a summary of the literature before concluding

the chapter by focusing on the research questions that emerged and the

importance of addressing them.

Realist Approaches to Organizational Identity

Central to a realist understanding of OI is the idea that like individuals,

organizations are social actors. Whetten (2006) proposed that organizations could

be best understood if they were conceptualised as social actors with independent

collective-level identities that were non-reducible to organizational members. This

was contra to a more common idea that OI is collectively shared beliefs held by

members of an organization (He & Brown, 2013). The realist social actor approach

has been justified on the basis that social and legal discourses about organizations

render them with powers of agency and responsibility. Further work has since

developed this justification by arguing that the independence of an organization

from its members stems from attributions of an organization’s capability and

intentionality to act (King, Fellin, & Whetten, 2010). In particular, organizations are

regarded as legally accountable and possessing sovereign powers such as to select,

reward or punish employees and allocate resources. Moreover, supporting the

social actor view has been reliance on parallels drawn between organizations and

individuals (Morgeson & Hoffmann, 1999) that support popular social discourses

about organizations. For example, notions of corporate citizenship are an obvious

one (Mele, 2008). Although these refer more readily to an organization than OI per

se., ideas about the independence of an organization from its members, have been

a primary argument for an organization to possess a unique non-reducible identity

(King et al., 2010).

Possessing an OI has also been argued to be important for an organization enabling

it to participate in wider social interactions beyond that of its own members (Albert

& Whetten, 1985). Indeed, to these scholars OI was an essentialist and necessary

property of an organization. Further, OI has also been understood to have a

functional purpose in defining an organization’s social space, and promoting self-

governance; in that an independent OI guides goal directed organizational

behaviour (Pratt & Foreman, 2000). Meanwhile, others have gone on to suggest

that an organization’s identity reflects its irreversible commitments (Golden-Biddle

& Rao, 1997; King et al., 2010) and acts both as a guide and anchor equating to ‘a

core theory of the entity’ (Whetten & Mackey, 2002 p.396). Although this essential

core of an organization is not directly observable, it can be contrived by self-

referencing linguistic terms, or a set of socially approved categorical identity claims

such as “we are X... or Y” that are assumed to be drawn from the wider

institutional-level environment in a bricolage approach (Glynn, 2008; King &

Whetten, 2008) and becoming independent of the idiosyncrasies of organizational

founders (Whetten & Mackey, 2002).

An interrelated strand of thinking departs from social actor theory by alternatively

conceptualising organizations as moral actors (Barney & Stewart, 2000; Weaver,

2006). As such, organizations can be understood and made sense of from the

perspective of moral theory which some work has attempted to do through the lens

of Macintyre’s virtue ethics (1985). In this ethical framework, business

organizations are understood to be creators of goods. These can be external goods

such as wealth, success and profits or internal goods, such as relationship, intrinsic

reward, personal satisfaction and personal growth (Moore, 2002). Again, while

seeming to focus on organization rather than OI, a link exists because the extent to

which an organization creates different goods, it can be claimed to a have a more or

less “virtuous” character. Indeed, when virtue ethics have been empirically applied

to a business organization (Moore, 2012), it was found that an organization’s

character could be classified as being “virtuous” based on the goods they produced

as reported by key informants.

The idea that organizations can be described in terms of being virtuous or

possessing a moral character has a basis in Aristotelian ethics in which virtues are

trait-like characteristics that are not learned or taught, only developed through

pursuing excellence in one’s personal character and conduct. Thus, the link

between organizations and notions of moral character implicitly suggested a

somewhat anthropomorphic conception of organization (Moore, 2005). Although,

this could be argued against on the basis that virtuosity arises from production

rather than corporate personality, production of goods assumes that an

organization possesses the intention and capability to self-determine which goods

to produce. This same power to be self-determining was an assumption central to

the social actor model of organization and identity, meaning that rather than social

actors, organizations could similarly be conceptualised as moral actors, with power

and agency to shape their own moral identity.

A further way that OI is shown to have an implicit foundation in ontological realism

can be noted from the way in which OI has been measured. Capturing OI through

empirical measures has been reported as common in marketing schools (He &

Brown, 2013), that assume organizations have or posses an “actual” identity that

can be uncovered through key organizational informants (Balmer & Soenen, 1999;

Balmer, 2001; Olins, 1995; He & Murkerjee, 2009). The idea being that contra to

notions of organizational culture, understood to be “what we feel we are”, OI

pertains to “what we indubitably are” (Balmer & Greyser, 2006, p.735). Indubitably

means beyond doubt, indicating that an OI can be understood to be the

indisputable centre of whom and what an organization is – its core theory of being

(

cf.

Whetten & Mackey, 2002).

To access an “actual” OI a number of approaches have been employed that were

reviewed by Ravasi and Canato (2013). One study of a Norwegian collection agency

(Simcic-Brønn, Engell, & Martinsen, 2006) uncovered OI by engaging organizational

members in psychotherapeutic regression exercises and then asking them to offer

traits that described their organization. By cross-comparing results to the mode, an

OI of six commonly shared traits was found. Other approaches have been to use

focus groups to access an OI, which could then be operationalised in Likert scored

surveys as an antecedent of organizational identification or attractiveness (Bartel,

2001; Dukerich, Golden, & Shortell, 2002). Finally, extended metaphor analysis has

been used in which individuals score their organization against pre-determined

ideal types of organizations such as a church, university, charity or business (Albert

& Whetten, 1985; Foreman & Whetten, 2002). That an OI can be aligned with ideal

types suggests an overlap with social actor theory in that OI is thought to be initially

constructed from the institutional-level environment but over time becomes

independent (Whetten & Mackey, 2002).

That a “real” or “actual” OI can be accessed and measured is questionable for a

number of reasons. First, by using focus groups to develop survey instruments

(Bartel, 2001; Dukerich et al., 2002), assumes that OI is relatively monolithic.

However, research suggests that multiple or dual identities may exist within a single

organization (Albert & Whetten, 1985; Gioia & Thomas, 1996; Albert & Adams,

2002; Pratt & Foreman, 2000). Moreover, it has also been shown that there can be

differences in perceptions of OI within an organization (Ashforth & Mael, 1996;

Corley, 2004) and across stakeholder groups (He, 2012; Balmer & Greyser, 2002).

For example, Corley (2004) found that organizational hierarchy explained

differences in OI reporting, with senior managers basing OI on strategic identity

markers, while lower-level employees relied on organizational culture and

perceived enduring organizational values to articulate OI. Consequently, using

informants to capture and measure an OI is not only highly individualised to a

specific organization, but encounters sampling and reliability issues. Moreover,

using informants has been noted to primarily capture

perceived

OI as opposed to

the “actual” identity of the organization (Ravasi & Canato, 2013).

Another approach has been the use of extended metaphor analysis in identity

research (for example: Albert & Whetten, 1985; Foreman & Whetten, 2002), which

to an extent is a self-limiting method as to what kind of OI can be uncovered. By

using metaphorical ideal types to discover what identity features an organization

has, the approach relies on abstractions from stereotypical organizations in the

available institutional-level environment. In effect, this means what an

organization’s identity can be like is constrained by what can be constructed in

terms of ideal types from the institutional-level environment. However, research

shows that some organizations can deviate from stereotypical and socially accepted

organizational norms and yet still flourish (Helms & Patterson, 2014). Thus, aligning

OI to what types of OI already exist in the wider institutional-level environment,

may conceal as opposed to reveal some organizational identities.

Beyond issues of measurement, there were further critical issues with the

theoretical conceptions of OI that I have covered above. For example, approaching

OI or corporate character from the perspective of moral theory and virtue ethics

could also be considered constraining since framing OI through a moral lens would

limit interpretation of OI to moral categories. Thus, what can be understood of OI

could become unwittingly fenced in by the boundaries of an investigatory

framework or theoretical lens. For example, non-anthropomorphic or characterless

identity markers such as “internationally focused” or “innovative” may be more

likely to be overlooked, thereby offering an incomplete picture of OI and reinforcing

notions of organizations as moral actors.

Another concern was that the social actor approach to OI reifies an organization

and its identity through an uncritical use of metaphor (Cornelissen, 2002; 2006).

This has been argued to have arisen from cross-level theorising from individual

identity to the organizational-level (for example: Czarniawska-Joerges, 1994)

without establishing the credibility of using metaphor to generate knowledge of OI.

Although useful as a device for sense-making (Weick, 1995), metaphors in scholarly

work should move toward formal theories (Tsoukas, 1991). However, it is clear the

social actor approach relies heavily on metaphorical assumptions that like an

individual, an organization can possess an identity. The pervasiveness of this

approach is revealed by its transferability to other organizational discourses such as

corporate citizenship (CC). Although popular in the business community by the

relative ease with which CC enables sense-making (Mele, 2008), notions of CC have

also been criticised for having a metaphorical as opposed to theoretical basis (Van

Oosterhout, 2005; Moon, Crane, & Matten, 2005).

The Social Psychological Perspective of Organizational Identity

Counter arguments to the critique of OI as a reifying metaphor have arisen from the

field of social psychology in which it is understood that individuals encounter

organizations through their psychological capacities (for example: Ashforth & Mael,

1996; Hogg & Terry, 2000; Haslam, 2004; He & Brown, 2013). From this perspective,

individuals perceive organizations as actually having an independent existence and

identity rather than

as though

they had an identity (Haslam et al., 2003).

Importantly, within social psychology, OI is argued to be more than a metaphor

since it is “real” in the eye of the beholder (

op cit

.). The scaffold for this

understanding is social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Haslam, 2004), in

which organizations are social groups with specific identities and to which

individuals can identify with and integrate into their own self-concept or social

identity depending on the comparative intergroup context (Hogg & Terry, 2000). To

the extent that an individual identifies with a salient OI is then, the principal way in

which an OI becomes an antecedent of individual behaviour (Dutton, Dukerich, &

Harquail, 1994; Hogg & Terry, 2000). Identification with an OI can be enabled by

various means, including its comparative distinctiveness (Haslam, 2004), perceived

attractiveness (Dukerich et al., 2002; He & Mukerjee, 2009), its contribution to

individual-level self-esteem (Bartel, 2001), or the prestige of the organization’s

identity (Peters, Tevichapong, Haslam, & Postmes, 2010).

Compared with social actor theory, the psychological approach to OI helps to move

beyond the metaphor of organizations as social or moral actors to a more formal

theory (

cf.

Tsoukas, 1991). It achieves this by accounting for the independent causal

capabilities of organizations to direct organizational behaviours but explains this

phenomenon in relation to perceptual and psychological processes rather than

reifying an organization. To emphasise, in psychological approaches the

independence of organizations is a perceptual phenomenon that can have real

effects. On the one hand, this importantly introduces notions of agency into OI

theorising which are largely absent in realist approaches. Yet on the other hand, it

also limits agency since it has not been explained if and how organizational

members can have effects on OI. For example, in the empirical literature OI has

been linked with employee citizenship or deviance (Norman, Avey, Nimnicht, &

Pigeon, 2010), employee creativity (Hirst, van Dick, & van Knippenberg, 2009), and

turnover intentions (Peters et al., 2010). However, agents’ behaviours have not

typically been reverse-linked to OI development or change within this paradigm.

Consequently, psychological conceptions of OI become over-deterministic whereby

OI can be used and manipulated by managers (as entrepreneurs of identity –

Haslam, Reicher & Platow, 2011) as a form of coercive power to achieve desired

organizational outcomes (Alvesson & Wilmott, 2002).

Social Constructionism and Organizational Identity

In contrast to the realist and social psychological approaches outlined above are

social constructionist perspectives which foreground agency and have been

influential in OI scholarship (Hatch & Schultz, 2004; Reed, 2005). However in

similarity to realism, the social constructionist approach has also emerged from

cross-level theorising as a way to understand collective-level identity. For example,

Cooley’s (1902) ideas about individual identity have been drawn upon by OI

theorists (Gioia et al., 2000; Hatch & Schultz, 2002). In particular, Cooley developed

the notion of the “looking glass self” in which a person’s identity reflects social

interdependence meaning that the self is made sense of through how one is

perceived by multiple others. Thus, identity does not belong to an individual as an

essential property but is co-constructed around the individual through relational

processes. Other theorists drawn upon have included Mead (1934) who proposed

that identity was fractured between an “I” which produced novel behaviours and a

“Me” – the part of a self concept based on others people’s perceptions. The work of

Goffman (1959) on identity as performance has also contributed to social

constructionist views of OI such as identity as narrative (Czarniaskwa-Joerges, 1994;

Brown, 2006). In particular, Goffman argued that one’s identity was a process of co-

construction and management in response to audience’s reactions to any given

identity enactment. As a body of work these theories of individual identity have

influenced social constructionist approaches to OI theorising (Hatch & Schultz,

2004).

Support for a social constructionist perspective of OI was garnered through a

special edition of

The Academy of Management Review

(2000), in which two

theories of OI were advanced (Albert, Ashforth, & Dutton 2000). The first of these

was a process model of identity-image interdependence (Gioia et al., 2000), that

drew upon Dutton and Dukerich’s (1991) case study of the New York Port Authority

and a study of Royal Dutch Shell’s response to criticisms over disposal plans for a

disused oil platform (

. Fombrun & Rindova, 2000). These cases revealed that OI

was managed in relation to how others perceived the organization, otherwise

known as corporate reputation or image meaning that OI and organizational image

were understood to be interdependent constructs. The model proposed that an

external event could trigger a comparison between a current OI and the construed

external image of the organization by others. If these were congruent then OI

would be strengthened and reinforced. However, if contradictions existed between

image and OI then a condition for OI change was created. Multiple ways were put

forward for how managers could manage image-identity incongruence, most of

which resulted in adapting OI and re-presenting a new image to be evaluated by

stakeholders. Consequently, Gioia and colleagues concluded that OI was a

relationally negotiated and dynamic phenomenon.

The second theory proposed in the special issue followed a similar relational

process model but took a different angle by employing a stakeholder model of

organization (Scott & Lane, 2000). Stakeholder theory (Freeman, 1984) assumes

that organizations are at the nexus of and a vehicle for stakeholder needs and

interests (Donaldson & Preston, 1995). On this basis, the needs and motives of

powerful and/or relevant stakeholders were argued to interact with those of

organizational managers and from these discursive negotiations, Scott and Lane

(2000) proposed an OI would develop. Through ongoing iterative processes of

reflection and appraisal by stakeholders, representations of OI such as dress codes

(Pratt & Rafaeli, 1997), logos and organizational philosophy (Balmer, 1995), could

be adapted to maintain maximum congruence between the OI and organizational

stakeholders. Further research has also highlighted there may be factors other than

(in)congruence involved in identity processes of management and negotiation. For

example, changes in the operating environment or comparative context can affect

organizational needs to maintain legitimacy or positive distinctiveness (He &

Baruch, 2010; Elsbach & Kramer, 1996). Mergers may also alter stakeholders’

power and centrality in addition to organizational restructuring (Clark, Gioia,

Ketchen, & Thomas, 2010; Kjaergaard, Morsing, & Ravasi, 2011).

The conception of OI embedded in the identity-image model and Scott and Lane’s

(2000) stakeholder model were largely the same. Namely, that OI arises from

discursive and iterative social processes and thus is relationally constructed by

multiple agents and actors. In effect, this addressed the unidirectional flow within

psychological approaches since individual or group stakeholders were shown to

have a role in determining OI. However, this also suggested OI is not a relatively

enduring and essential property of an organization but instead a malleable and

dynamic, adaptive and changeable construct with any evidence of stability or

endurance being illusory (Gioia et al., 2013). From this, a debate emerged in which

Albert and Whetten’s (1985) original definition of OI as “enduring” has become

increasingly questioned (Ravasi & Schultz, 2006). Moreover, given that change and

non-change occur only over time, this debate has also surfaced that a temporal

dimension is important for OI theorising (Brunninge, 2009; Schultz & Hernes, 2013).

Support for Gioia et al. has come from the inclusion of temporality into OI

scholarship. Indeed, the temporal stability of OI (or its dynamic changeability) has

become increasingly talked about and resulted in some exploration of OI processes

in identity construction and management over time (Humphreys & Brown, 2002;

Chreim, 2005; Ravasi & Schultz, 2006; Ravasi & Phillips, 2011). From a narrative

perspective, in which OI is regarded as a plurivocal construction and continuous

reconstruction of identity (Czarniawska-Joerges, 1994), Chreim (2005) explored the

development of OI at a Canadian bank. It was found that endurance in identity over

time was achieved through managers’ use of abstract identity labels that could be

interpretively applied to a wide number of organizational events. As such, the OI of

the bank had an appearance of endurance in that the labels remained constant

while their content changed. A more recent study has also shown that perceptions

of identity stability over time could be manipulated by managers through

strategically forgetting identity change events in a firm’s rhetorical history (Anteby

& Molnar, 2012). Thus, temporal and narrative research into OI management have

added further support to social constructionist claims that OI is essentially

changeable but appears to be enduring (Gioia et al., 2013).

Moving Toward Conceptual Integration

Given the array of different ways to conceptualise OI, some scholars have

attempted to develop a unified approach in how OI is conceived. Of particular note

was the five facet model of collective identities advanced by Soenen and Moingeon

(2002) in which they attempted to bridge conceptual divisions between scholarly

disciplines. For example, they claimed that in marketing schools, image, brand and

reputation were key concepts while for organizational theory, behaviour and

strategic management were central. To unite these different ways of conceiving of

OI, they proposed OI was a multi-faceted construct situated at an intersecting space

between five different facets. The facets proposed were

professed

(what the

organization directly claims about itself),

projected

(organizational claims mediated

through communications – or an organizational image) and

attributed

identity (a

perceived OI). There was also

experienced

identity (related to collectively shared

experiences of a given OI), in keeping with notions of OI as an embodied

phenomenon (Harquail & King, 2010; Whetten, 2006). Finally,

manifested

identity

referred to OI as reflected in embedded institutionalised practices, symbols and

systems – a historically based type of organizational culture (Ravasi & Schultz,

2006). While not overextending the possibilities of the five facet model for all

organizational research, Soenen and Moingeon claimed their model integrated

disparate work on OI and offered a framework for conceptual multi-disciplinary

synthesis in an understanding of OI as a dynamic construct. This model was useful

for epistemological integration, but lacked an ontological foundation and thus did

not succeed to theoretically unify different conceptions of OI, with realist notions of

OI being notably omitted.

Similarly grounded in epistemology was a second model proposed by Balmer and

Soenen, (1999) called the ACID test. The acronym stood for different types of

identity: actual, communicated, ideal and desired identity but these distinctions

have been dismissed on grounds of lacking theoretical underpinning and being

empirically driven (Soenen & Moingeon, 2002). A third attempt to find an

integrated way to conceive of OI was attempted by Hatch and Schultz (2000).

Acknowledging the chaotic conception of OI in their aptly titled paper “

Scaling the

Tower of Babel

” the authors attempted to develop an Esperanto for OI scholarship.

Focusing on structuralist linguistics and the relational differences between words

(Saussure, 1966), a binary logic was employed between the linguistic descriptors of

organizational culture and organizational image. Specifically, culture was defined as

“contextual”, “tacit” and “emergent”, while organizational image was suggested to

be “external”, “other” and “multiplicity”. By considering the opposites of these

words which were “textual”, “explicit”, “instrumental”, “internal”, “self”, and

“singular”, Hatch and Schultz proposed that OI could be described in this way. To

emphasise, their ontological claim was that OI is a linguistic construct generated

from an interaction between culture and image. In positing this new description of

OI derived from linguistic manipulation, the authors claimed to have offered

reconciliation between marketing-led and organizational approaches to OI and yet

still this model overlooked the possibility of OI through a realist lens.

Finally, a sense-making perspective has been employed as way to draw together

different conceptions and strands of OI theory (Ran & Golden, 2011). By using

socio-psychological theories of cognitive categorization, it was deemed that

sense-

giving

was about how leaders construct an OI from linguistic categories to give

meaning to organizational member’s experience of their organization (Ran &

Duimering, 2007). Conversely,

sense-making

reflected the other side of this coin in

that organizational members receive or encounter a constructed OI through their

perceptual capabilities allowing them to categorise and make sense of an

organization (

cf.

Haslam, 2004). Finally,

sense-exchanging

referred to the way in

which relational negotiation of identity occurs between the organization and

stakeholders as they exchange and negotiate perceptions and categories across

boundaries (Ran & Golden, 2011; Scott and Lane, 2000; Gioia et al., 2000). In effect,

a sense-making approach to OI successfully incorporated both social psychological

approaches alongside social constructionist accounts, in that OI is created by

managers for sense-giving and negotiated through sense-exchanging. However, by

making the assumption that ‘as mental images, organizational identities are

conceptual representations of organizations’ (Ran & Duimering, 2007, p. 157), the

approach excluded realist, essentialist perspectives on OI. Instead, in keeping with

its psychological basis, OI was considered an epiphenomenon of psychological

agency thereby negating its ontological independence from agents as typified in

traditional realism.

Inasmuch as syncretic models have attempted to develop conceptual unity, they

have only been partially successful because they have not attempted to include

realist notions of OI. Given this lack of success calls for integration in OI theory still

remain unanswered (van Rekom et al., 2008). I argue that integration has been

difficult because attempts to achieve this have been made at the level of

epistemology and developing conceptual cohesion at an ontological level has not

yet been attempted. For example, the models surveyed above have typically

addressed OI along epistemological lines and not explored ontological differences

and thus, for the most part, have been grounded on social constructivist

assumptions. Nevertheless, scholars have inadvertently proposed ontological claims

about organizational identity which according to Reed (2005) is problematic.

Indeed, Reed has argued that the ontological power of social constructivism is one-

dimensional since necessarily it is assumed that social reality (including

phenomenon such as OI) are socially constructed. Consequently, OI of itself must

necessarily also be a social construction thereby struggling to be accounted for as

independent of actors. This means that space for realist accounts of OI are unlikely

to be found if social constructivism continues to be the primary ontological

assumption underpinning development of OI theory.

Likewise, the social psychological approach also suffers a similar difficulty, by

positing that OI is a perceptual phenomenon. This makes it difficult to regard OI as

anything more than an epiphenomenon of psychological sense-making activity (Ran

& Duimering, 2007). Although psychological approaches can account for OI as being

causal, its ontological status is only quasi-independent (

cf.

Haslam, et al., 2003).

Moreover, Hatch & Schultz’s (2000) treatment of OI as emerging from linguistics

also suggests the concept-dependent nature of OI. Given this current emphasis on

agency as central to understanding OI it would seem a difficult task to develop an

integrated conception of OI that also includes Whetten’s (2006) notions of OI as

being an essentialist property of an organization. But does this mean that the

project to develop an integrated approach should be abandoned in favour of

adopting the dominant paradigm of social constructivist ontology? To do so would

continue to reproduce existing scholarly effort and thus be unlikely to bring

satisfying redress. Thus, to move beyond this situation it was clear that revisiting OI

through an ontological perspective would be useful as a way to move forward and it

was to this end that my thesis was directed. A central question being - what is

organizational identity like?

Organizational Identity and History

In exploring the conceptual complexity in OI theory, I previously mentioned that

temporality was important for OI. According to Brunninge (2009), temporality and

history are of critical importance for understanding OI since changeability or

endurance in OI, by definition, is only possible across time. Thus, I echo Rowlinson

et al. (2010), by stating that history matters for OI. Indeed, any ontological claims

about OI as enduring, or dynamic and changeable, must necessarily be framed by

time; an historical OI that maps the boundaries of OI construction at any given

moment in time (Ravasi & Phillips, 2011). However, this is atypical of the way in

which the relationship between organizational history and OI are discussed in the

literature. Rather than regard history as a linear passage of time in which the past

constrains the future (North, 1990; Booth, 2003), organizational history is

understood to be shared collective beliefs about an organization’s past (Brunninge,

2009). In similarity with OI as “shared understandings about what an organization is

like” (He & Brown, 2013), the collective belief approach to organizational history

appears to be a preferred way to frame the relationship between history and

identity within OI scholarship (Morhurst, Popp, Suddaby, & Wadhani, 2016).

The idea that organizational history is shared collective beliefs about an

organization’s past suggests that both organizational history and identity are

interdependent and malleable (Gioia et al., 2000). For example, in a study of OI

construction at Pennsylvania State University, Ran and Golden (2011) argued that

the strategic goals of an organization in the here-and-now determine how past OI

claims will be used by an organization in the construction of a current OI. Thus, the

past is appropriated and invoked strategically by managers giving the appearance of

linear endurance in OI, when in fact OI is an ongoing continual process of

construction – in effect it is timeless. This same conclusion was made by a more

recent study of OI at LEGO (Schultz & Hernes, 2013). Similarly, the authors

concluded that a past OI could break through into the present, but that OI as an

object of study was ‘suspended’ outside of time between both the past and the

future in an ongoing perpetual present. Essentially, although suggesting and

drawing upon notions of time and history in their discussions of OI, these studies

have assumed that OI is ultimately ahistorical. Indeed, OI has not been regarded as

a temporal phenomenon with a beginning, middle and a possible end, but rather as

an ongoing constructive process that is independent of time but one in which

authors of OI borrow from history and the past to create coherence (Czarniaskwa,

1997).

Likewise, within the narrative tradition in which stories do typically have a

beginning, middle and end, OI of itself is not considered as an adherent to this

format. Rather, any teleological account of OI is subordinated to strategic narrative

or creative storytelling and not a reflection of OI as a temporal phenomenon in

which some aspects of OI are enduring across time. For example, in a narrative

exploration of OI at a Canadian bank, Chreim (2005) traced identity narratives in

company annual reports over an 11 year period which showed how in the process

of identity construction, managers used history. In particular, it was found that

history was used selectively, along with expansive, descriptive labels to link the

current activities of the Bank with their activities in the past. Thus, the appearance

of the bank being the same as they were in 1817 comparative to who they claimed

to be in 1986 was created. Linking the past to the present in this way was regarded

as a rhetorical practice of managers rather than an example of endurance in OI in

which the author stated that ‘the continual appearance of a label in successive

identity texts does not necessarily imply stability in identity, for the meaning of the

label may shift over time’ (p. 572). Thus, temporal endurance in OI has been

overlooked in favour of a sense-making approach to identity, history and

temporality, in which the past is strategically appropriated to construct a story in

current time rather than limiting what can be constructed.

Underpinning claims that the temporal endurance of OI is illusory has been an

ontological foundation in a social constructionist paradigm, which as mentioned

above conceives of both history and OI as interrelated and malleable (Gioia et al.,

2000; Anteby & Molnar, 2012). In particular, organizational history has been

regarded as revisionist (Gioia et al., 2000; Suddaby, Foster, & Trank, 2010) and thus

histories, like identities, are open to interpretation, reflecting a wider post-modern

turn in History as an academic discipline (Donnelley & Norton, 2011). As a

consequence, history within an organization is no better than myth that can be

tweaked, added to, and edited (or even forgotten – Anteby & Molnar, 2012) in

order to support managerial objectives in the here-and now (Suddaby et al., 2010;

Rowlinson & Hassard, 1993). Thus, OI and organizational history are typically

understood through a functional sense-making lens wherein the past is strategically

used by managers to support identity (re)creation. Consequently, the endurance of

OI has been reframed as “continuity” between past and present and is accounted

for as illusory, created by managers who ground current OI within an organizational

history (Chreim, 2005). The implication of these claims is that understanding of OI

as temporally enduring (Albert & Whetten, 1985) ought to be revised which

according to Gioia et al. (2000), should be in favour of OI as dynamic and

changeable.

Summary

As evidenced by my review of the literature, it was apparent that something of

social constructionist monopoly on the understanding of OI exists meaning few

possibilities for an alternative approach can be imagined. This is best seen in an

assertion by Gioia and colleagues (2013 p. 126) in which they stated that:

The debate [of OI endurance and/or changeability] has effectively been

resolved now by a substantial body of work that affirms that identity often

changes over relatively short time horizons, albeit perhaps in subtle ways’.

Thus, it appears that the call from academic quarters is to accept the dominant

social constructivist account that OI is changeable and in doing so also accept that

OI is dependent on agents’ ongoing construction and thus, although referencing

history, is ultimately ahistorical. The only alternative available at this time would be

to adopt a social actor model of OI, yet scholars have been right to caution against

theoretical reification of organizations and their identities (Gioia et al., 2000;

Cornelisson, 2002). Consequently, it seems there are few alternatives but to accept

social constructionist accounts unless an integrated theory of OI and/or a

theoretically grounded realist conception of OI can be advanced. Hence, there was

an opportunity to attempt this which if successful would be a challenge to the

assumed dominance of social constructionist accounts of OI and may help to

resolve a number of issues in OI scholarship.

The most salient issue in OI scholarship is a dichotomy in how OI is conceptualised

dependent on ontological and disciplinary preferences. On the one hand realist

conceptions of OI favour a view in which OI is regarded as an essential, measurable

and independent property of an organization that relies to a greater extent on

reification. On the other hand, from a social constructionist perspective OI can be

understood as collective and shared beliefs about an organization that are

continually created and recreated relationally. Between them, psychological

perspectives of OI are situated, in which OI is socially constructed yet is

simultaneously perceived as real. While this level of pluralism is welcomed by some

(He & Brown, 2013; Corley et al., 2006), for others it remains problematic. For

example, Whetten’s (2006) concerns of an identity crisis, mentioned in the

introduction to this chapter, remain largely unaddressed by current developments

in OI theory. Moreover, plurality in perspectives mean there are further issues such

as whether OI is enduring or changeable, or is it best explained in terms of structure

or agency?

A possible reason put forward by Whetten (2006, p. 220) for there being so many

issues was an overly strong focus by scholars on what he called the ‘ideational

component of OI’. In Albert and Whetten’s (1985) original formulation, OI had been

stratified into an ideational component (member’s shared beliefs about who they

are as an organization) and a definitional component (an operational conception of

OI) (Whetten, 2006). Thus, in agreement, there does appear to have been an

overemphasis on the ideational component. This is confirmed since current social

constructionist scholarship typically defines OI as: ‘

relatively shared understandings

concerning

what is central, distinctive and enduring about an organization’ (He &

Brown, 2013, p. 8). Moreover, in the absence of a realist theory of OI that escapes

metaphorical reification of organization; social constructionist perspectives of OI

have flourished. Thus, I wanted to address this imbalance by attempting to develop

a syncretic conception of OI that

) did not reify an organization and rely on

metaphor and

) that could also incorporate social constructionist ideas about OI.

Finally, it was also surfaced by my literature review that OI and history are related.

However, if OI is in a continual process of creation and recreation with any

temporal stability or endurance in OI being an illusion as social constructionist

accounts indicate, then grounds for organizational identity claims based in history

could be considered somewhat rhetorical and thus unreliable. However, grounding

current OI claims in the past is important for organizations since it helps to

legitimate an organization (Suddaby et al., 2010). For example, grounding corporate

social responsibility in history confers legitimacy in the face of organizational crises

meaning stakeholders are more likely to forgive “blips” (Vanhamme & Grobben,

2009). Grounding organizational strategy and change in an historical OI also

facilitates the acceptance of new corporate policies (Rowlinson & Hassard, 1993).

Thus, historical grounding of OI contributes to the perceived comprehensibility and

stability of an organization (Czarniawska, 1997); foundational aspects of legitimacy

(Suchman, 1995). Consequently, by addressing issues and debates such as enduring

vs. changeability and structure vs. agency, it was also likely that a practical

contribution could be made as to what organizations can reliably claim about their

OI as concrete and enduring.

Research Questions

My thesis principally sought to address overarching ontological issues in

understanding of organizational identity. Although somewhat ambitious, it was

deemed an important undertaking in the face of conceptual plurality and debates

combined with the dominance of social constructivist ontology in OI theorising. In

doing so, I have proposed to develop a unified theoretical account of OI grounded

in an empirical study that would attempt to bring conceptual cohesion between

realist versus social constructionist approaches to OI. Moreover, achieving this was

expected to re-energise and make a contribution to debates around whether or not

OI is an enduring or changeable phenomenon. To this end, I asked two specific

research questions. First, contra to an understanding of OI as dynamic and always

changing but with the appearance of endurance (Gioia et al., 2000; 2013):

Is the reverse possible: that OI is essentially enduring as proposed by

Albert and Whetten (1985) yet empirically appears to change?

Second, as evidenced by my review of the literature, OI is regarded as an

epiphenomenon of psychological agents and thus is dependent on them for its

construction and its perception (Haslam et al., 2003). Moreover, that as an ongoing

social construction OI depends entirely on agents’ construction of it and thus

cannot be conceived of as independent of them. The alternative for OI to be

independent of agents currently relies on organization as a social actor (

cf.

King et

al., 2010). Thus, I wanted to know if it was possible if there could be a way for

‘guiding OI through aged adolescence’ (Corley et al., 2006, p.85), to an ontologically

independent adulthood that avoids reification of an organization. In effect, I

wanted to ask:

Is it possible that while constructed by and dependent on agents that OI

can escape agents to take on an ontologically independently existence?

The benefits of asking these questions were multiple since they present an

opportunity to develop a conceptual account of OI that addresses the thorny issue

of structure and agency (Reed, 1997). For example realist and social psychological

accounts lean toward OI as a determining structure, while social constructivist

accounts emphasise OI as on ongoing relational construction dependent on agency.

By developing an integrated approach that included both perspectives, there was

potential to bring structure and agency together under the same umbrella. Second,

my questions were likely to lead toward development of an inclusive approach to

OI that did not simply exclude realist perspectives on OI as in current syncretic

theories. Indeed, by consistent exclusion of realist accounts in favour of social

constructionist perspectives, significant challenges to the idea that OI as enduring

have been raised. Thus, by undertaking this work it may also be possible to justify

Albert and Whetten’s (1985) original formulation of OI as enduring. Finally, for

organizations, the grounds for enduring OI claims are weak when considered from a

social constructionist perspective. However, by challenging the hegemony of the

social constructionist position in OI theory through reinstating the possibility of

realism, a more stable platform from which organizations can make enduring

identity claims may be generated.

To drill down into the research questions two features discussed in my literature

review would necessarily have to be incorporated into my proposed research. My

first question concerned the enduring vs. changeable nature of OI and thus my

research would require inclusion of temporality. Indeed, given that endurance and

changeability can only be understood and observed over time, my research was

likely to need an historical component and thus also depend on archival data. My

second question addressed the independence of OI from agents’ which lent itself to

realist ontology. However, to also incorporate that OI may also be understood as a

social construction (i.e. epistemologically intepretivist), a critical realist approach

which combines these together (Bygstad & Munklvold, 2011) seemed a pragmatic

base from which to engage with this question. Consequently, I envisaged an

extended longitudinal and historical case study of OI, enacted through a critical

realist perspective as way to address my research questions. Based on the proposal,

that my research should be historical and longitudinal; critical realist informed and

centred on an organizational phenomenon, I explored how these might work

together at a methodological level in the next chapter. In doing so, a foundation for

a study that would reconceptualise organizational identity was being laid.

Chapter 2

Methodological and Epistemological Considerations

Introduction

Having proposed to answer my research questions using an historical and

longitudinal case study of OI enacted from a critical realist perspective, it was

important to explore how these would work together at a research-level.

Therefore, in this chapter the objective was to explore and discuss a number of

methodological and epistemological issues that were relevant to what I have

proposed. First, since critical realism is a relative newcomer to social scientific

research (Easton, 2010), I took time to outline its core assumptions. Second, given

that the proposed research was also going to be reliant on historical data and

overlap with history, it was also necessary to consider the epistemological issues

that may arise from this. In particular, I addressed the relationship between history

and social science as rooted in two very different epistemological paradigms and,

the reliability of using constructed and interpretive historical data within a critical

realist framework. By reflecting on these issues, the objective of this chapter was to

lay a foundation on which to build my research.

Core Assumptions of Critical Realism

Critical realism was originally developed by British philosopher, Roy Bhaskar (1979),

and a number of accounts have since been offered (Sayer, 1992; 2000; Collier,

1994; Danermark, Ekstrom, Jakobson, & Karlsson, 2002; Archer, 1995; Fleetwood,

2005). It has also been discussed in a wide number of social science disciplines such

as geography (Yeung, 1997), historical sociology (Steinmetz, 1998), management,

(Ackroyd & Fleetwood, 2000) and information systems (Bygstad & Munkvold,

2011). Nevertheless, despite such discussion of its utility for research, critical

realism has not been widely used as an approach to empirical research. Thus,

outlining the assumptions inherent to this methodology was important to clarify my

methodological position. At its core critical realism assumes that social reality exists

independently of our knowledge of and ability to observe it (Sayer, 1992). For this

reason, critical realism assumes realist ontology but an interpretivist epistemology

(Bygtsad & Munkvold, 2011) in that what we know about social reality is concept

dependent. Thus, according to Sayer (2000), in addition to explaining social reality

we also need to understand and render it meaningful; a meaning which also comes

to constitute an independent social reality (Giddens, 1984). To emphasise, in terms

of realism and social constructivism, critical realism sits somewhere between the

two with social reality being on the one hand ontologically independent of agents

(realist ontology) while on the other hand what we can know of it is concept

dependent and constructed – an interpretive epistemology (Holmwood & Stewart,

1993).

Given the scepticism of critical realism to what can be known about an independent

social reality a second assumption is made: that empiricism is unreliable. This is

because additional to epistemology being interpretive, social reality is also assumed

to exist in an “open system” meaning that explanations for what occurs are

contingent and explanatory rather than conjunctive and thus predictive. Sayer

(1992) offers an example to illustrate this. An object in a closed system would be

something like a planet, its motion and existence predictably determined by

physical laws. Conversely, phenomenon like weather cannot be understood in a

law-like and predictive way since there are many contingent combinations that can

result in multiple possibilities – an open system. Thus, social phenomenon, such as

that which is the object of my study, cannot be explained in an axiological manner

since they exist in an open system in which interactions with other social entities

and human agency can affect outcomes in any number of ways. Thus, the goal of

critical realism is not develop predictive theory, but to explain how empirical events

could have occurred on the basis of what could exist in an unobservable social

reality. Indeed, rather than couch explanations in terms of causal conjunctions (in

that A necessarily follows B), critical realist informed research attempts to uncover

what must exist, how it works and under what conditions for A and B to have

occurred.

This is developed into the idea that causal explanations within social science are

contingent. In particular, social entities existing in the open system of social reality

interact in ways that both enable and constrain what can occur as an event.

Moreover, agents, of themselves, also interact with entities in social reality and

through their reflexive capabilities may also interfere with how social entities

interact. Thus, events arise from contingent combinations of interactions between

social entities (and agents). Sometimes these interactions may suppress the

occurrence of an observable event or conversely they may enable an event to

happen. To reiterate, any causal explanations in critical realism are necessarily

contingent and not from regularities. Importantly, if causality is contingent then

what is observed to happen cannot be an accurate basis for determining what

exists in terms of social reality. For example, events observed to happen could be

explained by a combined interaction between multiple social entities under a

certain set of conditions. Moreover, non-observation of an expected event also

does not necessarily mean that a social entity does not exist. Therefore, according

to Bhaskar (1979), epistemology cannot be a reliable basis for ontological claims

which he terms as epistemic fallacy.

A central idea in critical realism that explains why an independent social reality and

empirical observations are distinct is that ontology is stratified. At the most surface

layer there is the “empirical” domain which represents the observation of an event.

Meanwhile, at the next layer is the domain of the “actual” in which events

“actually” occur. This distinction is made because although an event may occur it

may not be observed, thus recognising the classic problem of induction (Gordon,

1993). At the deepest layer of social reality, or its base, is the domain of the “real”

where social entities exist which constitute social reality (see fig 1 overleaf).

Figure 1:

Three Overlapping Domains of Reality in the Critical Realist Ontology

(Mingers, 2004)

The social entities that exist at the level of the real are comprised of structured

relations so that a social object, such as slavery, comprises of a relation between

master and slave (Sayer, 1992). This constitutes what Sayer describes as a necessary

relation since without this relation, slavery could not exist. However, relations can

also be asymmetrical in that one defines the other but does not depend on it. A

further example Sayer gives was that of banking system, which depends on money,

but money could exist without a banking system. There are also external relations,

in which two social entities are independent of each other but may still interact.

Finally, social reality also consists of ideas, values and beliefs (Easton, 2010) which

according to Archer (1996), are cultural rather than structural yet both behave in

similar ways (Hays, 1994). Importantly, a combination of necessary relations

(structure) and external relations (conditions) are required to explain events

otherwise events would be over determined by structure or too variable to have

theoretical importance (Easton, 2010).

What is also central to explanation in critical realism is the idea that social entities

have ways of working. That is their tendency to give rise to an event expresses

notions of powers (which lead to events) and liabilities (susceptibility to be

suppressed by other social entities). While this describes social entities it does not

inform us of how they act. For this, Bhaskar (1979) introduces the concept of

generative mechanisms that explain how social objects at the level of the real give

rise to events at the level of the actual that are then observed in the empirical.

Generative mechanisms are crucial to causal explanation and Easton (2010, p.122)

offers a clear example:

A simple example of a mechanism would be a log jam or tipping point.

When a buyer and seller have agreed on almost everything (structure and

conditions), there is always the possibility of a deal breaker emerging. The

crucial deal breaker condition then solely determines whether the event will

take place. Recognising that the deal breaker is actually a deal breaker

rather than just a part of the players’ negotiating strategy then becomes

crucial.

Although the above example identified a structural relation between buyer and

seller, and the contingent conditions, it did not particularly take note of the role of

agency. This highlights an important debate in social science – structure and agency

(Archer, 1995; Reed, 1997). In brief, the debate concerns the differential weight

given to either agency or structure explaining why things happen. If too much

emphasis is placed on agency, then explanation can become too voluntaristic to

support theory development (Easton, 2010). Meanwhile, an over emphasis on

structure can lead to explanations in which social reality and behaviour are over

determined. However, agents are of themselves also social objects that have their

own unique liabilities and powers and mechanisms alongside reflexive capabilities

(Archer, 1995; Delbridge & Edwards, 2013). Further, it is agents that reproduce

structural relations or alternatively may resist and even transform them (Archer,

1995). Thus, agents’ are important within critical realist explanation since it is

through them that structured social reality is enacted, reproduced, changed and its

effects moderated.

A final assumption in critical realism is that of emergence in which higher-order

social entities or properties

emerge

from patterns of organisation among social

entities at a lower-level (Pratten, 2013). What emerges, while depending on this

lower-level pattern of organization for its existence, is not reducible to its parts

(Elder-vass, 2005). This principle can be applied to a business organization if one

thinks of stakeholder theory (Freeman, 1984). Although primarily a management

theory, it is assumed that an organization arises from a combination of different

stakeholders’ needs and values. Reframed in critical realist terms this can be

thought of as the emergence of an organization; that while dependent on its

stakeholders and their needs, values, ideas and beliefs it is non-reducible to them.

To clarify, contingent combinations between social entities and/or cultural

propositions can give rise to emergent social entities and properties that while

dependent on what underlies them, are not reducible to that from which they

emerge.

There are an extensive amount of well-developed assumptions that critical realism

relies upon. While it is acknowledged that some nuanced and complex debates

exist around these (for example: Pratten, 2013; Collier, 1994; Archer, 1995), for the

purpose of this thesis what has been offered here are the major central tenets of

critical realist theory. Below, these have been summarised as a list that formed a

methodological ground and interpretive framework for my research.

Social reality exists independently of our knowledge or ability to observe it.

Critical

realism

combines

realist

ontology

with

interpretivist

epistemology.

There is always a hermeneutical element to social science (see clause 2)

since social objects are largely concept dependent.

Social science occurs in an open system meaning its objects are vulnerable

to change by interactions with other objects and agents.

Causality and explanation in an open system is contingent rather than based

on casual conjunctions of events.

The social world is ontologically stratified into three domains: The real, the

actual and the empirical.

Objects in social reality (the real) are structured by relations, while culture

(as ideas, values, and beliefs) also exists in this domain.

Social objects have powers and liabilities and the way in which they give rise

to observable events is through their generative mechanisms.

Causal properties of some objects emerge from a configurative organization

of objects and are non-reducible to, but dependent on this underlying

structure.

10.

Agents have reflexive capabilities and are those that enact, reproduce,

elaborate or transform social structures and social reality.

Critical Realism and Case Study

Having outlined the core assumptions which underscored what methods I could use

and how the research developed, I continued to reflect on and discuss some further

methodological considerations. The first of which was the fit of critical realism with

a case study approach. The relationship between critical realism and case study has

been established by previous scholars (Easton, 2010; Dobson, 2001) and thus did

not need to be covered in depth. Nevertheless, of importance has been the

suggestion that critical realism is a good fit for case study research (Easton, 2010).

In particular, Easton has argued that positivist and interpretivist epistemologies

were difficult for case study research since the former is based on drawing

inferences from multiple measures, while the latter can be too eclectic for drawing

authoritative conclusions. However, critical realism sits between these poles and

goes beyond an interpretivist epistemology to identify what must exist to explain

what has occurred. Thus, it is possible to invoke causal explanations without

necessarily relying on repeated observations as common to positivist epistemology

making critical realism suited to case study.

A second compatibility that Easton noted was in analytical style. The main approach

used in critical realism is retroduction in which after having made interpretive

observations of events, a researcher asks what must exist and how must it work to

explain what has occurred (Bygstad & Munkvold, 2011; Sayer, 1992). This does not

mean that mechanisms are suggested

a priori

and then confirmed by data

collection (Easton, 2010), nor are their identification reliant solely on induction

from empirical data as in Grounded Theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Rather, an

inductive approach is used to generate empirical data about events while abduction

(retroductive reasoning) is employed to find the most plausible explanation for the

events. Oscillating between these two approaches is well suited to case study since

a researcher must move between theory and data iteratively to identify the most

credible explanation for what has occurred and been observed (Yeung, 1997).

Iterative data handling is commonly employed in case study (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin,

2004) however, there is a subtle difference. Iterations in critical realism are not for

the purposes of data saturation as in Grounded Theory, but for moving between

data and theory and back again as part of the analytical process. Given that critical

realism shares iterative processes in data handling and an acceptable epistemology

and ontology, using a case study approach seemed appropriate.

History, Social Science and Critical Realism

Additional to using a case study approach, I previously suggested that notions of

history and temporality would be relevant especially in relation to exploring

whether or not OI is enduring or changeable (Brunninge, 2009). Thus, I proposed

that my case study would need to be longitudinal and to some extent historical.

This was contra to typical ideas about case study in which contemporary events are

the subject of investigation (Yin, 2004). This particular issue is covered in the

following chapter when selecting and justifying my case study. For now however, I

wanted to explore further whether historical approaches and social science and

critical realism were methodologically compatible. Indeed, it has been claimed that

History and social science are not common bedfellows (Greenwood & Bernardi,

2014), that warranted further consideration before bringing them together within

the same project.

The fusion of history and organizational research has been considered uncommon

due to an epistemological split between the two disciplines (Clark & Rowlinson,

2004). This is reflected by history being typically regarded as hermeneutical,

interpretive and narrative while organization studies are more concerned with

developing generalisable theory using replicable methods (Zald, 2002). In reflecting

on the epistemological differences between history and organizational research,

Rowlinson et al. (2014), have discussed how these may be bridged. In particular,

they identified four types of historical approach that were compatible with

organization studies and a biographical “Corporate history” was stated as the most

classical yet problematic form. “Analytical history” was less problematic because it

differs from the pure narrative of corporate history, in that a researcher uses

theoretical constructs to search the archive and construct a narrative that is ‘driven

by concepts, events and causation’ (p. 264). A third approach, “Serial history” was

about analysing historical data looking for repeatable facts by using replicable

techniques. For example, content analysis of historical data may uncover a

patterned series of repeated incidents across a period of time (Anteby & Molnar,

2012). Finally, “ethnographic history” was mentioned that takes a somewhat more

critical and observational stance such as analysing cultural practices, routines and

rituals within an organization’s past (Childs, 2002).

It was considered important to take a stand with one of these approaches since

Rowlinson et al. (2014) argued that to do so was a justification against potential

critiques of being too narrative and interpretive when constructing from historical

data. For example, narrative construction of the past could be argued to be

rhetorical (Suddaby et al., 2010) or non-critical storytelling (Down, 2001). To avoid

this, I needed to decide on which of the four approaches my use of historical data

would be related to. In particular, because I proposed to look at OI within historical

documents then this was to utilise any historical data with a specific theoretical

construct in mind. Moreover, because I planned to take a critical realist approach

then I would also be considering events (for example: change/non-change in OI)

and explanation for them which are key to critical realism. From these, it was likely

that my research would fit into notions of conducting analytical history meaning it

could be defended against criticisms of story-telling because:

Analytically structured history offers the possibility of constructing historical

narratives using theories of organization that can be defended against social

scientific objections to narrative construction (Rowlinson et al., 2014, p.268)

Aligning my research with this particular form of historical approach was helpful for

positioning my research alongside current debates on epistemological differences

between social science and History but was not strictly necessary. This was because

critical realism already assumes an interpretive epistemology meaning the use and

interpretation of historical data is acceptable without having to subscribe to

relativism (Steinmetz, 1998). Indeed, although at an empirical level, events are

interpretively reconstructed by a researcher from historical data, they are not then

used as a basis to explain future constructed data or events. Instead, critical realist

approaches conceive of the past being the temporally situated home of structure,

social entities, and culture that contingently determine and can explain outcomes

(Archer, 1995; 1996). Importantly, explanation is not over determined since in open

system like society, contingency is the norm, a concept also common to historical

explanation for events (Smith & Lux, 1993; Hewitson, 2014). Thus a critical realist

approach to history avoids becoming simply a constructed and path dependent

narrative of events (Booth, 2003), since events are contingently explained by a pre-

existent underlying social reality rather than from the events themselves (Collier,

1994; Steinmetz, 1998).

That critical realism situates structure within a past temporal space (Archer, 1995;

1996) means that a historical and temporal approach is actually useful for research

informed by critical realism. Indeed, Archer argues that without inclusion of time,

structure and agency are indistinguishable as in Giddens (1984) theory of

structuration in which agents determine structures that simultaneously determine

them. However, while she agrees that this reflects social reality at any given

moment in time, when temporality is included it becomes possible to demarcate

between structure and agency when explaining patterns of change and stasis in

social phenomenon such as OI. Archer refers to this demarcation as analytical

dualism, which is explained by her argument that structured social objects and

culture are situated in morphogenetic cycles in which change or stability are always

in relation to what pre-exists. Thus, temporality and notions of time in which cycles

of change and non-change occur are of importance in critical realist explanations of

dynamic events. Given that my research was concerned with OI as changeable vs.

enduring (Gioia et al., 2000; 2013; Ravasi & Schultz, 2006), temporality, and thus an

historical approach was more than simply compatible with a critical realist

methodology. Indeed, it would be essential to answering my research questions.

Historical Data

Any research which has an historical component draws upon documents, records,

and artefacts that are deposited within an archive and are used to recreate the past

(Mcdowell, 2002). Thus, it was also important to reflect on issues concerning

archival data. As a data source, the archive has been brought into question since

the development of subaltern and standpoint histories have highlighted its lack of

objectivity (Rowbotham, 1973; Decker, 2013). Consequently, archival data have

come to be recognised as limited by state power, and both communication and

data technologies (Derrida, 1986 as cited in Manoff, 2004). Unsurprisingly, there is

a mistrust of the authority of historical data and likewise historical accounts

reflected in History’s post-modern turn (Donnelly & Norton, 2011) as well as the

suspicion of historical data by organizational scholars (Rowlinson et al., 2014).

Indeed, a common expression regularly encountered is summarised by the well-

known phrase “history is written by victors”.

The inherent social and subjective biases of archival data however, were not

problematic on this occasion. The interpretive epistemology of critical realism

meant historical data could be accepted on its own terms as a previously

constructed social reality rather than an objective and truthful record of what

happened in the past. To emphasise, from the perspective of critical realism the

past is not about previous events that explain a next set of events. Instead, it is the

site of social reality that although co-constructed at one time, becomes structural

or cultural as it becomes increasingly historically situated (Archer, 1996). Thus,

what exists in the past, irrespective of whether or not it is factually accurate

becomes an accepted account of the way things were (and are) as opposed to what

was actually the case (for example: Anteby & Molnar, 2012). Nevertheless, I did

acknowledge that I would still be engaged in a double hermeneutic; interpretively

engaged with historical data that of itself was also interpretive (Giddens, 1984).

However, because my interpretive epistemology was combined with realist

ontology this hermeneutic cycle was broken. By elevating above the data through

using retroduction, I would be explaining the historical data as evidence to be

explained in theoretical terms (Rowlinson et al., 2014, p.251), rather than only

relying on interpretive data to explain interpretive data.

That historical data is something to be explained as well as being data that can be

reconstructed suggests there is more to historical data than first meets the eye.

Historical data is not simply a resource, or memories stored in an archive (as

suggested by Walsh & Ungson, 1991). Instead, Archer (1996) argues that over time,

the propositional contents of an archive (like libraries) become a cultural record of

the past that is intransitive. By this, she means that over time the contents of an

archive no longer depend on agents for their construction and are encountered by

agents in future time as ready-made and historically situated. Thus, the contents of

an archive (i.e. historical data) become a cultural phenomenon; part of a cultural-

system that in effect has an ontological status of its own:

As an emergent entity the cultural system has an objective existence and

autonomous relations among its components (theories, beliefs, values,

arguments, or more strictly its propositional formulations of them) in the

sense that these are independent of anyone’s claims to know, to believe, to

assert or assent them. At any moment the cultural system is the product of

socio-cultural interaction, but having emerged (emergence being a

continuous process) then

qua product

, it has properties of its own. Like

structure, culture is man-made but escapes its makers by being able to act

back upon them (Archer, 1996, pp. 104-107).

Given this, the archive and the data within it have an independence from their

construction and whether or not they are an accurate or inaccurate record, in this

case was relatively unimportant. According to Archer, a past cultural-system is a

ready-made construct that agents encounter and in doing so, by nature of its

emergent properties, it can act upon agents irrespective of its factual accuracy.

Thus, historical data are not simply passive artefacts or memories for agents’

constructive capabilities to create an OI or an organizational story. Rather, from the

perspective of critical realism, the propositional contents of archival data are an

ontologically independent cultural phenomenon that like structure, can be an

explanation for the occurrence of events in the actual that may (or may not) be

empirically observed. To emphasise, the truthfulness and/or objectivity of the past

as a data source was not a pre-requisite for my use of historical documents to be

credible.

Summary

In presenting and discussing my methodology and the associated issues surfaced by

my particular research, in this chapter I have attempted to lay a foundation for my

study of OI. Principally, I have proposed to adopt a critical realist approach that

means my research used an interpretivist epistemology combined with realist

ontology. Moreover, the use of critical realism has been demonstrated to be

congruent with case study and to some extent is less problematic than adopting a

positivist or solely interpretive research paradigm. Because I also envisaged using

historical data, the possibilities and limitations of this have also been explored.

First, by taking an analytical approach to history in which theory and concepts

direct engagement with historical data, a slippage into corporate narrative and

story-telling could be avoided. Second, both critical realism and historical

approaches share an interpretivist epistemology and both uphold that causal

explanations for events must be contingent rather than over-determined or too

relativistic to be of theoretical importance.

It was also discussed that temporality (and thus history) is important for

demarcating between structure and agency and essential for understanding change

and non-change in socio-cultural phenomena which included OI (Archer, 1995;

1996; Brunninge, 2009). Finally, with regard to historical data itself, although it has

been socially constructed at one time, over time it forms part of a cultural-system

that has emergent properties and thus can be considered to some extent an

ontologically independent reality irrespective of its original subjectivity. On these

grounds, it was methodologically justifiable to conduct a longitudinal and historical

case study of OI using a corporate archive and primary historical data that could be

enacted within a critical realist framework. Consequently, in the following chapter,

the way in which the study was planned and actualised is fully explained.

Chapter 3

Devising, Constructing and Undertaking the Research

Method

Introduction

Following establishment of a methodological foundation and exploration of cross-

disciplinary issues, it was to developing a method that this chapter is devoted.

Indeed, critical realism has been argued to lack a method (Yeung, 1997) meaning

this would need some consideration. Moreover, historical work also lacks a

transparent method (Rowlinson, 2004) reflecting its epistemological difference to

social science (Rowlinson et al., 2014). However, because the research used an

historical approach to an organizational issue rather than being an historical study, I

deemed it important to set out a clear research design and follow an established

qualitative method for generating empirical data from historical sources. Adopting

an explicit qualitative method did not preclude using historical method in favour of

a more social scientific approach. Rather, historical method of reflexivity on

authorship, audience, content and purpose of textual data (McAuley, 2004) was

used in parallel to ensure a rigorous treatment of historical material.

The first part of this chapter was concerned with development of a research design

and strategy which included adapting a critical realist research framework (Bygtsad

& Munkvold, 2011) to reflect my research objectives and include Archer’s (1995,

1996) notions of temporality and analytical dualism. The structure of my research

design provided a framework for the whole study. Following this, I discussed and

described what was actually enacted around the research design. In particular this

was the selection of my case and qualitative method, periodisation of the research

and how to operationalise OI. I also went on to consider the ethical issues that

would be involved in conducting the research. In the latter section of the chapter, I

explained my data sources and how I extracted and organised textual data into a

way in which the data could then be represented and analysed in subsequent

chapters.

Developing a Research Framework

In outlining critical realism Bhaskar (1986) proposed a six-step model for critical

realist research. In particular these steps were: resolution of observed events into

components; redescribing components into theoretical terms; retroduction of the

possible antecedents of the components; elimination of other possible

explanations; identifying mechanisms and finally re-presenting the case. The model

was termed RRREI(C); however, scholars have noted that its application to the

social sciences is difficult since Bhaskar recommended that “elimination of

explanations” should be achieved by experimental research (Steinmetz, 1998). This

critique led Bhaskar to develop an adapted model which has been criticised by

Collier (1994) for the same reasons. Alternatively, Collier proposed a simpler model

of abstraction into components; describing components followed by retroduction

and elaboration. Simplification of Bhaskar’s framework was also undertaken by

Bygstad and Munkvold (2011), who proposed a clear and stepped framework

outlined below:

Describe the events that have been observed.

Identify the key components – abstract from the data and theory what

structures and entities are indicated by the events (Sayer, 1992).

Theoretical re-description – describe the case in terms of relevant theories.

Retroduction –argumentation to suggest interactions between structures.

Generating a number of mechanisms that explain the effect of structures on

events.

Selecting the most explanatory mechanism.

Although these six steps acted as useful guidelines for conducting a critical realist

study, I intended to enact a critical realist approach to understanding what OI is like

rather than conduct a critical realist study to explain how OI may work. This

highlighted a limitation of using these guidelines since steps 5 and 6 were focused

on uncovering causal explanatory mechanisms. However, my research objective

was not to develop a causal theory of how change and non-change in OI occurs but

to use critical realism to offer a descriptive account of OI based on my empirical

study. Thus, these six steps represented a starting point as opposed to a prescribed

set of rules to follow. Moreover, since I had also proposed to include temporality

and expected historical data to be foremost in the research, I needed to integrate

and draw on theoretical ideas from analytical dualism and the morphogenetic

approach advanced by Archer (1995; 1996), which are absent from traditional

critical realist research models. Thus, for pragmatic reasons, rather than follow the

six steps of a critical realist framework, there was a need driven by the research

requirements to construct an adapted research design.

Indicated by the first step was that an event or events needed to be observed and

then explained, meaning that to begin with, I needed to identify what events I

wanted to observe. Principally, this was organizational identity but because OI of

itself is not an event, I needed to observe something about OI. My first research

question was concerned with the dynamical but essential properties of OI –

whether OI was changeable or enduring over time. Thus, the events I could observe

were OI dynamics over time. When exploring temporal dynamics, Archer (1995;

1996) has recommended an extended period of time with more than two analytical

points. This is because binary comparisons are conjunctive as in (T1) vs. (T2),

thereby foregrounding change and not capturing temporality and thus notions of

endurance. Thus, I needed to observe OI dynamics over a series of specifically

chosen time points.

Moreover, a longitudinal design was useful for my second research question on

whether OI could be considered independent from agents’ construction of it since

according to critical realism what is constructed at one time, over time becomes

independent of agents (Sayer, 1992; Archer, 1995). Thus, I also wanted to develop

an empirical way to observe OI as it was originally constructed by agents in its

beginning and then, if and how it became independent of agents over time. On the

basis of this, combined with what I discussed in the previous paragraph, I

considered my research should trace an OI from its inception and over multiple

time points to make empirical observations of OI dynamics. From these

observations it would then be possible to attempt to develop a credible explanation

for what was observed in OI dynamics (as an event to be explained). Consequently,

I intended to be empirically naïve, allowing my generation of OI and observation of

its dynamics over time to be inductive and emergent from data (step one).

Meanwhile, I could be theoretically analytical and descriptive through use of

retroduction, thereby reflecting steps two, three and four of Bygstad and

Munkvold’s (2011) framework. Steps five and six were considered less important

for my research since they focused on identifying mechanisms which was not the

aim of my study.

From this discussion a way in which to conduct my research was forthcoming. First,

because I wanted to observe OI dynamics over an extended period of time I needed

an opportunity to access an organization with sufficient historicity and a corporate

archive. Second, I would need to generate OI from their archival data for multiple

time periods enabling me to comparatively observe OI dynamics. Having made

empirical observations of events, by using retroductive reasoning I would then need

to explain empirical OI dynamics to develop a theoretically grounded yet empirically

induced analysis of what had been observed. On the basis of this it would then be

possible to develop an account of what OI could be like. In keeping with a stepwise

framework, I constructed the following adapted research design:

Access an organizational archive.

Generate OI from textual sources across multiple time points beginning at

the inception of the organization.

Comparatively describe the dynamics of OI across time points.

Using retroductive reasoning, develop a theoretically credible explanation of

what was observed.

On the basis of empirical observation and theoretical explanation develop

an account of what OI is like.

From these steps it was also apparent that a framework for what could be

described as an analytical history of OI within a particular case setting had been

outlined (Rowlinson et al., 2014). This reflected that my research was cross-

disciplinary, weaving together both history and organization studies. As such, it was

also expected that the resultant study would take on a somewhat more narrative

style than a traditional qualitative study but would also be likely to retain elements

of an analytical form, particularly around generation and analysis of OI dynamics.

My framework also highlighted that there were a number of other important issues

to address; in effect a full research strategy was outstanding (Eisenhardt, 1989). For

example, first, I needed to select a case organization while second, to demarcate

the case into multiple analytical time points known as periodisation (Rowlinson,

2004). Third, a qualitative method to generate OI from textual sources was required

and fourth, I also needed to consider a way in which to operationalise OI, especially

as the construct of itself was being interrogated.

The Case Study

According to Yin (2004), when undertaking a case study it is important to define and

justify the case that will be used. Typically, case study deals in contemporary events

that are investigated using a spread of sources and methods such as interviews,

observations and documentary analysis. However, as I was using an historical

approach to study OI then my research had more overlap with analytical history

than case study. Nevertheless, case study is an empirical enquiry undertaken to

provide an in-depth contextualised understanding of a bounded phenomenon

(Flyvbjerg, 2011). Thus, while not strictly doing a case study, notions of the case

study approach to research had relevance. For one, a case was needed in which to

study the phenomenon of OI, while second, analysis of OI across multiple time

points would represent a kind of single embedded case study in which multiple

analytical units exist within one case (Yin, 2004). Moreover, case study draws upon

more than one data source (triangulation) to enhance the credibility of the findings

(Eisenhardt, 1989), which was similar to how historical researchers utilise a wide

variety of primary sources (McDowell, 2002; Donnelly & Norton, 2011). Thus,

although not restricting myself to study a contemporary event, the research could

be framed as an historical case study of OI.

There were certain criteria I had for selecting a case. First, the organization would

need a well-developed archive with a wide range of primary sources. Second, the

organization would also need to have been in existence for an extended period of

time during which change events had occurred. Finally, the organization would

have to be willing to grant access. There were several UK-based organizations that

may have been viable, for example Cadbury or Unilever. However, according to

research conducted by Rowlinson and Hassard (1993) the Cadbury archive can be

difficult to navigate and is not well organised. In discussion with various UK-based

companies complete access was granted to the archive of Walgreens Boots Alliance

(formerly Boots the Chemist) located in Nottingham, in which the Archive and

Records Manager described the company as: “keen to obtain an objective academic

view of any claims we can make about our history”. No restrictions were put on my

use of the archive save for data protection with more recent documents. Added to

unrestricted access was that the archive is extensive and of high quality (Scott,

2012), which was reflected in funding being awarded to the archive by Wellcome

Trust while my research was being conducted. Finally, the company also had

sufficient historicity having been operational since 1849 meaning all selection

criteria had been satisfied. To introduce the company further, a brief general

synopsis of the organization is offered below.

Walgreens Boots Alliance is currently a multinational health and beauty company

that was created in December, 2014 from a merger between the private equity

owned Alliance Boots and Walgreens in the U.S. The previous company, Alliance

Boots, had also been formed from a merger between Boots and Alliance Unichem

in 2006. Thus, in its recent past the company has undergone significant change.

Before 2006 however, the most salient aspect of the company was called Boots the

Chemist with two other businesses: Boots Contract Manufacturing and Boots

Healthcare International. For pragmatic reasons, throughout the research I simply

refer to the company in the most part as a single entity - Boots. Before becoming

the multinational corporation it is today, Boots began as an independent herbalist

shop in the mid-nineteenth century in a slum area of Nottinghamshire. It rapidly

expanded under the ownership of Jesse Boot to become a cash chemist and

manufacturer, following his inheritance of the herbalists from his mother. The

growth of the company was legally contested by the pharmacy trade of the day

which led to the rise and development of chain pharmacy in the UK.

The company was also operational throughout both World Wars of which after the

first, Jesse sold the company in 1920 to United Drug Company in the United States.

By the early 1930s Boots had come back into British ownership under the

leadership of Jesse Boot’s son, John. Under his watch, the company opened its

1000

store in 1933, built one of the world’s leading manufacturing plants at

Nottingham and carried out extensive developments in the pharmaceutical

production of Insulin and penicillin. Following the Second World War, the company

were also faced with the inauguration of the

NHS

in 1948 and following Boots

development of the drug Ibuprofen in 1969 also gained considerable international

acclaim. After this time the company were also expanding overseas and diversifying

their merchandise range. During the 1980s this was taken to a new level with the

company expanding rapidly into non-healthcare markets by purchasing Halfords

car-parts chain, DIY and decorating chains, and establishing the retail chain,

Children’s World. However, into the Millennium Boots became more streamlined,

selling these non-chemist businesses and focusing on holistic wellbeing services

before merging with Alliance Unichem in 2006. Given such a rich and dynamic past,

Boots represented an ideal organization in which to undertake my research.

Periodisation of the Case

Having satisfactorily found an organization in which to conduct my research, the

next step was to consider how to split the case into multiple units of time to allow

comparative observation of OI dynamics. Temporal splitting is known as

periodisation and involves choosing where to begin, end and identifying significant

junctures in the case (Rowlinson, 2004). There are no specific guidelines for how to

achieve this and to a large extent it depends on the research objective. However, it

can be theoretically informed or inductively generated from the case itself. The

latter was especially appropriate since Whipp and Clarke (1986 as cited in

Rowlinson et al., 2014 p. 263) claim for analytical history:

The periodization is derived from the sources, rather than imposed from an

external historical context, and events in an organization constitute the

turning points between one period and the next.

Nevertheless, there were also theoretical reasons for expecting OI dynamics that

have been evidenced by previous research. For example: change in comparative

context (Elsbach & Kramer, 1996); mergers (Clark et al., 2010); changes in operating

environment (He & Baruch, 2010); external criticisms (Dutton & Dukerich, 1991);

management aspirations (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991); trans-national buyouts

(Anteby & Molnar, 2012); and finally increasing size and maturity (Albert &

Whetten, 1985) have all been implicated in OI dynamics. With these factors in

mind, I scoped the archive for a period of two weeks, primarily looking at annual

reports to establish how best to divide the data into analytical units of time and find

an appropriate start and finish point.

From the scoping exercise it was decided that the research should be bracketed

between 1892 and 2002, a period of 110 years. Selecting the initial time point later

than the ‘authorised’ company start date of 1877 reflected the paucity of archival

material before 1892. Meanwhile, the decision to finish at the turn of the

Millennium was grounded on data protection concerns and restricted use of more

modern records. Within this time span four distinctive sub-units of time were

identified. The sub-units were as follows:

Time 1 [1892-1920]

was the genesis of

Boot’s OI and the business as a whole. Importantly, in 1920 the business was sold to

the United Drug Company passing from British to American ownership. This was

seen as a significant event since international transfer could give rise to identity

change (

cf.

Anteby & Molnar, 2012). Boots came back into British hands in 1933 and

both expanded and developed while enduring World War II. Moreover, in 1948 the

NHS

was inaugurated, marking a significant change in the company’s operating

environment (

cf.

He & Baruch, 2010) since public health was now a nationalised

affair. This combined with new-found peace across Europe helped to bracket

Time

2 [1921-1949]

as a period which a) may have changed from Time 1 and b) may have

preceded an identity change in the following time period.

Time 3 [1950-1977]

followed chronologically and reflected peace-time, an established

NHS

and

increasing public wealth. The business expanded further and developed the drug

Ibuprofen.

At the close of this time period, Boot’s marked its centenary in 1977 which

coincided with the end of “company-grown”, family-oriented management. Boots’

launch into a new era was considered a suitable juncture for the final period of

Time 4 [1978-2002]

. During this time frame,

Boots were increasingly more

corporate and mature, navigating new social ideas such as neoliberal economics

under Thatcherism and environmentalism. The organization went through rapid

growth, diversification, and management changes but became increasingly more

stable through the 1990s and into the Millennium. Despite multiple changes within

this period, Time 4 was taken to represent a single (but dynamic) unit to follow the

previous temporal division of the case. These four discrete blocks of time

represented chronologically ordered, comparative units of analysis (T1), (T2), (T3)

and (T4) from which to make longitudinal observations of OI dynamics. Thus,

periodisation of the data was driven by a combination of induction from the

historical data itself that was further guided by, and had overlap with theories of

when significant junctures in Boot’s OI may have been likely to occur.

Method Selection

Choosing a qualitative method was not straightforward since critical realism

supports an eclectic interpretive epistemology rather than points to any specific

method (Yeung, 1997). Nevertheless, there has been some consensus that by

having an interpretive epistemology, qualitative approaches are the most

appropriate (Mingers, Mutch, & Willcocks, 2013; Yeung, 1997). In practice, it has

been mentioned that when a critical realist approach is taken the types of

qualitative methods used are not made explicit (Ravasi & Canato, 2013) with only a

mere description of empirical events being offered prior to retroductive analysis

(for example: Bygstad & Munkvold, 2011; Easton, 2010; Horrocks, 2009). This

practice of “quick rather than thick” data handling can bypass how researchers’

descriptions and observations were achieved which is important for establishing

the trustworthiness of any qualitative data and its subsequent interpretation

(Golafshani, 2003). To support the credibility of my research, I appealed to

historical method as a way to be critically sensitive toward my data sources

(McDowell, 2002; Donnelly & Norton, 2011) alongside adopting a transparent

qualitative method.

Grounded Theory Method (GTM) combined with data triangulation has been

suggested as a good method for critical realist based research (Yeung, 1997).

However, because I was not dealing with contemporary events and opting for

primarily an historical case study, data triangulation through interviews and

observations were not appropriate. Moreover, while GTM (as conceived by Glaser

& Strauss, 1967) appeared to offer a structured way in which to process and extract

data from documents, it arguably overly privileges empirical data beyond the

philosophical assumptions of critical realism. Indeed, critical realist research must at

some point elevate above the data to explain events through retroduction (Sayer,

1992). Content analysis was also considered since this offered a systematic way to

analyse documents by processes of coding and frequency counting (Joffe & Yardley,

2004). However, although content analysis works well at the level of a limited cross-

sectional data set, it would be challenged by the changes in language over time that

would occur in a longitudinal corpus of archival documents (Krippendorff, 1980).

Further, being more useful for recording frequencies of specific codes rather than

the interpretive meaning of codes (Joffe & Yardley, 2004), its use may have

restricted any depth of engagement with the data. These limitations of content

analysis led me to consider a related but more flexible research method – Thematic

Analysis.

The advantage of using thematic analysis was two-fold. First, it did not carry any

epistemological or ontological commitments (Braun & Clarke, 2006). This was

important since critical realism combines epistemological interpretivism with

ontological realism. Second, it permitted oscillation between inductive observation

of the data and use of theory meaning that themes could be generated from the

data but simultaneously be theoretically shaped (Yeung, 1997). This was important

since historical data already exists and thus the reconstruction of it needs to be led

with a specific theoretical construct in mind. Indeed, because I was undertaking a

type of analytical history, then I needed to be guided by a prior theoretical

understanding of OI to engage with the historical data. In the context of my

research, thematic analysis would then help me to inductively generate OI themes

from the historical data to surface OI in keeping with my interpretive epistemology,

but generating OI could be guided by what is theoretically known about OI.

Despite its utility as a method there were some potential limitations to using

thematic analysis. First, being reliant on what actually exists within the archive

thematic analysis does not easily draw attention to silences that have their own

story to tell (Carter, 2006; Decker, 2013; Anteby & Molnar, 2012). However, this

difficulty was mitigated since comparative analysis of themes across units of time

would show both elaborations and omissions of identity themes rendering silences

somewhat audible. Second, thematic analysis could also be considered a rather

blunt tool as it is reductionist and doesn’t always offer a thick, contextualised

description of all the data. However, in justifying the themes that I would generate

and trace through chronological units of time, I would descriptively elaborate their

content and in doing so would

qua product

create a narrative and contextualised

account of OI. This would be contra to producing a rich, but overly excessive

biographical account of the entire organizational history of the company that may

conceal data patterns (Eisenhardt, 1989).

Operationalising Organizational Identity

Having now established a research strategy, selected a case and method and

undertaken periodisation of the case, there was one more requirement to address

that was of central importance to conducting the research. Since the very concept

of OI itself was being investigated, a theoretical way to operationalise OI was

necessary. On the one hand this would need to avoid making ontological

assumptions about OI while on the other hand, aide generation of OI from the data.

According to Albert and Whetten (1985), OI can be self-referential statements an

organization makes about itself that are central, distinctive and enduring – a realist

position. However, a number of literature reviews (including my own in chapter one

of this thesis) have highlighted that OI is both chaotic and ontologically pluralist (for

example: Ravasi & Canato, 2013; He & Brown, 2013; Whetten, 2006). To proceed

required an inclusive model of OI that took account of this complexity without an

ontological bias.

One such model (that has been previously mentioned in my literature review) was

the five facet model of OI (Soenen & Moingeon 2002, see figure 2. below). The

facets were professed, projected, experienced, manifested and attributed identity.

Other identity categories such as ‘conscious’ versus ‘latent’ identity have also been

suggested (Pratt & Foreman, 2000). However, these levels could exist within each

facet of identity and notions of conscious identity suggest ontological ideas that OI

can exist as a psychological construct that is available to organizational members

(

cf.

Halsam et al., 2003). Conversely, the five facet model was ontologically silent,

focusing instead on synthesising the different ways in which OI is manifested as an

epistemological phenomenon. The combination of this inclusivity and breadth along

with the absence of ontological assumptions commended the five facet model as a

useful way to operationalise OI without taking a premature ontological leap and

respecting its conceptual complexity.

Figure 2:

The five facet model of OI reproduced from Soenen and Moingeon (2002,

p.17)

Difficulties were also apparent from using this model. First, it gave no way to define

OI and thus offer a workable criterion for identifying OI in documentary sources.

However, since my epistemological foundation was interpretive, archival sources

could be interrogated by asking a singular question: “what does this statement,

action, material or artefact say about the organization”? This meant that all data

could contain either explicit or latent identity text (Pratt & Foreman, 2000) within

any given data source or facet of OI. A second difficulty was the compatibility of the

five facets with the type of data available. For example, experienced identity would

not be easily identifiable in a corporate archive since this would rely on accounts of

Boot’s identity from multiple organizational members. Although some individual

accounts did exist within the archive (e.g. interview notes from the 1970s of senior

board members), these were individual rather than collective and also testimony,

which is considered unreliable by historians (Megill, 2007). Manifested identity was

also redundant since this referred to an historical identity (See fig 2.). Indeed,

because my research was already considering OI through an historical lens,

manifested identity would be more suited to research on OI informed by ‘current’

organizational members’ reference to an historical identity.

On the basis that manifested and experienced identity were not likely to be

relevant or readily available within the archive, these two facets of OI were not

used. This left behind professed, projected and attributed facets of identity. To this

was added a fourth category I termed “Corporate Identity” (CI). In keeping with

Cornelissen et al.’s (2007 p. S4) distinction between OI as analytical and CI as

‘material manifestations of identity’, I considered material aspects of the

organization (such as information about products, buildings, uniforms and

processes etc.) to be a potentially useful source of latent or symbolic identity

themes. Thus, the original five facet model was adapted to now include four facets

of OI that served an important function for operationalising OI. This was not so

much along the lines of what did or did not constitute OI; such as only statements

that only began with “we are...” could represent identity texts. Indeed, this would

have overlooked the richness of the data and strayed from interpretive generation

of OI. Rather, the facet model leant itself to identifying what could be a relevant OI

text such as self-referential, or mediated, claims about “who we are” as well as

expressions of identity that were less explicit. For example, OI could be encoded in

claims to certain beliefs, ideas and values (Archer, 1996) that would sometimes be

obvious “we believe that...” and other times evidenced through policies and

practices, which may then be interpreted. While this arguably could have been

captured more simply by notions of conscious and latent identity (Pratt & Foreman,

2000) there were a number of other benefits to using an adapted five facet model.

Three important benefits were added by using the facet model within the research.

First, it helped with identifying sources that may be relevant to OI in what was an

extensive corporate archive. An overabundance of sources can create dilemmas

about which to use (Kobrak & Schneider, 2011; Fridenson, 2008; Rowlinson, 2004)

and according to McDowell (2002), specificity is key when confronted with a large

number of sources. Thus, the facet model acted as a navigational tool and

suggested potential sources. For example, professed identity may have been

present in annual reports, while projected identity in promotional or

communication driven documents. Attributed identity was likely to have appeared

in trade journals and market research reports. Second, the model also supported

the hermeneutical sensitivity required when using historical sources (McAuley,

2004; McDowell, 2002; Donnelly & Norton, 2011). Indeed, using the facets

encouraged me to engage in historical method to identify the audience, author, and

intended purpose of each document when searching for identity related texts.

A final benefit came from the fact that using four different facets of OI would

enhance the credibility of my findings. To explain, if similar themes were generated

in between two and four facets, then these could be accepted as strong and

broadly evidenced themes, whereas themes only generated in one facet would

have less breadth of evidence and thus could be excluded or treated with greater

caution. Although this was not the type of data triangulation common to case study

dealing with contemporary events (Yin, 2004; Flyvbjerg, 2011; Yeung, 1997) it

nevertheless enhanced the credibility of identity themes I generated from the

thematic analysis. Indeed, having OI themes represented across multiple facets,

generated from evidence across sources and not privileging any one source (Rojas,

2010), would give a robust and broad evidence base. Given such benefit to using an

adapted five facet model, it was arguably superior to notions of conscious or latent

identity, which if used alone did not offer credibility or archival strategy. Thus, the

primary way I approached the data was mediated through the use of this adapted

model of organizational identity.

Ethical Considerations

In finishing my research design and strategy I also reflected on the way in which I

ought

to conduct the research in relation to ethics. Material within any archive,

although collected for a variety of purposes pertains to people and ideas meaning

that ethical issues surround the use of ‘private’ archival sources. For my research in

the field of business, these issues concerned the tension between open-access vs.

corporate privacy (Sillitoe, 2009; Danielson, 1989). Importantly, since Boots is

currently operational in the present my research had to be sensitive to what was at

stake – namely the reputation of the business (MacDonald, 1989). Moreover, there

are currently no legal obligations in the UK for businesses to keep records for the

purpose of preserving history (“Corporate Memory”, The National Archives, 2009).

Thus, to have been granted access was a privilege meaning due regard for the

reputation of the business was a priority. For example, inclusion of sensitive

material pertaining to the organization or drawing unbalanced negative critique

would be unlikely to foster a relationship of trust necessary for promoting access.

This relationship between access, privacy and reputation surfaced a second tension

between academic rigour and truthfulness about archival contents vs.

whitewashing the organization’s past in marketing-style reporting. Indeed, the issue

becomes particularly salient when addressing any historical records, be they

pertaining to either organizations or living persons. While unfiltered truthfulness

runs a risk of posing a threat to organizational or familial reputation, censorship

could be misleading and result in a loss of academic credibility and validity (Pinto-

Duschinsky, 1998). To guard against either, of central importance were the research

questions to be asked. In this project they were negotiated and co-developed

between me as the researcher, the corporate organization and the supporting

academic institution (University of Warwick). Through regular stakeholder

meetings, the development of my research questions and the whole research

process was shared with senior executive teams at Boots, and I was mindful of

corporate reputation in the formulation of the whole project. Although this was no

guarantee of what would be uncovered, it helped to build trust, provide

stakeholder reassurance and generate corporate interest in the project. Such a

collaborative approach has also been suggested by other historians when working

in corporate archives (Kobrak & Schneider, 2011).

Because ethical management of the relationship between access, privacy and

corporate reputation involved trust, I also reflected on more practical concerns in

terms of my integrity and behaviour as a researcher working with potentially

sensitive data. Toward promoting trust, the following personal code of conduct was

developed out of the ‘

code of conduct’

of the Archive and Records Association UK

and Ireland (ARA, updated in 2016) as an ethical guideline for my professional

conduct.

Not seeking to gain any personal or private benefit for oneself based on the

information available (for example, by selling information online or to a

journalist).

Not attempting to access through manipulation or use any restricted

sensitive information that may surround specific documents.

Allowing the archive manager and interested internal stakeholders the

opportunity to access findings at any stage of the research process.

If original or replicated documents were removed from the archive (with

permission) for further examination, then appropriate steps were taken to

secure them (in a locked filing cabinet and password restricted

computerised files) to minimise the possibility of access by third parties.

Not discussing aspects of the business, its operations or policies with

members of the public.

There were also some final considerations around the personal information of

individuals. These are subject to legislative Acts (Data Protection Act, 1998 &

Freedom of Information (FOi) Act, 2000) and as such extensive guidance for

handling any personal data was available from:

www.legislation.gov.uk

. Some

personal data came from deceased persons within the company, in which case

there were fewer restrictions. However, since the data remains the private property

of Walgreens Boots Alliance, potentially sensitive information relating to named or

recognisable individuals necessitated that permission from the organization would

need to be sought in the event of any publications of work including this

information. Sensitive personal information is defined under Article 1 part 2 of the

Data Protection Act (1998) as: ‘racial or ethnic origin, political opinion, religious

beliefs, trade union membership, mental or physical health conditions, sexual life

and the commission of offences and their related proceedings’. Moreover, since the

scale of the research encompassed the latter end of the 20

and early 21

Century,

data concerning living persons were treated with greater caution. Given the

complex nature of data protection and FOi legislation, archival sources that have

been used from this time were subject to the professional supervision of the

company archive manager.

Conducting the research

Data Sources

The empirical data were entirely derived from over a century of primary sources

within the Boots archive, an approach followed by Lusiani and Zan (2011) in their

historical case study of an international ceramics museum. In contrast to their use

of a limited range of documents, my analysis relied on a wide number of documents

from multiple sources. According to Barr et al. (1992, as cited in He & Baruch, 2010,

p. 49), annual reports ‘provide a robust source for longitudinal studies and can

provide insight for strategic and identity changes over time’. In addition, internal

staff magazines were also used which according to Griffiths (1999), can offer a

window into organizational culture (see also Phillips, 2008). Board minutes,

newspaper accounts, memoirs, administration documents, trade press and

advertisements have all been suggested as useful for organizational history

(Rowlinson et al., 2010; Armstrong, 1991). However, equipped with the adapted

five facet model I identified a number of sources that were relevant to my research.

These were:



Professed identity:

Annual reports, trade journals, political documents,

internal documents



Projected identity:

Shareholder brochures, prestige advertising, recruitment

brochures, staff magazines, internal newsletters



Attributed identity:

Independent press articles, correspondence, trade

journals (

Chemist & Druggist

), market research reports, governmental

correspondences



Corporate identity:

Staff training manuals, merchandising guides, product

guides, building articles

In practice, while there remained a tendency of a source to address one facet of

identity (for example, annual reports contained many more professed identity

statements than “mediated” shareholder brochures), there were often multiple

facets of OI co-existing within the same document. Moreover, initial readings of

documents led to identifying additional sources. For example, a brief mention of a

meeting in an annual report would prompt tracking down the minutes of the

meeting or associated documents. Thus, at times, sourcing data was iterative and

also guided inductively.

A second point of note surrounding data was that sources were not available for all

time frames reflecting the contingent and dynamic nature of the archive as a

repository limited and ‘shaped by social, political and technical forces’ (Mannoff,

2004, p. 12). For example, recruitment brochures were not available as a source of

projected identity in Time 1 (1892-1920), likely reflecting the way recruitment

practices may have changed over the 20

Century. The size and development of the

organization also played a role in what documents were available. For example,

shareholder brochures became increasingly important only after the 1930s when

Boots became increasingly owned by shareholders. In the opposite direction,

prestige advertising became increasingly redundant through time as Boots

advertising became more product based and brand-led. However, there were some

strong, consistent sources providing a supporting foundation to any source

fluctuations such as chairman statements in annual reports, staff magazines (

The

Bee; Beacon; Boots News; Blueprint

) and more generally, wider corporate

communication documents and brochures.

Data Extraction, Organisation and Theme Generation

Over all time periods I selected in excess of 1,200 documents to analyse across the

sources listed above, spending about two years on collection, data extraction and

analysis of documents. The work was extensive and labour intensive with many

sources containing large numbers of separate documents. For example, staff

magazines were bound into non-indexed annuals containing multiple-page weekly

magazines. Meanwhile, shareholder scrap books contained several hundred

individual documents glued into A2 size volumes that had to be carefully processed

page by page. Collecting data involved eight visits to the archive, which spanned on

average two weeks per-visit to sift and identify primary material that would be

relevant. Such a large corpus of material required systematic handling of the data

and I focused on each time unit consecutively and chronologically. Thus, I processed

all the data from Time 1 before moving on to Time 2 and so forth. At each pre-

arranged archival visit, I requested archival material a week in advance as a starting

point and from this would request more material as my search widened. After a

period of initial immersion to visually scan documents, I selected individual items

that were rich in identity related material. Where possible these were photocopied

by the archive team allowing me to spend time manually transcribing statements

from sources and documents that could not be copied. Following an archive visit

the archive manager would mail boxes of photocopied documents for me to

analyse away from the archive site.

To analyse the archival material, I pre-selected four colour codes to represent each

of the four facets of OI. For projected identity I used red, for professed identity,

green, attributed identity was coded pink and for CI, I used blue. Using these

colours, I closely read each document critically reflecting on author, audience,

purpose and content highlighting text that was appropriate to a given identity facet.

Within one document there were often multiple colour codes used, however, there

was a tendency for a document (for example: a newspaper advert to be coded

predominately using one colour – in this case green). Having coded all documents

for one time period in this way, I then transcribed each segment of text to a master

document in Microsoft Word using the appropriate colour as a type face. This

resulted in a single document with multiple, colour-coded texts. Following this, I

copy and pasted out of the master document all text excerpts of one colour code or

identity facet which resulted in a series of four documents containing text

categorised into each separate identity facet. Classifying into identity facets was not

always straightforward. For example, a self-referential statement beginning with

“we are...” might appear in a newspaper advert or staff magazine. Thus, when there

was a conflict over which code to use, some excerpts were occasionally coded for

twice reflecting their dual nature.

To retain track of sources each excerpt was titled with the document it came from

following the statement and a personal cataloguing reference code posted at the

front end. For example, if a piece of text was coloured red and from a Time 1 period

document it was given a pre-fix code of: T1_prf_Id_1, 2, 3 etc. which stood for Time

1, Professed Identity, Text 1, 2, 3. Following this, I employed Braun & Clarke’s

(2006) guidance for conducting thematic analysis by formulating a lexical thematic

descriptor for an excerpt by asking my interpretive question “what does this text

say about Boots?” The descriptor was then written in the margin next to the

statement. Not all statements selected were possible to summarise and these were

simply marked with an X and not included further. At this point each sub-document

now had a text, its referencing codes, title and a descriptive theme. Each

descriptive theme was then copied into a thematic document for each sub-

document resulting in four redacted documents with reference codes and

descriptors (now excluding the actual text itself). These pages were then printed

and line-by-line each reference code and its descriptor were manually cut out

allowing me to physically sort the descriptors for each document into groups.

At this stage, I had a number of reference-coded descriptors for each data extract,

grouped together, to which I then applied thematic labels. When there were less

than three descriptors in a group, I classified these themes as weak and excluded

them. Where there were more than four descriptors for a theme these were

considered strong. On occasion, some themes were overlapping and if appropriate

these were re-thematised. For example: themes such as philanthropic, charitable

and generous could be re-thematised as “Giving”. This was only done when data

were extremely rich and a number of similar themes had been generated. These

exact steps were systematically followed for each facet (colour-coded document) in

each of the four time periods in a structured step-wise fashion. In Appendix A,

samples of this work have been given. Finally, to aid writing up my findings, I

transferred the data into an Excel workbook thereby creating a working dossier of

identity themes to draw upon. Each tab in the workbook represented a time unit

and on each page, I recorded all the information ordered by each theme I

generated (see Appendix B).

The data from Time 4 unit (1977-2002/3) were handled slightly differently, although

they still represented a single time frame. This was because when generating the

themes it was noticeable there were several changes in Boot’s OI. To avoid

obscuring this by treating the data as a single unit, I increased sensitivity by adding

the year of the text to the pre-fix (for example: 1989_T4_Prf_Id_1). This additional

step allowed me to parse the generation of themes by decades which were

subsequently labelled as 1977-1989 (early), 1990-1999 (middle) and post 1999

(late). All the steps outlined above were still followed but T4 was analytically

treated as three separate units, although to provide continuity in periodisation it

was considered overall as a complete unit of time.

When thematic coding was completed the generated themes were collated into a

matrix table grouped under their identity facet (see Table 1. below).

From this table, I then cross compared themes and selected only those that were

represented across more than one facet rejecting those appearing in only one facet.

In this way, I was able to generate global OI themes for each time period that were

represented by more than one identity facet and had therefore been generated

from multiple sources of primary documents. This was conducted for the themes in

each time frame which led to development of a second matrix table (see Table 2.

also below) that depicted global OI themes for each time frame thereby giving an

overview of Boot’s identity across the whole time period.

Table 1:

Identity Matrix Table for T1 with Themes From Different Identity Facets

Professed ID

Projected ID

Attributed ID*

Corporate ID

Global Themes

The Best*

A leader

Capable**

Safe

The best*

Big

Nationalistic*

Courageous

Capable***

Thorough

Desirable

Powerful

Technological

ly advanced

Capable***

Modern

Capable***

Innovative

Nationalistic

The Best*

Capable***

Nationalistic

Trustworth

y/ Upright

Caring

employer

Public

serving

Socially

idealistic

Communicati

Trustworthy

Socially

idealist

For the public

interest

Altruistic

Virtuous

Economically

responsible

Caring

Socially

transformative

Publically

oriented

Assured

(trustworthy)

Economically

just

Inspirational

Assured

Public

serving

Trustworthy

Public

serving

Socially

idealistic

Caring

Economically

responsible

Assured

A chemist

Female

Chemicals

and Drugs

Chemist’s

*, **, *** Examples of identifying common themes across identity facets to generate global

themes

(Table produced within each time frame)

Table 2:

Matrix of Global Identity Themes across all Four Time Periods

Time 1

1892-1920

Time 2

1921-1949

Time 3

1950-1977

Time 4 (early)

1978-1989

Time 4 (middle)

1990-1999

Time 4 (late)

1999-2002

The Best

Capable

Nationalistic

National

Capable

Innovative

Expansionist

Confident

No coherent

global themes

Shareholder focused

A business

Competitive

Knowledgeable

Dynamic

An Authority

Focused

Trustworthy

Public serving

Socially idealistic

Caring (staff)

Economically

responsible

Assured

A public /national

service

Relational

Nurturing (staff)

Assured

Pro-social

Trusted

Service oriented

(customers)

Trustworthy

Nurturing (staff)

Public serving

Relational

Assured

Pro-social

Customer service

oriented

Historically

grounded

Offering quality

Socially

responsible

Community oriented

Environmentally

responsible

Historically grounded

Relational

Supportive (of staff)

Customer –led

Socially responsible

Trustworthy

Historically linked

Communitarian

Service-offering

Relational

(collaborative)

A chemist’s

Health & medical

service

A chemist’s

Large

Unclear given

the diversity of

Boots Group

Health et al. &

Pharmacists

Health care &

pharmacy

Chapter Summary

What has been laid out in this methods chapter has been the development of my

research design and how I conducted my study. In the beginning section I discussed

a critical realist framework for conducting the research. Through incorporating

ideas from Archer’s (1995; 1996) morphogenetic approach this led to the

development of an adapted step-wise framework. Moreover, because I was taking

a case-based approach, I also formulated a case strategy in which I selected a

suitable case and demarcated it into four analytical temporal units. Aligned to this, I

reflected on and chose a qualitative method to generate data from historical

primary source material along with a way in which to operationalise OI. Ethical

considerations were also explored, following a report of the data sources that were

used in my study. Finally, in the second section to the chapter I also offered a

transparent account of the procedures I used to extract data from documents and

generate OI themes. In effect, this represented the first two steps of my research

framework: to select a case with access to an archive and extract historical data to

generate OI themes. In the following four chapters the data is both presented and

explained in further detail relating to the third and fourth steps of my research

design, which were to a) comparatively describe and b) explain the observable

dynamics of Boot’s empirical OI across time points.

100

Chapter 4

Results I: Identity Genesis

General introduction

The archival data were analysed using the method outlined in the previous chapter

which generated a number of global identity themes for each of the four time units.

In this next section, the empirical data generated over these four units of time were

presented as individual chapters that correspond to their respective time frame.

This chapter related to Time 1 which was the period of 1892-1920, while in the

following chapter (chapter 5) I present the themes from 1920 to 1949. Chapter 6

relays the empirical findings from Time 3 (1950 – 1977) and the results section

ended at chapter 7 which brought together the three sub-periods (early, middle &

late) of the T4 period (1978-2002). The decision to order chapters chronologically

was for pragmatic reasons since it worked better with my four time units than if

ordered by themes of which there were too many to demarcate by chapters.

Each chapter begins with a brief introduction to contextualise the time period and

then using sub-headings; identity themes are expanded on and evidenced by

offering a narrative account built around extracts of text that maximally

represented the OI themes. This represented step three of my research framework.

To end each chapter and enact my fourth research step, I used a retroductive style

of argumentation by contrasting possible explanations of the data to develop a

101

credible account for what had been observed comparative to what had previously

been evidenced in terms of OI in previous time frames. In this way, across the next

four chapters I develop an analytical history (

cf.

Rowlinson et al., 2014) of OI at

Boots that covered the entire case-period.

As a template to guide the chapters that followed, I reordered data from Table 2. in

the previous chapter to highlight the dynamics of the identity themes more clearly.

Thus, Table 3. offered below, depicts the global identity themes as they were

generated for each time frame that can be traced across time beginning with Boot’s

records from T1. The following time frame revealed some expansion in themes

which was continued through T3 but in the early period of T4, only two themes

were generated due to a generalised lack of identity related texts within the archive

material. This time period corresponded with multiple changes at Boots and the

surrounding social environment which were explained in more detail in chapter 7.

Finally, the last two periods within the T4 frame revealed somewhat of a recovery

in identity themes and enabled a continuation of the analysis to its completion just

after the Millennium. Detailed description of Table 3. has been purposefully

avoided here since describing and explaining the dynamics in Boot’s OI themes

form the main content of my results chapters to which we now turn.

102

Table 3:

Thematically Ordered

Parallel

Matrix of Global Identity Themes Across all Time Periods

Time 1

1892-1920

Time 2

1921-1949

Time 3

1950-1977

Time 4 (early)

1978-1989

Time 4 (middle)

1990-1999

Time 4 (late)

1999-2002

Capable



Nationalistic



The Best*

Capable

National

Innovative



Confident

Expansionist

Innovative



Shareholder focused

A business

Knowledgeable



Dynamic*

Competitive*

Knowledgeable

Focused*

Trustworthy



Public serving



Socially idealistic



Caring (staff)



Assured



Economically

responsible*

Trusted



A public/national

service



Pro-social



Nurturing (staff)



Assured



Relational



Service oriented

(customers)



Trustworthy

Public serving

Pro-social



Nurturing (staff)

Assured



Relational



Customer service

Oriented



Historically grounded



Socially responsible



Offering quality



Socially responsible



Supportive (of staff)

Relational



Customer–led



Historically grounded



Community oriented



Environmentally responsible

Trustworthy

Socially responsible

Relational

Customer service

oriented

Grounded in history

Communitarian

Chemist’s



Health & medical

service



A chemist’s

Large*



Health et al &

pharmacists



Health care &

pharmacy/chemist

*Identity themes not included in the analysis

Enduring themes in bold

Shorter-lived themes in italics

Stand-alone themes in type face



Linked across time frames

103

Introduction to T1

To contextualise the build-up to this time frame prior to 1892, a biographical

account of Boots the Chemist by business historian, Stanley Chapman (1973),

described the early development of Boots. Archival records were scarce before this

time prompting me to rely heavily on Chapman’s account as an introduction to the

business in its earliest stage of development. Boots the Chemist began as a small

herbalist and patent health-remedy retailer during the mid-nineteenth century in

Nottingham, England. Later, it was owned by Jesse Boot, who following the death

of his father and his mother’s retirement had become the sole proprietor. The shop

was located in a deprived area and the social landscape of the time was one of

poverty and chronic poor health (Hill, 1985, p. 126). This was compounded by a

chemist trade monopolised by independent chemists that kept prices high and thus

unaffordable for many (Pearsons Weekly, 17

July, 1897). A change in the law

around dispensing in 1880 [

The Pharmaceutical Society vs. The London and

Provincial Supply Association Ltd.]

meant that a company could call itself a chemists

and dispense medicines through employing the services of a qualified pharmacist.

Jesse Boot took advantage of this change and appointed his first qualified

dispensing chemist Mr E. Waring in 1884. Thus, Boots the Chemist had been

created. By 1886, Jesse had married Florence Rowe, the daughter of a bookseller

based in Jersey. It was under her influence that Boots branched out to sell non-

chemist merchandise such as stationery, gifts, fancy-goods and opened in-store

lending libraries [1898]. By the years of 1892/93 Jesse Boot had established 33

104

chemist branches, a manufacturing and packaging factory for medicines, a print-

works, and a shop-fitting department (Chapman, 1973).

Boot’s Identity at T1 (1892-1920)

Boots as a “chemists”

From a functional perspective, despite offering a range of merchandise unrelated to

pharmacy (1014/5, Home Diary, 1917), Boots primarily regarded itself as a

“chemist”.

...the chemist and druggist is still the main stream through which the greater

part of the business flows

(C & D, 1900, p.1927).

This was supported by secondary data compiled from original company sources by

Chapman (1973, p.71) which showed that in 1902, company expenditure on patent

medicines and proprietary remedies was four times greater than for toiletries,

photographic supplies, stationery and art (see Table 4.). That Boots were principally

a chemist operation was also documented by G. R. Elliot who recounted the early

days of the company in a staff magazine,

The Beacon

[1933]. Meanwhile, the

manufacturing arm of the business was also producing “chemist” products such as

milk of magnesia and toothpaste (341/1, Staff memoirs: 1908-1911), and by 1919,

Boots were also producing medicinal chemicals and antiseptics (A18/50, British

Made Chemicals, 1919).

105

Table 4:

Purchases by Boots Pure Drug Co., 1892-1902 (£000s)

Year

ending 30

Sept.

Patent

medicines

and

proprietaries

Drysalteries,

drugs and

herbs

Toiletries,

photographic

Stationery,

art, fancy

goods, etc

Total

1892

1893

1894

106

1895

136

1896

112

183

1897

151

246

1898

182

299

1899

217

364

1900

254

438

1901

315

549

1902

410

101

104

708

Chapman, 1973, p.71

For Boots, being a chemist was a primary functional identity. The company’s claim

to this created something of a stir among the independent chemist trade of the day

since “chemist” was a professionally guarded title gained through a long

apprenticeship and rigorous exams to gain entrance to the Pharmaceutical Society

registered member of the Society, and employed chemists as waged employees.

Consequently, independent chemists felt that Boots should not be allowed to use

the title of chemist leading to a protracted and lengthy battle through the House of

Lords that resulted in the passing of the 1908 Pharmacy and Poisons Act. Central to

the Act was a clause in which it had been decided that companies could indeed be

called “chemists” and operate a chemists business if they employed chemists to sell

and dispense medicines and poisons. The battle between Boots and the

independent chemists (supported by regional-level and the national Pharmaceutical

106

Society) was played out with dramatic force in both the press and the

Pharmaceutical Society’s trade journal,

Chemist & Druggist

(C & D).

It would be apparent how utterly unfair it was to the orthodox and examined

person that he should be surplanted by the unlicensed pirate [Jesse Boot]

who traded upon a reputation he had stolen and did not posses in his own

brains the knowledge which ought to be the only passport either to medicine

or pharmacy

(465/7, Nottingham Daily Express, Fri, 24 Nov 1905).

Avoid these unholy alliances. Shun the stores as you would Satan

(465/7:

points regarding libel case, 1898).

Sir- Some common sense is being gradually evolved from this

correspondence. We are beginning to see that the monster [Boots] which is

disturbing our peace and prosperity has at least three heads, all of which

must be loped off by the reformers axe ere the trade can become what it

ought in justice to be... Yours truly, a Liverpool Chemist

(C & D, 1893, Dec,

16, p.874).

A large number of articles, published letters and press reports in the build-up to the

Act were documented in Boot’s archive revealing that the chemist trade perceived

Boots to be illegitimate, unqualified and an unfair, dangerous competitor. The latter

of these concerns were because Boots had adopted a trading policy based on cash,

107

rather than account, which allowed the company to purchase in bulk and sell large

quantities for a small profit. This was comparative to the independents who could

not afford to buy such large quantities of wholesale goods. Further, by being able to

mass-manufacture their own products in their factory facilities, Boots were able to

produce remedies at lower cost than those of independent chemists who created

small quantities of medicines in their individual premises (Chapman, 1973). Thus,

Boots were able to offer the pubic fresher and more affordable pharmaceutical

products than those of independent chemists. It was this level of competitive threat

that initiated the dispute in which Boots put up their own fight accusing

independent chemists of profiteering without concern for the public:

The real point of issue is whether chemists should be allowed to again

charge the exorbitant prices which formerly made the purchase of medicines

so heavy a drain on the small resources of the people. Stores and companies

dealing in chemist’s and druggist articles number their customers by the

millions because they have brought the price of medicine down to a natural

and moderate figure. An attempt is now being made to undo this good work

and deprive the poorer classes of the benefit which competition has

conferred upon them by the prices of drugs having been reduced to half

those formerly charged, and that without in any way affecting their quality –

Jesse Boot

(C & D, 1900 Mar 10, p.416/7).

108

Throughout the duration of the dispute Boots frequently made strong assertions

about their identity as a chemist in both apologist and polemical documents (File:

441/1; A45, 1906). In one typical example the company professed:

Reasons to call itself [Boots] a chemist: We are a chemists. We do a chemist

business. We are publically accepted as a chemists (Y37, C1905, advert).

Boots as a “public service”

Related to Boots being a chemist and challenging the price monopoly of an

independent chemist trade was evidence that enabled a theme of “public Service”

to be generated. This was epitomized in an article written by the company that was

published in

The Times

newspaper on Saturday 17

1904 (465/7):

Boots Cash Chemist may with justice claim to have done a great public

service in reducing the cost of Drugs and dispensing of prescriptions.

Indeed, Boots trading style of cash purchasing, bulk-buying and small profit mark-

up with high turnover was a novel approach which broke with the traditional

trading model of pharmacy at the turn of the century. Cheaper medicines were

decidedly in the public interest as revealed by Jesse Boot’s address to shareholders

at the company’s fifth Annual Meeting:

109

Mr Boot said that he felt at that time there was great force in the expression

of John Stuart Mill, to the effect that competition as then carried on did not

benefit the public, but simply divided the business into small proprietors,

each making a huge profit compared with their small turnover. He claimed

that by [Boots] breaking through the traditions of the trade as regards

profits they had not only served the public, but had made a splendid business

for themselves

(C & D, Dec 4, 1897, p.889).

Similar sentiments were echoed in Boots response to the Pharmacy Acts

Amendment Bill in 1905 (441/1), in which the company claimed that its trading

approach was ‘

a modern system and a public boon’

... that answered ‘

a general call

for medicinal drugs at reasonable prices’

. To emphasise the point, Jesse also

appealed to the company’s extraordinarily rapid growth as evidence that Boots

‘

had met the requirements of the public

’ and thus was in effect offering a public

service (A45, Pharmacy & Poisons Bill flyer, 1906). Indeed, the company had

expanded massively by this time having developed from 33 shops in 1892, to 126

just five years later [1897] and by 1906, the time the flyer was written, Boots

owned 329 shops taking over £1, 505, 011 in that year alone (Chapman, 1973,

p.77/90).

Additional to declarations of being a public service, Boots also projected a public

service identity in the media. For example, in

Pearson Weekly

, a widely circulated

magazine of stories and curiosities, an account was published that described the

110

rise of Boots the Chemist (17

July, 1897). The article portrayed a public service

identity realised through Boot’s commercial operations:

Old fashioned chemists largely have themselves to blame for their downfall.

Their profits were enormous, outrageous – such, indeed, as to make very

difficult, sometimes impossible for the poorer classes to afford proper

medicines... they decline to budge one jot from their ancient position... the

companies have rushed to their present position of extreme popular favour –

a favour which they really deserve – because now the working man with a

sick wife and child can for 9d. a prescription which would have cost 2|-

twenty years ago...this one company [Boots] alone is saving its customers

every week about £3, 200.

Meanwhile, in

The Times

newspaper the company were advertising themselves as

‘

Boots Cash Chemist: Allies of the Public’

(Sat 17

1904) and promoting through

their pricing policies that they were classless, being for ‘

PEER AND PEASANT ALIKE’

(The Trader, vol III, no 69, Jan 29

1910). Over in different publishing quarters,

writers for the independent but liberal leaning magazine

TRUTH

, established by

Henry Labouchere in 1877, had nothing but praise for Boots stating...

’The firm

[Boots] which has deservedly won the right to the title the People’s Chemist’

(Truth,

Industrial Supplement –no 26). Further comments described Boots as being of

‘

considerable advantage to the public’

and ‘

a business which ministers to the

national health

’. This was considered an independent opinion since the periodical

111

TRUTH

was oriented towards investigative journalism and experienced frequent

libel actions (Walker-Smith, 1934). Thus, praise from a magazine as sceptical as

TRUTH

was both high, and likely to have a degree of credibility.

On a final note, Boot’s non-chemist offerings could also have been regarded as a

public service since they were providing the public so much more than simply a

chemist’s service. Within many Boots stores were ‘

first-class circulating libraries’

that supported affordable access to literacy and attached to some, were ‘

first-class

cafes’

enabling easy opportunities for people to socialise (Home Diary, 1917).

Moreover, by selling gifts, art, fancy-goods and cameras alongside medicines and

toilet-goods (Home Diary, 1917), Boots were attempting to offer the broadest

appeal to all and thus cater to the public in as many ways as possible.

Boots as “nationalistic”

Notions of public service outlined above intersected with a ‘nationalistic’

identity.

This was unsurprising given that within the geographical boundary of a nation-state

such a Great Britain, the public also represent the Nation. Thus, by serving the

public Boots were also serving the nation. However, this was not the only ground

for this theme since Boots nationalistic identity was further evidenced by the way in

which Boots projected its identity during the First World War, particularly through

product development. For example, in newspaper adverts published in 1914, Boots

described itself as a patriotic army:

112

Boots 800 qualified pharmacists giving the enemy the order of the BOOT...

Boots the chemist have declared War on German and German owned food,

drugs, and toilet articles. Science equal to the best has been brought to bear.

German and other alien formulae, secret or otherwise have been unmasked

and equalled or excelled

(Advertisement, Daily Mail front page, Oct 22

1914).

Meanwhile, in own publication material such as Boot’s Diaries, the company were

boasting of wresting from German markets products such as grease paints for stage

actors (1917, Home Diary). Within this publication Boots listed many different

German products it had taken over production of:

Extensive manufacture of fine chemicals and medicinal preparations in large

quantities formerly made by German chemists...by the production of

identical or superior articles Boots have supplanted the German made

Sanatogen, Asprin, Formalin, Formamint, Urotropine, Lysol, Eau do Cologne,

and Grease Paints.

This culminated in 1919 with Boots publishing a pamphlet “

BRITSH MADE

CHEMICALS

” that listed all their

‘British-made synthetic medicinal chemicals and

antiseptic substances unquestionably superior to those previously from abroad’

113

Drugs and compounds which were commonly used in Britain, for example, Asprin,

Saccharin and branded remedies such as Sanatogen health tonic, were typically

imported from Germany; a powerful leader in the global pharmaceutical industry

boasting large corporations such as Bayer (Jeffreys, 2005). Thus, by producing these

products Boots were revealing a nationalistic and patriotic identity, taking full

advantage of import bans to develop their business further. Given a government

imposed ban on imports, production of German goods could have been interpreted

as merely “good business sense” rather than nationalism. However, that war-time

production was patriotic rather than simply business-led activity was indicated by

the fact that Boots had originally planned to produce saccharin ‘

on a comparatively

modest scale’

but was asked by the government to do more leading Boots to

become ‘

responsible for the bulk of British production’

(Chapman, 1973, pp.97-98).

Boot’s war effort also extended further than purely replacing German products

since the company were also developing specific products for front-line service men

such as ”Vermin in the Trenches”, “Foot Comfort” and “Tommy Cooker” fuel tablets

(Staff Memoirs, 1908-1911, London Rd. Factory). Alongside these, box respirator

production for gas attacks and munitions manufacture were also mentioned in the

pages of an in-house magazine called

Comrades in Khaki

(1916, March, p. 386/7).

The publishing of this magazine, of which the costs were borne entirely by the

company, was also telling of a nationalistic identity since it was primarily for Boot’s

staff fighting on the front-lines serving to promote morale, comfort and connection

with the company back home in Britain.

114

Boots as “socially idealistic”

Although the First World War was a contextual opportunity for Boots to serve both

the national and public interest, Boot’s public service identity appeared to be driven

by a more personal undercurrent. Analysis of the archival data revealed that Boots

was a ‘socially idealistic’ enterprise with a basis in the personal character and

philosophy of the founder, Jesse Boot. The company solicitor, Ald E. Huntsman,

recounted Jesse once saying “

I am a man of action, but I have always had so much

ideality

” (334/1, PSC 4/8/5/1, 15

June, 1931, ‘The Lord Trent as I knew him’).

That

Jesse was an idealist and

social reformer was confirmed in a magazine called

The

Trader: An Illustrated Journal for Business Men

. In an extensive report on Boots, the

article leant on speeches given by Jesse Boot himself, in which he claimed:

I do not desire more personal profit than I am now getting out of the

business. I am in business solely to carry out my ideals of how business

should be carried out. I have a personal work to do that no-one else can

do....If I live to get through all I want to do for the comfort of our workers in

the works I would like to do something better for the housing of the unskilled

labourer. Commencing with those in our employ. The housing question

weighs heavily on my mind

(Vol III, no 69. Jan 29

, 1910).

Similar sentiments were echoed in a speech Jesse gave to the T. U. C. recorded

within Boots Athletic Club (BAC) staff journal (October, 1908), that placed Jesse’s

sentiments with the cause of the worker:

115

Mr Boot who was received with the utmost cordiality replied addressing his

audience as “fellow workers”, He said...I claim to sit with you representatives

of labour as the son of a man who belonged to the lowest rank of

workers...is it any wonder that my sympathies are with the cause of labour.

Jesse’s father, who had originally been a poor agriculture worker, appeared to have

influenced Jesse Boot’s ideals (Chapman, 1973), but from a number of other

speeches it was clear he was further influenced by Methodism (BAC, 1908), the

socialist Arts & Crafts designer William Morris (C & D, 1902, Feb 15

, p.260) and

John Stuart Mill’s utilitarianism (C & D, 1897, Dec 4

, p.889). Connected to these

inspiring socialist figures were projections of organisational sentiments such as

‘

humanity is for everyday use’

(Home Diary, 1917) and even one advert for Cod

Liver Oil intimated: “

Support Boots, the TRADE REFORMER!

” (The Beacon, 1933 –

The early days of Boots). The publication,

Home Diary

(1917) went further linking

Boot’s commercial activities to Jesse’s social reformist ideals:

Realising how such reform would be of popular benefit [cf. Mill’s

Utilitarianism], set to work to cheapen many daily necessities by purchasing

and selling on a large scale, and by eliminating the middleman and so

bringing commodities directly to the customer. Cash had always been the

basis of his trading: no discounts are lost and no bad debts made.

116

While Boot’s policies of cash trading and bulk purchase contributed to the social

reform of the chemist trade, manufacturing of Own Goods that could be sold

cheaply was also a factor. The decision taken by Boots to manufacture was

accounted for by Bob Elliot, an employee from Boot’s earliest days, as stemming

from: ‘

a determination to pay a fair wage and not deal in sweated goods as from

any view of saving by manufacturing

’ (The Trader, vol III, 1910), a further

illustration of Jesse’s reformist beliefs.

Boots as a “caring” organization

Allied with notions of social and trade reform were considerations of staff welfare,

which supported generation of a theme that Boots were a ‘caring’ organization. For

Boots, employees were regarded as key stakeholders in the business and thus

ought to share in the company’s success:

[Jesse Boot]

want everyone in this business to feel its benefits individually –

without favouritism – according to their merit and position. I could not detail

tonight how I should like to accomplish this but it is to be done, and until it is

done my ideal will be unaccomplished

(C & D, 1902, February 15th, p. 260).

That Boots cared about its staff was also revealed in the

TRUTH

magazine article,

which outlined measures of staff welfare the company were taking such as offering

pension funds for chemists, employing technology to improve labour conditions,

providing opportunities to progress through pharmaceutical training scholarships

117

and encouraging a number of different leisure clubs. For staff, in their day-to-day

work Bob Elliot’s account in

The Beacon

[1933] also highlighted:

...that Mr. Boot keeps the creature comforts of his employees well in view, a

comfortable kitchen and mess and retiring rooms being fitted for the use of

the female hands, the kitchen being equipped with stoves, fire-places, hot

plates, etc., for their use’.

Attributions and evidence that Boots was a caring employer were further supported

across the archive with

The Boots Athletic Association Journal

revealing the number

and range of sports and social clubs that Boots offered, as well as annual reports

frequently discussing the Chemist’s pension fund. Day trips and staff excursions

were also a feature with photographic materials depicting a staff picnic in

Castleton, Derbyshire in 1894 (see below).

118

In 1908, almost a thousand women employees were taken by Boots on a specially

organised train to visit the Franco-British exhibition in London. Meanwhile Jesse’s

wife, Florence, concerned herself with the welfare of the female staff which was

later extended by employing an industrial welfare team of four beginning in 1911

with Miss Eleanor Kelly (Chapman, 1973). Staff education and learning were also

supported by the company through Boots offering a free evening school

programme for young employees less than 16 years of age (The Trader, 25

April,

1914). Later, the school developed into Boot’s College. Indeed, there were an

abundance of documents evidencing Boot’s care for their staff. Although this theme

119

was not strongly represented through textual affirmative declarations of being a

caring employer, there were many documents pertaining to Boot’s paternalistic

care for their employees that justified this identity theme.

Boots as “capable”

Inasmuch as Boots were occupied with pursuing matters of social justice and a

concern for both the nation and fellow man, the company were also a highly

‘capable’ organization. From the perspective of social psychology, perception of

capability pertains to the capacity to enact from intention and thus represents

having power and agency through resources, skills and experience (Cuddy, Glick, &

Beninger, 2011). The archival data showed that Boots had such capability. For

example, when projecting its identity through publications such as

Home Diary

(1917) the company claimed that:

It is impossible to not realise why Boots is a household word even as it is

impossible to realise thoroughly that the one firm not only provides for the

myriad requirements of countless customers, but also performs for itself all

the work of manufacture and all other associated duties, as well as collecting

and distributing more commodities than any other firm of retail chemists in

the world. They employ the finest printing plant possible...for Boots are their

own printers...Boots are their own packers...there is a big fleet of motor cars,

vans and trollies as well as horse drawn vehicles for the work of transport –

and Boots do so comprehensively that they even draw their own coal. Boots

120

in short do everything possible for themselves, and so save expense while

ensuring reliability

The company further claimed that its levels of organisation were ‘

clockwork

’ and

things were run with proper safety precautions, ‘

system and efficiency’

(Home

Diary, 1917). This was reiterated in G. R. Elliot’s report (The Beacon, 1933) in which

he pointed out that Boots were a ‘

self contained establishment’

. Meanwhile,

Success Magazine

(1929), reflecting on the development of Boots, were heralding

the company’s shops as ‘

well- organised and attractive’

and their owner (Jesse

Boot) as ‘

possessing vigour and brains’

. The independent magazine

TRUTH

(1912,

No 26), again, drew attention to the same aspects of capability, such as being a ‘

self

contained

’, centralised organisation, that paid ‘

attention to every detail

’. In

explaining Boot’s success, the article also attributed to Boots the qualities of

‘

Foresight

’ and ‘

Enterprise

’ and possessing the ‘

power of organisation’

in the face of

a long opposition by independent chemists. Indeed, during those days of dispute

with the Chemist trade, in which the company policy was ‘

to go direct to

manufacturers to buy what we want and sell it for what we like

’ (an indication of

financial power) (C & D, Dec, 4 1897, p. 889), Boots, of itself, professed to have an

indomitable fighting spirit claiming in

Trader Magazine

(Jan 29

, 1910):

So strong and bitter was the feeling of the trade against us in the past that it

developed in us an equally strong fighting spirit. Looking back we rather

121

overdid the fighting. Certainly in those days we called a spade a spade

without any superfluous adornments.

Another contribution to Boot’s capability was developed by choosing to

manufacture at early point in the life of the business. This gave the company time

to develop increasing capability and control over price competition and drug quality

(A18/50, C1919: British Made Chemicals Booklet) and by embracing technology,

Boot’s manufacturing laboratories were:

Organised on modern commercial lines and fully equipped with the latest

scientific plant and machinery for rapid and economic production’

Research staff at the laboratories also leant to Boots scientific capability since

through their work; the company were able to develop complex processes of

manufacturing under difficult war-time conditions for important medicinal

substances such as Aspirin and Phenolphtalein (A18/50, C1919: British Made

Chemicals;

cf.

Chapman, 1973).

Boots as “assured”

Expertise and control in manufacturing went hand-in-hand with the quality of Own

Goods produced at Boot’s factories and sold through its High Street chemist

branches. Consequently, comparative to other chemists, Boot’s products were

‘assured’. This was adopted as a differentiating identity feature of the company

122

from smaller independent chemists that could not always guarantee the freshness

of their products due to small scale production and sales. (C1900s, advertising

articles file).

TRUTH

magazine (1912) wrote of Boots that:

Cheapness alone would, however, by no means have sufficed to secure

success. Purity is even more important in the case of medicines than

cheapness and as to the purity and quality of Messrs. Boots’ drugs there can

be no doubt. It has been the fashion in some quarters to cavil at large

companies like Boots, owing to the belief that supervision in a large business

is more difficult than in a small one. Precisely the reverse is the case. In the

case of Messrs. Boots, the safeguards for insuring the purity and reliability of

their goods are beyond dispute.

The text above was supported by a full page photograph depicting Boot’s analytical

department, which was centrally important for the company to maintain purity of

products. At the Boots factory in Island Street, Nottingham:

Samples of all the goods purchased by Boots [are tested] and before a

certificate of quality is issued none of the goods are taken into use. Tests are

made of materials at all stages of manufacture, so every preparation shall

reach the public in perfect condition

(

op cit

)

123

The purity and assuredness of Own Goods were also heavily promoted in the

booklet

British Made Chemicals

(1919). Their assured purity and quality were seen

as a unique selling point and what made Boots own branded products, furnished

with the familiar Boots script logo, stand out against other proprietary medicines.

TRUTH

magazine also highlighted this, stating:

In each detail every possible care is taken in the [Boots] Pure Drug

Company’s [A Boots trading name] factory to ensure that the finished article

which is supplied to the public shall be perfect as science and skill can make

it. Skilled chemists analyse the ingredients before they leave the warehouse.

When they get to the factory, every precaution is taken that no foreign

substance shall contaminate them. The purchaser may absolutely depend

therefore upon the article which bears Messrs. Boots label being in quality,

weight, and condition exactly what it claims to be.

Thus, the name of Boots was symbolically associated with assured quality from its

very earliest days fuelled by promotion of Own Goods as scientific and of

guaranteed quality and safety (Home Diary, 1917).

Boots as “trustworthy”

When assured quality in products was added to Boot’s self-professed honesty in

advertising (The Trader, Jan 1910):

124

“say nothing but what is truthful in your advertisement” That has been a

strict and invariable rule ever since I joined the firm; and it is never

purposefully deviated from...

...and combined with both the company’s identity as a public service (Nottingham

Daily Guardian, Aug 19

, 1892 – shareholder report), alongside their concern for

staff welfare (e.g. C & D, July 13

, 1895, p.70) a final theme of Boots as

‘trustworthy’ organization was generated.

Explaining Boot’s OI at Time 1

The eight identity themes evidenced above marked the genesis of Boot’s OI within

its archival records. Consequently, T1 represented Boot’s early cultural-system

(Archer, 1996), in which both the company’s OI and its archive were initially

constructed. The formation of nascent OI is a relatively new area of research but

there did seem initial consensus that in its earliest stages an OI is constructed by

organizational agents drawing on and emulating similar organizations within a given

institutional-level field (Gioa et al., 2013; Glynn, 2008; Whetten & Mackey 2002).

Other research supports this understanding since when new organizations conform

to the identities of contemporary organizations they are more likely to be

successful comparative to organizations that attempt to create an alternative

identity (Czarniawska & Wolff, 1998). Although it is acknowledged that some

degree of differentiation is necessary for creating positive distinctiveness between

contemporary organizations (Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Elsbach & Kramer, 1996;

125

Haslam, 2004; Pedersen & Dobbin, 2006), too much divergence could result in a

lack of isomorphism leading to organizational failure (Czarniawska & Wolff, 1998).

The implication of previous research is that for a given organization and their

identity to be legitimately accepted, emulation of and conformity to the

characteristics of existing contemporary organizations is likely to be the case (for

example: Glynn & Abzug 2002).

For Boots, the empirical evidence suggested that their OI was formed somewhat

differently. Rather than emulate the existing chemist trade at the time, Boots broke

with the traditions of professional identity, high prices, high profits, and offering

credit. Instead, Jesse Boot had no chemist qualifications, offered pharmacy goods at

low prices for low profit mark-ups and traded on a cash only basis. This put Boots in

opposition to the existing chemist trade in Great Britain yet still allowed the

company to claim identity markers such as ‘assured quality’ and ‘trustworthiness’,

without recourse to being a professional chemist. Instead, notions of quality and

trustworthiness were tied to high stock turnover and large-scale manufacturing

with careful analytical control. Boots also adopted an identity of being a ‘public

service’, which was something traditionally claimed by the independent chemist

trade. However, because of the social importance of Boot’s trading and pricing

policies, it was soon shown that Boots were offering a greater public benefit than

that of independent, professional chemists. Given such a challenge it was

unsurprising that an identity war erupted between Boots and the chemist trade in

the 1900s resulting in Boots

the Company

being legitimately recognised as a

126

chemist through legislative Acts [1908]. Thus, evident from the data, Boot’s identity

had not been created by conformity to the chemist trade meaning an alternative

explanation for the construction of Boot’s OI must be found.

Clues to this were present in the data since in speeches given by Jesse Boot,

references were made to progressive social thinkers of the time. Examples were

John Stuart Mill’s utilitarianism, political Labour, welfare reformists and social critics

such as William Morris alongside tenets of the Christian faith. From these values

and ideas, Boots developed their business as a caring employer, offering a public

service and attempting to fuse together Capital and Labour to bring maximum

benefits to wider society. By doing so, the company were tapping into much wider

social issues about class division and equality, fair treatment, good employment,

and affordable self-management of health (Hill, 1985). The result was legitimacy,

granted not only by the government of the day, but also by the wider British public

as seen in many articles praising Boots (for example:

TRUTH

magazine).

That drawing from wider social values and concerns can provide the legitimacy

needed for organizational identity has also been evidenced by research (Glynn &

Watkiss, 2012). Thus, Boots possibly took advantage of what had been a conflict

between the social ideas and values of wider society and those of an economically

driven chemist trade. The company was not alone in this since during the early

twentieth century other businesses such as Cadbury, Unilever and Rowntree were

also attending to wider social needs and concerns in the way they conducted

127

business (Caroll, 2008). Indeed, although breaking from the traditions of the

chemist trade, Boots aligned itself with the wider social public and other

progressive non-conformist organizations which allowed Boots to gain legitimacy

independently from the chemist trade. On a final note, the outbreak of World War I

had also been influential in the creation of Boot’s identity since through supporting

the government in maintaining supplies, the company developed a nationalistic

identity. Being nationalistic at a time of war would likely have been an essential

component of maintaining legitimacy for many organizations.

Suggesting however that Boots may have actively constructed their identity from

the wider institutional-level environment makes the formation of Boot’s OI seem to

have been strategic. However, when generating OI themes it was evident that

Boot’s identity was formed through the personal vision of the founder and not

necessarily by strategically drawing on wider social values and institutions. Instead

it was evident that Jesse’s personal values, ideas and hopes for Boots were shared

with, and thus parallel to the wider social context in which Boots existed.

Moreover, as explained by Stanley Chapman in his biography of Jesse Boot (1973),

the founder was autocratic and paternalistic. Thus, standing as the indomitable

head of the Boots business, it was also more likely that the company’s OI was

shaped by his beliefs and not strategically assembled by senior managers within the

organization.

128

This is supported by research which has shown that founders’ values and beliefs are

particularly important in the formation of OI (Kroezen & Heugens, 2012; Gioia,

Price, Hamilton, & Thomas, 2010; Hannan, Baron, Hsu, & Koçäk, 2006). For

example, founder beliefs have been argued to be so fundamental to a business

organization that change in founding beliefs could be more destabilising than a

change in management (Hannan et al., 2006). Meanwhile, Gioia et al. (2010) also

claimed that founding organizational leaders are primary carriers and articulators of

OI to stakeholders. This was certainly the case at Boots since Jesse articulated the

company’s values in a number of speeches and company communications, which

were often personally interwoven with his own values, beliefs and experiences.

Bringing together both the empirical evidence and theories about OI formation

helped to explain the formation of Boot’s nascent identity. Its creation appears to

have been a complex process involving multiple levels. Resisting the then current

chemist trade, Boot’s identity was aligned with wider-level social values, beliefs and

needs and in being so was accepted and widely legitimised by being recognised as a

public good. This was in parallel with other contemporary non-conformist

businesses that had socially progressive policies. However, it was not as simple as

Boots strategically borrowing from or emulating these existing businesses. Indeed,

comparison to or drawing upon Cadbury, Rowntree and Unilever as exemplar

organizations was not evidenced in archival sources. Instead, the data showed that

Jesse Boot regarded the company as a vehicle for his own personal and humanistic

values which were congruent with wider social movements of the time. Enactment

129

of these values through business activities created the company’s early OI that

because of its benefit to the wider public, was accepted and endorsed. Thus, Boot’s

nascent OI was formed by an interaction between Jesse Boot’s personal agency and

the wider social context into which Boot’s OI was becoming embedded. Having

established this it was then possible to move forward to consider what happened to

Boot’s identity in the following analytical unit of Time 2.

130

Chapter 5

Results II:

Identity Elaboration and Emergence

Introduction

Following on from first evidencing and then explaining the generated themes for

Boot’s OI at Time 1, this chapter accounts for Time 2 and adhered to the same

format. As discussed in my method, the Time 2 period was selected because the

business was sold to the U.S. in 1920 and came back to British ownership in the

early 1930s meaning that there was a possibility of identity change. At the start of

this time frame, Jesse Boot sold his majority shares to the United Drug Company of

America owned by Louis K. Liggett. Much of the £2.5 million profits were used

philanthropically by Jesse to purchase land for the creation of a University of

Nottingham and open park space for public use (Greenwood, 1977). Meanwhile on

the company side, for the next 13 years Boots was under American ownership

which resulted in a change in leadership style.

Under American control, Boots went from being an autocracy under Jesse Boot’s

sole leadership to a more distributed territorial management system. Nevertheless,

the American period was barely documented in the archive and was described by

Jesse’s son John Boot, who was retained as a company director, that: ‘

the whole

affair was very hands off’

(Y82, AGM, 1933, p.102). After the Wall Street Crash of

1929 and the ensuing climate of economic recession, Liggett sold his shares back to

UK interests and John Boot took over chairmanship of the company in 1933. This

131

particular year marked a milestone for Boots since they opened their 1000

branch

in Galashiels, alongside building the acclaimed D.10 factory on the Beeston site in

Nottingham that had been acquired in the mid-1920s (Clapp, 2011). Toward the

end of this time period the company survived through World War II [1939-1945]

that was soon followed in 1948, by the inauguration of a new National Health

Service (

NHS

Boot’s Identity at T2 (1920-1949)

Boots as a “healthcare and medical service

”

Under the headship of John Boot as director and later as Chairman, Boots extended

its offering to the public beyond that of a retailing and manufacturing chemist to

what could only be described as a ‘healthcare and medical service’. Thus, this

identity theme underwent elaboration comparative to the previous time frame. In

an undated advert from the 1920s the company described itself as:

We can fairly claim that a Boots branch is NOT MERELY a retail shop. It can

in truth be called a local health centre, where the staffs are not only

professional servants but also friendly personalities.... AND EVERY BRANCH

A HEALTH

CENTRE (Y82, p.103).

132

This was a justified claim since the company opened its first 24 hour day-and-night

pharmacy service in 1924 (Y82, The Shop that Became a Service, p.143), which by

1936 was operant in twelve stores in major cities. These all-night pharmacies

served an important emergency service role for both the public and medical

profession alike (441/3, Correspondence between Calvert & Wolmer on the Retail

Trading Bill, 1936, The Bee, Jan 1926, p.80). Moreover, in all branches, Boot’s staff

administered free-of-charge first-aid to customers suffering minor injuries. This was

evidenced by annual reports and a large number of thank-you letters published in

The Bee

, written by members of the public who had received first-aid at a Boots

store:

May I express through this letter my appreciation and thanks for the

courtesy and kind attention of your assistants when I sprained my foot on

Shields Road on Monday afternoon. I was greatly surprised when I learnt

that this assistance was voluntary and I can only say in my case “Boots”

were good Samaritans

(The Bee, Jan-Mar 1933, p.74-75).

...To help in the work of healing the sick and keeping fit people well is even

more important in war than in peace, and in addition our staffs have done

their full share in giving first aid to the injured

(Y82, Statement by the

Chairman, 1941, p.125).

133

In every branch there were people skilled in first aid, and in many of the

bigger branches qualified nurses were in attendance

(Y82, Annual Report

Chairman’s Statement, July 1945, p.136)

As documented in the source directly above, fully trained nurses were employed in

larger stores to give advice and help to mothers on infant care, for surgical fittings,

dressings and wound care. In a document titled

Shops Containing Special Services

(Y37, C1939), Boots listed themselves as having: 185 oxygen depots, 136 qualified

nurses, 131 fitting rooms for surgical equipment and 12 day-and-night pharmacies.

But it wasn’t only the public who Boots were serving at this time since in

collaboration with the Royal Institute for Public Health, the company offered

specimen collection for doctors (Y83, Shareholders Annual Meeting, June 10

1925,

p.80, The Bee, April 1926, p. 196). Analytical laboratories and a medical information

service were also cited in a promotional company brochure:

An important part of the Boots organisation is the Information Service which

is centred on an extensive laboratory and abstracting service. Scientific

knowledge is carefully correlated and doctors’ queries are answered

(334/15, A World Famous Organisation, 1949).

Although at this time Boots had developed services to compliment their chemist’s

goods, Boots still continued to vend non-pharmaceutical merchandise listed as No

134

2. Department. In response to critique from the media, Boots defended what it saw

as its primary identity as a chemist:

You occasionally see statements in the newspapers to the effect that we sell

numbers of different articles not usually stacked by a chemist, and that the

sale of drugs is a sideline with us; but the makers of these statements forget

that we have hundreds of small drug stores where we sell nothing but drugs

and toilet articles... over 80% of our total business is exactly the same nature

as that carried on in the best Chemists’ shops in the country... we have over

50 surgical departments under fully certificated nurses and every year we

make up several millions doctors’ prescriptions....

(Y83, 27th June 1924, FT

newspaper reports AGM minutes, p.73)

Several years later in 1929, the company also professed to shareholders at an

Annual General Meeting that

‘80% of our business is equal to that carried on by any

good-class pharmacy and that two thirds of our shops carry only chemist’s lines’

This was supported by a document that showed year-on-year declining percentages

of No 2. merchandise between 1928 and 1937 (C1939,

Shops Containing Special

Services

, Y37) justifying Boots professed and projected identity claim that:

‘In the

title of Boots the Chemists there is the fundamental basis of the business’

(467/29,

With compliments of Boots the Chemists, C1929).

135

Boots as a “public service”

That Boot’s could claim a ‘public service’ identity at this point needs no introduction

since its wide-scale healthcare offering evidenced above provided ample

justification for this theme. However, the theme was epitomised in the Boot’s

publication:

The Shop that became a Service

(C1949). On page three of the

document the text explicitly stated: ‘

Boots has become a service to the public’

Other evidence supported this overlap, for example, in projecting their identity in

1929 the company claimed:

Boots the chemist have been pioneers in many branches of service to the

public. In none is this more evident than in the establishment of Surgical

Services in the majority of our bigger branches which are under the control

of fully trained certificated Nurses who have had experience in both hospital

and private. In their great profession such service is of inestimable value to

medical men and to customers in the provision of surgical items which need

fitting and for which purpose built fitting rooms are built into those branches

where a trained nurse is available. Mothers particularly appreciate the value

of being able to discuss matters relating to their children with a practical

trained nurse and midwife

(467/29, with compliments of Boots the Chemist,

C1929)

Moreover, other data added to the generation of this theme. For example, during

the Second World War Boots worked with the Government of the day to provide

136

public services such as ‘

defensive preparations against air raids’

(Y82, Annual

Report, June 1938, p.118), which the company considered were: ‘

in no sense a

commercial service and we regard them as an adjunct to our first aid surgical

service to the public’

(Y82, Annual Report, June 1937, p.116). Indeed, the trade

journal

Chemist & Druggist

(May 1, 1937, p. 511/536) confirmed this, documenting

that Boots had installed model gas-proof rooms in Pelham Street and Sauchiehall

branches. In further support of this theme, at Annual General Meetings, professions

of Boots as a public service were made in numerous Chairman Speeches. For

example, in his 1946 address, John Boot stated: “

We are proud to feel that we have

a staff that is happy in the knowledge that in working for Boots, it is performing a

service to the public”.

Public and even medical service was also regarded by the company as manifested

through their research and manufacture of pharmaceutical substances:

Boots the Chemist, in co-operation with Research Departments of

Universities and clinical sections of our great Hospitals contribute valuable

service in the supply of such items such as Liver Extract, Insulin and many

products of incalculable value in modern medical practice

(467/29, with

compliments of Boots the Chemist, C1929).

During this time frame the company’s research division were producing ‘

special

medical products of considerable clinical importance...

[such as]

Novostab and

137

Sulphostab, both of which are approved by the Ministry of Health for use in Public

Institutions

(334/1, Boots – A world famous organisation, C1949). Meanwhile at

‘Daleside Road, a factory was specially built for the surface culture of penicillin and

operated on behalf of the Government. By D-Day it was making one-third of the

country’s total supply’

(Y82/143, The shop that became a Service, C1949).

Innovations were also being made by Boots under the research dept. headship of

Jack Drummond [1891-1952] in the area of vitamins which were of vital public

interest in light of food rationing (Y83, Annual Report, May 26

, 1930, p.91).

Although much of this was “behind the scenes” at Beeston, Boots work did not go

unnoticed by respected members of the public who also attributed to the company

a public service identity. The Rt. Hon. T. P. Connor noted in a speech about Boots,

published in the staff magazine

The Bee

[1926, p. 294], that Boots had reduced the

price of health, developed life-saving drugs such as Insulin, and in closing said:

“I end as I began by repeating that even more inspiring to me is the fine

spirit of duty to the public and the nation generally, and the true Christian

spirit which underlies all its [Boots] activities.”

A sentiment and perception of Boots also echoed by an Imperial College Professor

of Chemistry, H. E. Armstrong [1848-1937] whose words were also published in

The

Bee

(pp. 257-259) that same year:

138

Visitors to Nottingham, even those who pass through the town by railway,

little realise how active and an important a hive of industry is the large

factory they see close to the line bearing the name Boots Pure Drug Co. Ltd –

how considerable a work is going on there ministering to the medical service

and to the public need.

Boots as “nationalistic”

Services to the British public and medical profession were central to Boots offering

and as such, they aligned with a strong ‘nationalistic’ identity even as early as the

start of this time period. In an address to shareholders (Y83, April 21

, 1920, p.55),

Jesse Boot proclaimed: ‘

We have made the whole concern a national institution’.

This notion of being a national institution led the company to adopt the slogan

“Chemist to the Nation” in 1929 (M.B. 140a-188, Pharmacy Week, Sept 26

1929)

reiterated again over a decade later to shareholders:

Shareholders can rest assured that they have a sound business, well

distributed for retail sales, and an organization determined under all

circumstances to live up to the slogan “Chemist to the Nation”

(Y82, Annual

Report, June 7

1940, p.124).

Indeed, because Boot’s services were operating at a national-level Boots described

itself in brochures as a

‘national enterprise that is developing national progress’

(C1933, A Building that Never Stops Growing). Discourses of national progress in

139

1933 were also linked to the building of a new factory at the Beeston site in

Nottingham that had been acquired some years earlier. According to Boots, the

factory, known simply as D.10 was:

Ahead of its time, this new factory sets a standard. Every device of

craftsmanship and ingenuity has been used to make these buildings the most

up-to-date factories in Britain for the manufacture of pure medicinal

products. In them, Boots employees will work under ideal conditions – and

the best work is better done when the conditions are perfect

(MATGD22 –

CAIS76 ad5677-s Adverts, 1931-1932).

Continuing, the symbolic nationalism represented by this progressive factory was

apparent since it was:

‘Planned by British enterprise, built by all-British labour and

all-British materials’

...and was ‘

Boot’s contribution to the trade revival’

(MATGD22 –

CAIS76 ad5677-s) in a time of global economic depression [1929-1939]. This also

coincided with Boots’ return to British ownership which the company made evident

to the public in their advertising by boasting that Boots now had

‘Over 50,000

BRITISH SHAREHOLDERS; Over 17000 BRITISH EMPLOYEES’

(Scribbling Diary, 1934;

MATGD22 – CAIS76 ad5677-s).

Returning to the time frame more generally, an identity as “a national service”,

“The Nation’s Chemist”, and a “national institution” were dominant in archival

documents. Nationalism continued to be displayed across the Second World War

140

[1939-1945] with the company heavily involved in penicillin manufacture, vitamin

research, with Boot’s factories also supporting the Ministry of Supply in production

of orange juice for vitamin C (334/15, Boots: A World Famous Organisation C1949;

Oral History Project, 2014). Meanwhile, in Boot’s farming and agricultural division,

the company were working closely with the Ministry of Agriculture to support

national food production (Y82, Annual Report, 1941, p.125):

We have collaborated with official plans to minimise the loss of valuable

food crops through pests and diseases, by placing emergency stocks of

certain chemicals at strategic points in our network of branches, and the use

of our distribution facilities, both in this way and for disseminating official

advisory literature among farmers

(Y82, Chairman Statement, 7

July 1942,

p.128).

Attaining such a strong national-level position held the company in good stead for

the launch of the

NHS

after the war in 1948. Rather than overwhelmed by this large

change to the healthcare landscape in Great Britain, Boots were well placed as a

national-level service provider, distributor and mass manufacturer (Y82, Annual

Report, Aug 9

1949, p.141). Indeed, in a company pamphlet titled,

The Shop that

Became a Service

, Boots claimed that:

As Chemists to the Nation: The introduction of the National Health Service

Act has naturally caused a tremendous increase in the number of

141

prescriptions and purchases with which Boots branches deal daily. Boots

resources have been well able to meet this sudden demand. In the service of

the people’s health, the first year of this scheme has proved Boots worthy

indeed of the title “Chemist to the Nation”

(Y82/143, C1949).

Boots as a “pro-social” organization

During the Great Depression of the 1930s, extensive unemployment had become a

severe social problem with this being strongest in the northern, manufacturing

parts of England (Hill, 1985). With their head office located in the industrial

heartlands of the Midlands, Boots were acutely aware of this nationwide problem.

John Boot announced to shareholders in his annual address in 1932 (Y82, p.107):

I would say that an organization like ours that has attained nation-wide

developments cannot shut its eyes to the trend of social developments.

Under present conditions, something like one sixth of the wage earning

population is permanently unemployed. This means the purchasing power of

the public as a whole – and therefore also of our potential customers is

substantially lower than it might be and falls far short of the nation’s powers

of production.

Concern over the problem of unemployment was somewhat more pragmatic and

economic than under the social idealism of Jesse Boot, reflected in an independent

opinion piece that stated: ‘

More significant in these testing times, is to find in Boots

142

an individual firm which is deliberately seeking to harness together the profit

incentive and the public welfare

(Financial Times 22

November, 1934). This may

be explained by Jesse’s lack of education while his son John had been educated at

Jesus College, Cambridge (Greenwood, 1977). Nevertheless, as a business, Boots

demonstrated a concern for levels of national unemployment, one of the pressing

social problems of the 1930s. It wasn’t just a concern but was also regarded as a

responsibility:

It is unthinkable that any of us should rest content with the condition of

things in which there are 2,000,000 persons at a time eking out their

existences on insurance payments or State doles... I feel it is up to

Companies, in our position, to make researches into the possibilities of

absorbing more workers into industry

(Y82, Annual Report, June 7

1935,

p.111).

Thus, to economic thinking was added a moralistic, and thus ‘pro-social’, level of

concern for the issue that resulted in Boots doing exactly that – making researches

into the possibility of absorbing more workers into industry. This took the form of

an experimental trial at the company’s main factory site in Beeston where the

working-week was reduced to five days.

The announcement was made a few weeks ago that we were instituting a

five day week in Nottingham during the summer months without reduction

143

of pay, naturally attracted a great deal of public interest. It is our belief that

the data we shall obtain will not only be of value to ourselves in determining

hours of work for the future, but will throw a useful light on the whole

question of workers’ hours and leisure

(Y82, Annual Report, June 8

1934,

p.107).

The five-day-week experiment was observed by Whitehall official, Sir Richard

Redmayne, K. C. B. [1865-1955] and recorded in a government report:

A Review of

the Experimental Working of the Five Day Week

(A2/BK0132). The results indicated

increased productivity, reduced absence, reduced sickness, and a feeling of good-

will among the staff. Moreover, because of the reduction in working hours

redundancies were avoided, enabling Boots to retain staff and not contribute to

further national unemployment. When the five-day-week had become an industry

norm, Boots were thus able to claim to the public that they ‘

were among the first to

introduce the five day working week’

in Great Britain (334/15, A world famous

organisation, C1949).

That Boots were a pro-social business and not a profiteering company was also

evidenced in documents pertaining to an attempt by the company to expand their

retail model to New Zealand in the 1930s (Box No. 38). In negotiations with the

New Zealand Government and pharmacist trade, Boots iterated several times that

the generation of profits were not the primary motivation for the company. Rather,

Boots highlighted and professed that they were in business to confer a public

144

advantage and to extend its benefit not just within Great Britain but across the

British Empire. In doing so they anticipated the same benefits for labour reform

evidenced in a speech given by John Boot:

I am one of those as you know who believe that the mechanisation of

industry, if it is not to condemn an increasing number of men to

unemployment, involves the gradual reduction in working hours, by

shortening not only the working day or the working week, but also the

working year and the working life. The goal to be aimed at thus includes

more paid holidays, earlier old-age pensions, and later entry into industrial

life. Such reforms mean the substitution of voluntary unemployment or

leisure for the tragedy of involuntary unemployment. They cannot be

attained merely because we think them desirable, but once industry

recognises them as desirable it can set itself consciously to move in the right

direction. That is what we are trying to do in this Company

(Box 38,

preliminary NZ negotiations, 1935).

Added to nationwide unemployment was a second pressing social problem, public

health concerns about VD. To address this, Boots actively worked with St Thomas’

Hospital in London to create a new therapeutic substance called Stabilarsan. The

previous drug of choice for VD treatment was called Salvarsan, which based on

Mercury, had poisonous side effects. However, Boots new treatment was as

effective as Salvarsan, but without the side effects meaning that the company were

145

also innovating new and improved medicines to effect relief from public health

concerns (The Bee, June 1926). Reducing the cost of the life-saving diabetic drug,

Insulin, was a second example where Boot’s pro-social identity was at work through

their commercial activity. An article in

The Times

summarising Boots Annual Report

of 1935 (Y82, p.111) read:

In connection with our special medical products, continuous research on

Insulin has not only enabled us to perfect our product but the result of our

investigations combined with the result of improving our plant, has enabled

us to effect progressive economies which we have passed on to the

consumer. In February last we were able to announce that the standard vial,

which 12 years ago could not have been sold at less than 25s. would be sold

to the public at 1s. while our price to hospitals and public institutions would

be substantially less than this.

When Boots drug and antibiotic developments and concern for national

unemployment were combined with the company’s wide offering of public health

services (mentioned previously) there was a rich evidence base for generating a

‘pro-social’ identity theme for Boot’s OI across this time period.

Boots as “nurturing” – to staff

When turned inward, being pro-social was manifested by the company as being

‘nurturing’ toward their staff in which: ‘

it has become a tradition in our Company to

146

regard service to the public and the wellbeing of our workers as obligations of prime

importance

’ (Y82, Annual Report, June 8

1934, p.107). The extent of wellbeing

services that Boots offered were listed in a 1938 annual report under the heading

‘Social Services for Staff’:

They include, for instance, pension schemes, a continuation school for

juvenile workers, medical services, welfare departments, canteens, staff

training classes, sports and social clubs, dramatic and other societies, house

magazines, and educative films and a host of kindred activities.

Examples evidenced by the archive material were too numerous to mention all, but

one example were canteens about which the company stated:

The subject of nutrition is attracting wide attention at the present time, and

we have considered this question very carefully in its bearing on the physical

condition and general health of our employees. Our medical officers have

now taken steps to secure that the meals in our various canteens shall be

designed on a scientific nutritional basis

(Y82, Annual Report, June 17

1938, p.116).

According to Boots, all their company schemes were designed to ‘

have in view not

only the creation of new employment but the security, the general wellbeing and

the happiness of all those who work for us’

(Y82, Annual Report, June 7

1935,

147

p.111). Further, Boots claimed that ‘

The Company has the interest of staff very

much at its heart’

(Y82/143, The shop that became a Service, C1949) and appeared

to be driven by the belief that:

The people in our factories are not merely subjects for transfer and book

entry but are each one entitled to the consideration which every good man

or woman will always give to fellow creatures

(467/28, Welfare, C1924).

For retail staff spread across the country’s vast network of branches, there were

regional activities, clubs and outings. Alongside these, Chemists were reported by

the company to receive higher than average wages (441/3) and all retail employees

were granted up to one month’s paid holiday (The Bee, Aug-Oct, 1933, p.261-265).

Overall, across the branches, factories and head office, staff were regarded as an

asset (Y83, Annual Report, May 26

1930, p.91) and treated in a meritocratic

fashion (The Bee, March, 1926, p. 156-157; Y82/143; 441/3; Y82, p.116), which

appeared to result in outcomes such as loyalty and high staff retention:

Few firms can boast of so many employees having such long terms of service

and that is a credit both to the conditions which the firm has created and the

service which the staff has rendered

(303/1, Training Dept Manual, C1930s).

Finally, confirming evidence that Boots nurtured and cared for their staff was

apparent in independent articles published in

The Bee

that highlighted Boots cared

148

for its staff (‘independent opinions’, May 1926, p.257-259). To guard against

criticism that these were published in a staff magazine and therefore could have

been biased, an independent article which featured in

The Financial News

(1938) is

offered to support a nurturing and caring identity was attributed to Boots by

others:

Those who have observed them will agree that it would be difficult to praise

too highly Boots’ treatment of its factory staff. Actual working conditions are

comfortable and healthy as a result of the modern planning of the factory

[D10]. The Company is on very good terms with the trade unions which cater

for its organised workers – a situation easy to understand when its wage

rates are for the most part well above the negotiated trade minima. In this

connection it is worth noting that the Company was one of the first to apply

the principle of the five-day-week to a large organisation... Finally, there

must be mention of the spirit which infuses all this work. It is one of genuine

good will and common sense with no trace of paternalism which has

sometimes impaired welfare work in British Industry

(Y82, The Background

of Famous Companies V, p.119).

Boots as “service oriented”

Marked by excellence in caring for its staff, Boot’s identity was also marked by

excellence in its external offerings to the public particularly through being a ‘service

oriented’ business. This was allied to employee wellbeing in the following way:

149

Now we have a duty of employer to employee. It is to this new conception of

duty on the part of the employer to the employee that we owe the

remarkable growth of welfare work over the past ten or twelve years.

Alongside of this, employers are developing a new concept of duty to their

customers – the duty of service

(The Bee, 1926, p.156-157).

In Annual Reports the company professed to have a service orientation and were

striving to continually improve customer service (Y82, Annual Report, C1930s, p.95).

Notions, of which Boots suggested, had begun in the previous time frame: ‘

During

the war

[WW I]

Boots had a record of remarkable and conspicuous service

’ (

Record of Service

(A83/41, C1923). Indeed, their claim was somewhat supported by

what has been seen of Boots around public service in the previous chapter. Further,

in keeping with the spirit of Time 1, promoting equality through customer service

was apparent at Boots drawing similarities with Jesse’s early notions of

classlessness by improving access to medicines for all through affordable pricing:

We take pride in giving the same service to a customer for one pennyworth

as to one who spends a pound (applause). Naturally we do not make as

much profit, but we know that we are building up valuable good will for the

company

(Y83, Annual Report, May 26

1930, p.91).

150

The company were at this time also projecting a service orientation to staff,

encouraging them to strive toward offering the very best in customer-care. For

example in the staff magazine

The Bee

(Nov 1929, pp. 20-27), Boots told staff:

On principle and as a point of business ethics, you owe all your patrons the

very best possible service you can give. It is your most effective way of saying

thank you for their patronage

Meanwhile, the importance and centrality of the customer was also echoed in staff

training manuals from around the 1930s (303/1; 394/7) and to managers, through

Merchandise Bulletin

. To the public, Boots were also highlighting through their

customer advertising ‘

the unusual spirit of service with which Boots staff carry on

their work’

(MATGD22 – CAIS76 ad8152-s, 1931-1932). But while proclaiming to

offer excellent service is one thing, the proof is in whether customers experienced

this aspect of Boots and attributed a service orientation to the company. Published

regularly in

The Bee

particularly across the 1930s were hundreds of letters of

appreciation for outstanding levels of customer service. Obviously, this was

designed to set an example and inspire employees to greater heights of service, but

their strategic intent does not diminish their evidential quality. Below are two

representative examples:

Dear sirs, I thought you would be interested to know my good impression of

you assistants. I arrived in London a few days ago, having come from

151

Australia, and I had a bad cough. The hotel attendant directed me to your

shop. I went in and was greeted by a very attractive young lady in white...

This is my first experience of London and as I am travelling around England

during the next few months I hope I shall be as warmly welcomed at all the

other shops I go to as I was at this one

(The Bee: Jan-Mar 1933, p.74-75).

Sir, while cycling in Lewisham I happened to get my knee slightly scraped,

and as a prevention against further trouble I went into your branch there for

some Iodine and a small bandage. I was most courteously received and

taken to a dressing room where I was given expert attention by a nurse.

Asking for the cost, I was told there would be no charge for the little service,

and although I was not slow in expressing my appreciation I feel it likewise

due to you as a firm to receive my personal word of thanks at both the

courteous reception and prompt kindly care I was given by your staff in

Lewisham this morning

(The Bee: Jan-Mar 1933, p.74-75).

Boots as “assured quality”

A second aspect of Boot’s offering of excellence to the public was through ‘assured

quality’. This aspect of the company continued from the 1920s since following the

Great War a surplus of stock had accrued threatening the quality of merchandise.

To solve this Boots had a large public-sale of stock

‘thus carrying on the traditional

policy of our [Boots] companies since their inauguration, of “Safety First”

‘(Y83,

152

Quarterly Notes, No115, 1921, p.63). The company professed that their penchant

for quality was enabled by their analytical facilities first developed during T1:

We have a large pharmaceutical research laboratory where the standard of

our drugs and preparations bearing the name Boots is under the most

scrupulous control. In other words the same vigilant care in production and

analytical control is exercised in the case of our simplest preparations as is

given to products which are issued to medical men from our fine chemical

department

(Y82, Annual Report, June 8

1934, p.107).

The scientific safety and assured quality of Boots Own products were heavily

promoted through an extensive advertising campaign in the early 1930s designed

to reassure the public in the face of wider concerns that mass-manufacturing of

pharmaceuticals was unsafe and inferior to smaller independent chemists. At its

launch in 1931 Boots claimed:

The present campaign seeks to disabuse the public of these notions [inferior

quality] by submitting the actual facts of the extent and sureness of Boots

analytical control in their vast laboratories in Nottingham, and by examples

of the thoroughness and adequacy of the service Boots has given in the past

and stand ready to give in the future. To these two main themes will be

added, as and when opportunity offers, illustrations of the part Boots plays

in Pharmaceutical Research. These prestige Boots advertisements will

153

appear in half page form weekly from now until the end of March 1932

(The

Bee, April-May, 1931, p.182).

Indeed, the campaign was extensive meaning that over the course of a year Boots

consistently projected an identity of quality assurance and safety in its products and

production methods. An example of text from an advert, alongside authoritative

images of men dressed in white lab coats stated:

Boots guard so jealously their reputation for supplying only the finest and

most reliable drugs that they will reject drugs to the value of thousands of

pounds rather than offer their customer any drug (whether used in

dispensing or in Boots specialities) that does not come up to a standard

which is often higher that the law requires

(MATGD22 – CAIS76 ad8154b-s:

Adverts 1931-32).

Additional to print advertising, Boot’s assured quality identity was also

communicated visually. Through shop window displays it was symbolically

demonstrated by showing a wide variety of clearly priced goods (303/1, staff

training manual, C1930s). In company brochures, images commonly depicted

factory staff dressed in white, working in hygienic workspaces and sterile conditions

(A83/41 A record of Service, C1929; 334/15, Boots: A world famous organisation,

C1949). Meanwhile, another example of quality assurance through visual

communication was the distinctive Boots script logo. When an opportunity arose to

154

change it, the company: ‘

decided to retain the familiar script Boots sign which has

served us for so many years as a guarantee to the public of the quality of our goods

’

(Y82, Annual Report BPDC, Aug 9

1949, p.141).

Finally, having an identity of assured quality was also claimed defensively by the

company in communications over the Retail Trading Bill (6

Nov 1936 –

Hansard

)

proposed by Captain Balfour. The purpose of the Bill was to protect small

independent shops from multiple chains such as Boots. In an internal draft letter

concerning the Bill between a member of Boots’ staff named Calvert and Lord

Wolmer, the Vice Chairman of Boots, a view was expressed that:

We are able to produce in our very modern and up-to-date factories, drugs

and medicines of the highest quality. This quality is ensured by means of a

very strict analytical control. The Analytical Laboratories are extensive and in

the Laboratories all the drugs are tested and retested to ensure purity. In this

manner we are able to offer our customers these drugs at very reasonable

prices and at the same time the customer can rest assured that he is

obtaining a commodity of the highest standard

(441/3, 1936).

Boots as “trustworthy”

The quality of Boot’s Own products was a central feature in generation of the

company’s identity as ‘trustworthy’. The trustworthiness of Boots’ products was

typically assured by a rigorous testing process in which:

155

‘

every package received there [was] affixed to it a label which bears the

words “Under Examination”... and every intermediate product before it goes

for further compounding must bear the magic title “Passed”

(267/29, With

compliments of Boots the Chemist, C1929).

This was echoed throughout many archival documents where numerous references

to Boots quality control processes were made (The Bee, Nov 1929 p.34-35; 334/15;

Y82/143; 467/29; Y82, p.97). The wider public also agreed and attested to the

trustworthiness, reliability and dependability of Boots and their merchandise in a

marketing investigation (A48/1, Report of an investigation: men and women in the

United Kingdom, 1929). Boots confidently claimed that this view of the company

held by the public was self-evidential from the vast numbers of customers using

Boot’s pharmacies and branches:

It is hardly necessary for me to point out once again that such a record of

sales betokens the unfailing confidence of both the public and of the medical

profession in the quality of our service and the scrupulous care taken in

ensuring the purity of our products

(Y82, Annual Report –The Times, June 7

1935, p.111).

As an identity theme, “trustworthy” was also derived from Boots approach to

customer service. Throughout

The Bee

, Boots encouraged their staff, as the public

face of the company, to emulate ethical and moral virtues. For example, in a

156

monthly forum published in 1929 (p.20-27), Boots told its staff that:

‘Honesty,

Ability, Tact and Punctuality

’ were virtues staff should display ‘

but the greatest of

these – our very cornerstone is honesty

’. Continuing in the forum, notions of

honesty were elaborated further:

So we come to our bedrock foundation, HONESTY, and SERVICE. HONSETY in

business whatever cynics might say to the contrary, is becoming more and

more essential to success and the honesty which is required is not the sort

which is practised because it is best policy, but because it is intrinsically right.

For Boots particular offering of pharmacy and medicine, honesty was regarded as

even more essential:

There should be honesty of purpose in Pharmacy, so that the credulity of the

Public may not be an excuse for mere exploitation. There should therefore be

restraint in making rash claims for merchandise, no overstatement, or

exaggeration in description, and a clear estimation of value and prices in

every article offered. The application of these principles from the general

conduct of business to each particular sale over the counter is self-evident.

Self-declarations of corporate-level honesty in the public marketplace were also

evidenced in company communications with pharmacy managers:

157

It has not been our policy in recent scares about epidemics to take

advantage of that scare for sales purposes. We have assumed such action

would not be helpful to the local authorities and indeed be resented by them.

When such epidemics do occur we should remember that the chemist can

and should and give what help he can

(Merchandise Bulletin, 577-604a,

1938).

Thus, an identity label of trustworthy reflected Boot’s honesty over the counter, in

service and in rigorous quality control of products ensuring their reliability and

safety. Indeed, honesty and integrity were not merely abstracted principles, but

regarded as a moral duty and a virtue that the business adopted as a “right way to

do business”. This was revealed through company adoption of a transparent pricing

policy in which all goods were always clearly priced (303/1, Staff training manual,

C1930s) and an overall drive toward ethical and humanistic business principles in

which:

Business dealings, actuated entirely by material considerations divorced

from honesty of which are also the basic principles of life, are clearly

indefensible, and are generally only carried out by those driven by the force

of their own conduct to the most unsatisfying conclusion, that in business

there is no sentiment

(The Bee, Nov 1929, pp. 20-27).

158

This virtuous package won Boots the royal patronage of King George VI (Y82,

Annual Report, 7

July 1942, p.128); an unmistakeable endorsement of trust placed

in Boots the Chemist.

Boots as “relational”

Being ‘trustworthy’ is generally considered an important component of relationship

building and in the archive material a new identity theme of ‘relational’ was

generated. Evidenced in what follows, Boots were active in building relationships

with the both the Government and medical profession, worked collaboratively in

research and drug development and fostered an internal culture of teamwork and

unity. One of the earliest examples for this time period revealed an increasing

relationship with the medical profession. In 1926, Boots invited the British Medical

Association (BMA) to visit their factories as part of the BMA’s 94

Annual Meeting

in Nottingham (The Bee, 1926, p.343). From this point onward, the company began

to work more closely with the medical profession than it had done previously. For

example, an

‘agreement with The Royal Institute of Public Health’

was established

in which Boots held sterile containers and accepted G.P. patient’s specimens over

the pharmacy counter (The Bee, Aug-Oct, 1933, p.260).

Further to this, the company’s research scientists began to work in collaboration

with clinical ‘

scientific workers in hospitals and other centres of medical research in

developing new methods for tackling disease’

(Y82, AGM, 8

June 1933, p.102; see

also: AGM 1936, p.113). Of record, these were with the Venereal Disease

159

Department at St. Thomas Hospital in London (Y83, p.90) and The Middlesex

Hospital’s Bland Sutton Institute (Y83, Annual Report, 1927, p.86). International

collaborations were also apparent since Boots worked with the Sir Frederick

Benting Laboratories in Toronto to develop British Insulin manufacturing

(TRC//591/2, Oct 1941). Levels of collaborative working were stepped up even

further during the Second World War, primarily to deal with the problem of

penicillin production. Among others, Boots were invited to join a knowledge-

sharing, research-led group known as

The Therapeutic Research Corporation of

Great Britain

which had a functional objective ‘to accelerate the research and

production of pharmaceuticals during the war years’ (Nature, 1941, p. 658).

Members of this group were the UK’s largest drug manufacturers: Burroughs

Wellcome, British Drug Houses, Boots the Chemist, Glaxo Laboratories, and May &

Baker Ltd. Although the records for this group held at Boots were largely technical

and related to formulae, test results, and taxonomies of specific substances, the

group’s collaborative nature was self-evident and confirmed in a Boot’s annual

report in 1942 (Y82, p.128):

In connection with research it may be mentioned that we have joined with

four other leading firms in the fine chemicals industry in forming The

Therapeutic Research Corporation of Great Britain - but still retain

independence but share research knowledge... I am glad to say that there is

an increasing tendency for British Fine Chemical manufacturers to

collaborate, and we have been able to pool information and unite in the

160

solution of problems with other manufacturers in several instances. While it

is too early yet to report on substantive progress, the results so far attained

give every promise of the collaboration bearing good fruit

Notwithstanding a relational approach to research, drug development and the

medical profession more generally, Boots were also working closely with various

Government departments on projects highlighted in the identity theme of “public

service” and “nationalism” covered previously. To refresh, during the Second World

War Boots worked with The Ministry of Agriculture (Y82, p. 124/136); The Ministry

of Labour on retail employment conditions (Y83, p.73); engaged with the British

Dig-for-Victory campaign (Y82, p125) and supported Government endorsed, export

expansion programmes (Y82, p.124). The Ministry of Supply were also worked

closely with, particularly in penicillin production, vitamins and foodstuffs.

Although in the spirit of public service, these relationships were in some way

commercially linked yet over this time frame, Boots also adopted an internal

culture of relationship and collectiveness that contributed to a “relational” identity

theme. This culture was facilitated by production and distribution of staff

magazines such as

The Beacon

that were intended to be:

A magazine for ALL... that shall ignore no class and injure no individual, but

serving all interests which bind us together as one FIRM, shall become one of

these strongest bonds

(467/28, Welfare, C1924).

161

Staff training was another area in which the company also promoted a culture of

unity and team work, with training manuals informing new employees that: ‘

You

also have to fit in with your colleagues to become a member of a team within your

branch as well as a member of Boots employees

(303/1, Staff training Manual,

C1930s). Indeed, notions of team work reflected what Boots perceived as a change

in working relationships from traditional paternalism to ‘

joint responsibility and

partnership

’ between managers and employees (467/28, Welfare, 1924). Team

work was considered a source of strength for the company’s previous and

continuing success:

It is a record [history of Boots] which has no parallel in commercial

history...and a great measure of strength is derived from the spirit of

fellowship that exists in its many sections’

(303/1 staff training manual,

C1930s).

This spirit of fellowship was not only evident among Boot’s family of employees,

but spread out beyond the organization to the surrounding community through

charitable giving and fundraising among staff (for example: C & D, March 6

, 1926,

p.335). Even at the level of the organization itself, Boot’s branches were

understood to be an interdependent and related network in which ‘

the smallest of

the 870 branches can call upon the largest and best-stocked at a moment’s notice’

(MATGD22 –CAIS76 Ad9195-s, 1931-32).

162

Boots as “capable”

With such an extensive and large branch network in place across the whole country

and with well developed manufacturing and research capabilities, Boot’s were a

highly ‘capable’ organization meaning:

Each branch – though it only be a small shop in an obscure village – has at its

command all the resources of this great organisation. This means that not

only sudden calls for rare drugs in remote places can be met, but that every

customer has the benefit of standard quality and standard prices. The purity

and reliability of the drugs issued is ensured because they come from Boots

own factories

(Y82/143, The Shop that became a Service, C1949).

This ensured that each customer, independent of location and spending power had

‘

the whole weight of Boots, the policies, pride and service at their disposal’

(The

Bee, Nov 1929, p. 20-27). And Boot’s certainly did appear to carry considerable

muscle, particularly in terms of scientific power through collaboration (see

“relational” above) and by retaining a

‘number of distinguished scientists in a

consultative capacity’

(TRC//591/2, 1941). Having and being the best in capabilities

was inherited from Jesse Boot’s earlier vision for the future of the company in

which he claimed to shareholders in 1920 (Y83, p.55):

‘I want to get the best men in

the country and the companies blended together’

. Such men were the likes of Jack

Drummond [1891-1952], who before joining Boots as Research Director in 1945,

was knighted, an elected Fellow of The Royal Society and a Government adviser on

163

nutritional health (Hollingsworth & Wright, 1954). Such skill and expertise served to

enhance Boots credibility and capability, while the company’s: ‘

strong position in

relation to manufacturing of Fine chemicals and such drugs as Insulin and

Stabilarsan’*

made Boots attractive to the medical profession:

Not only are they [doctors] interested in our ability to supply fine chemicals

and special drugs...but they have had a demonstration of our ability to

manufacture the ordinary requirements of medicine and the ability to

manufacture the best possible type of things such as Asprin Tablets, Cascara

Tablets, and the drugs in common use

(*The Bee, Nov 1929, p. 20-27).

Noting the date of the above quotation, manufacturing of drugs before 1933 took

place at a number of factories around Nottingham. However, once D.10 had been

opened at the Beeston site most drug manufacturing was relocated to the new

factory. Notwithstanding the building’s ‘

functional efficiency which secures a

maximum of economy at all stages of production and dispatch’

(Y82, Annual Report,

June 8

, 1934; see also Y82/143, p.7, 1949), ‘

a new factory such as this was an

outstanding symbol of confidence’

(The Bee, Aug-Oct, 1933, p.261/65). This was

because:

...

the Beeston factories were planned and started during the severe time of

depression in pursuance of our [Boots] policy of creating employment when

employment is scarce

(Y82, Annual Report, June 4 1937, p.116).

164

Thus, the erection of the D.10 factory at Beeston told a story of the capabilities,

confidence and capital resources of the company that enabled building on such a

grand scale during a time of deep global economic depression. Meanwhile, toward

the end of the time frame a second large change in the national economy occurred

with the creation of a Welfare State and the

NHS

. Once again Boots demonstrated

their capabilities, by successfully managing the rapid increased demand for

pharmaceutical dispensing (Y82/143, The Shop that became a Service, C1949).

Boots as “innovative”

A final and new identity theme of ‘innovative’ was generated in light of the

company’s expansion from an analytics laboratory in Time 1 to what by now were

extensive research facilities:

Through recent arrangements abroad, this Company will have the support of

the finest and up to date works and the best scientific brains in the world.

We are proud of Research Department, but this new development will

greatly strengthen our position on the scientific and medical side of our

business

(Y83, Shareholders Annual Meeting, June 7

1928, p. 87).

Having such facilities to conduct research enabled Boots to claim to shareholders

that: ‘

our company is working on problems in the forefront on medical science’

(Y83

Annual Report, June 6

1929, p. 90). Key areas were in disinfectants and the crucial

new field of antibiotic treatment:

165

Of special interest was the discovery in our own Laboratory of Flavazole, a

compound of Sulphathiazole and Proflavine, which has been found

particularly effective against certain bacteria which are resistant to the

known antiseptics and bactericides’

(Y82, Annual Report Chairman’s

Statement, July 1945, p.136, see also C & D 1945, p. 188).

The Company has followed up on its pioneer work in developing the

production of penicillin by making a comprehensive study of the new

therapeutic agent known as Streptomycin, an agent that holds out promise

of being valuable in the treatment of some human diseases that do not

respond to penicillin

(Y82, Annual Report, July 8th 1946, p. 137).

Alongside such important research the company were also developing preventative

health products such as “Vitamalt” vitamin tonic (Y83, Annual Report, 1929, p. 90)

and actively exploring ways to turn the new chemicals the company’s researchers

were discovering into useful every-day health products:

During the year our Research Department has discovered a number of

synthetic chemicals suitable for use in medicine. One of these substances,

amyl-meta-cresol, has 250 times the antiseptic value of phenol and is of low

toxicity. We are actively investigating the possibility of extending its use in

all those branches of medicine where antiseptics of this type are essential.

We have already incorporated it as an ingredient of our Compound Glycerine

166

of Thymol Pastilles, which are having a phenomenal success. Many of our

competitors have copied us in marketing a Compound of Glycerine Thymol

Pastille, but our pastilles differ from all imitations in containing this new

antiseptic, amyl-meta-cresol. This substance is also giving promising results

as an intestinal and urinary antiseptic

’ (Y83, 42

Annual Meeting, May

1930, p.91).

The level of innovation that Boots were demonstrating through their research

activities was a new development in the organization’s identity during this time.

Although innovation was largely visible from only one identity facet – corporate

identity – the company’s research activity was central to Boots and evidenced in

noticeable quantity suggesting it should be included as an identity theme.

Explaining Boot’s OI at T2

That Jesse sold the company to U.S. interests in 1920 signified the first temporal

cycle in Boot’s OI. Apparent from Table 3., and the findings presented in this

chapter were that over this period of change in ownership and a return to UK hands

in 1933, all previous eight identity themes were repeated indicating that Boot’s

identity had both endured and been reproduced by agents. Three new themes

were also generated meaning that Boot’s OI had also undergone some elaboration.

I now move forward to explain the endurance and elaboration of Boot’s OI with

reference to its presentation at T1, organizational agents, and the wider social

context.

167

Much from Boot’s previous OI was visibly reproduced within this time frame

indicating that the company continued to enact what had previously been laid

down by the organization’s founder, Jesse Boot. A possible explanation for this was

that John Boot reproduced the identity of the company because he was a family

member. Support for this comes from research on OI within the context of family

firms, in which OI is understood to be interrelated with family identity thereby

making the organization a vehicle for family identity expression and maintenance

(Carney, 2005; Dyer & Whetten, 2006). A further study has also suggested that

family-firm identity coalesces around non-financial acts and goals of which Boots

appeared to have many (Zellweger et al., 2013). For example, provision of free in-

store health services such as nurses and first-aid treatment were non-financial

business activities. So too were company efforts toward nurturing and caring for

staff since many of these incurred costs, but were regarded as worthwhile. Thus,

both theory and data suggested that reproduction of Boot’s identity may have

occurred through John re-enacting and protecting the identity of the Boot family.

This was a plausible explanation given that Jesse Boot had also developed the

business in accordance with his own personal values.

Despite theoretical support for this idea there were however a number of caveats

for this to not be a credible explanation for endurance in Boot’s OI. First, non-

financial acts are considered to be beneficial for businesses since they promote a

number of positive organizational outcomes. For example, engaging in non-

commercial activities (typically referred to as CSR) have been linked with enhanced

168

economic performance (Orlitzky, Schmidt, & Rynes, 2003), maintenance of

stakeholder trust and relations (Story & Price, 2006; Scott & Lane, 2000), alongside

a host of other intangible advantages for an organization (Kurucz, Colbert, &

Wheeler, 2008). The clear benefit now known to be associated with non-financial

goals for organizations thus made it difficult to distinguish whether concerns about

family identity were necessary for their reproduction. For example, continuing to

reproduce what was already a socially valued and legitimised OI would have quite

simply made good business sense.

A second caveat arose from the fact that John had not actually inherited the

business from his father, who had preferred to sell the business and put the

proceeds to use in the development of Nottingham University and for the wider

local community. According to a former employee’s account, the relationship

between father and son was also strained with Jesse perceiving John as lacking

ability to run a business (Greenwood, 1977). Such animosity between father and

son may have offered little imperative to reproduce and protect the work of his

father. Conversely, John may have had everything to prove and been motivated to

extend his father’s work. Without strong support for either possibility advancing an

explanation for reproduction in Boot’s identity at T2 based on family identity

concerns was tenuous and could not be well-supported.

Looking beyond family identity as an explanation, the context was also considered.

This offered a more credible account of observed identity endurance. At the

169

commencement of T2, Boots already had a successfully working and legitimate

operation, business model and identity. Infrastructure such as pension funds,

analytical laboratories, factories, social clubs and staff magazines were already in

place as well as a celebrated identity as a public service that was patriotic to the

nation. Indeed, Boots had both a commercial and cultural foundation and it was

difficult to imagine a rationale for needing or wanting to deviate from this. This was

further supported by the finding that during the American Period, interference in

the company by American management had been minimal suggesting that what

had been established in T1 had been recognised as a solid foundation. Thus, to

continue to build the business on what Jesse Boot had already laid down in terms of

OI and infrastructure was arguably a logical development.

A further contextual feature that helped to explain reproduction of OI was that

many similarities in the wider social environment were evident across the two time

frames. For example, in 1939 World War II occurred, which although different from

World War I, was likely to have facilitated reproduction of Boots OI as a

nationalistic enterprise. Indeed, in the first time frame World War I had seen the

Government of the day approach Jesse Boot to help with securing Britain’s chemical

and pharmaceutical supplies, while during the Second World War, Boots

collaborated extensively with Government on a number of issues. A second

similarity was that in both time frames there were ongoing and widespread social

problems. In T1 this had been a monopoly on health by independent chemists,

while in T2 one of the most pressing social problems had been mass-

170

unemployment. Although these differed, they were nevertheless social issues that

Boots continued to actively address meaning that early ‘social idealism’ had been

reproduced as being ‘pro-social’. To clarify, reproduction of wider social conditions

such as war and social need were likely to have resulted in reproduction and

strengthening of Boot’s identity. An explanation supported by arguments by Gioia

et al. (2000), that only when OI is threatened does OI change.

Despite, this being supported by work emanating from a social constructionist

paradigm (

op cit

), a critical realist reading goes further to explain why this may be

the case. That stability in one thing, equals stability in another is of importance

within critical realism since it signifies the presence of a structural relationship

(Sayer, 1992). Such relationships are argued to be foundational to social reality

meaning that in some way Boot’s identity was interdependent with wider social

entities such as War, Labour, and the State. However, these could not be

considered as necessary relations in that both were mutually constitutive, but were

asymmetrical in that Boot’s OI was dependent on wider social issues and values,

but not the other way around (Sayer, 1992). To explain how the relational

dependency of Boot’s OI had come about, one need only think back to the

formation of Boot’s identity in T1. Through Boots earlier overlap with wider social

values, ideas and beliefs, the organization had become interdependent on wider

societal-level relations that supported its legitimacy. Thus, in similarity with

stakeholder theory (Freeman, 1984; Donaldson & Preston, 1995), Boot’s OI could

be considered as being suspended at the nexus of wider stakeholders’ needs,

171

values, concerns and beliefs. Given the dependence of Boots as an organization and

its identity on a configurative pattern of wider social entities, values and beliefs it

was also conceivable that Boot’s OI was an emergent property of that combination.

Emergence is a central tenant of critical realism (see chapter two) in which

combinations of structures at a lower-level give rise to higher-level social entities

and/or properties that are non-reducible to their parts and are capable of causal

action (Sayer, 2000; Elder-vass, 2005; Easton, 2010; Pratten, 2013). In this case,

Boot’s OI can be understood as arising from a contingent combination of its main

stakeholders that were identified as Boots’ staff, the wider public and shareholders.

These were in addition to wider cultural entities such as stakeholders’ values and

beliefs, and structured objects such as war, health and industrial labour. Moreover,

although depending on these underlying social entities for legitimacy and existence,

Boot’s OI could not be reducible to them. Emergence also requires time since

Archer (1995; 1996), highlights that what emerges (in terms of culture as opposed

to structure) only becomes emergent when it is historically situated. Without

becoming historical, what arises from a combination of social entities and objects

remains discursive and constructed by agents rather than a pre-existing reality that

then shapes future discursive constructions (Reed, 2005). Thus, by T2, emergence in

Boot’s OI had begun to take place since it was increasingly becoming an historically

situated identity that could influence the way in which Boot’s OI developed.

172

That Boot’s previous OI (T1) was now beginning to influence its current OI (T2) was

evidenced by how the company elaborated their identity; empirically observed as

the development of new identity themes. The elaborated identity marker of ‘health

and medical service’, and new identity themes of ‘innovative’, ‘relational’, and

‘service oriented’ were largely enabled by Boot’s previous OI at T1. For example,

that Boots could claim to be ‘innovative’ was predicated on having previous

‘capability’ of analytical resources that were now turned toward scientific

innovation. But innovation couldn’t occur without building relationships with the

scientific community – a sub theme in the generation of Boot’s ‘relational’ identity.

Development of a relational identity was further generated on grounds supported

by a pre-existing identity as ‘trustworthy’ in conjunction with a previous identity as

‘nationalistic’ evidenced by collaborations with Government over the World War II

period. The theme of ‘service orientation’ reflected an extended offering of Boot’s

earlier identity as a public service. Indeed, as access to cheap remedies was

supplanted by an increasing need for public health services, Boots developed in a

way to meet public need through becoming explicitly more service oriented. Of

itself, this was related to an elaboration from being a ‘chemist’ at T1 to becoming a

‘health and medical service’ in T2. Given these links with Boot’s past OI, it was clear

that new and elaborated themes were not simply based on wider contextual factors

but were also enabled by what had pre-existed the company in terms of its

previous identity. With past OI enabling and shaping development of a current OI in

this way, demonstrated that emergence in Boot’s OI was beginning to take place.

173

To summarise, an explanation for endurance and elaboration in Boot’s OI was

forthcoming after demonstrating that concerns about family identity could not be

verified as a plausible explanation for observed endurance and elaboration in Boots

OI. Looking to the wider context suggested that there were many similarities

between T1 and T2 that created a degree of stability in conditions across the two

time frames. Developing this further and informed by critical realist theory, I

proposed that that the stability in conditions was actually stability in the wider

institutional-level environment in which Boots OI had been previously been

constructed at T1. Thus, ongoing stability of the social entities which combined to

support Boot’s OI, gave rise to its reproduction by agents. This explanation was

situated within notions of emergence and Boot’s OI was argued to be dependent on

a combination of wider social entities and ideas in the institutional environment.

Importantly, emergence gives rise to causal properties and in reflecting on the

appearance of new identity themes in T2, it was argued that construction of these

had been influenced by Boot’s preceding and emergent OI. Indeed, I explained and

demonstrated that Boot’s emerging OI had enabled (and thereby also constrained)

what was produced in terms of new OI themes. Having thus offered an explanation

for the findings at T2, it was then possible to consider the dynamics and

developments of Boot’s OI in the following time frame.

174

Chapter 6

Results III: Identity Under Threat

Introduction

In this chapter I present the data and findings of the third time frame which was

bracketed from 1951 to 1977. In the same way as before, generated identity

themes were evidenced building a more comprehensive picture of the dynamics in

Boot’s identity over time. To set the context, an introductory overview is offered

based on information found in company annual reports. The

NHS

had been

operational for two years and John Boot (also known as the second Lord Trent)

retired from the business in 1954 and was replaced by John Savage who was

Chairman between 1954 and 1961. He was succeeded by Willoughby Norman

(1961-1972) and toward the close of the time frame the company was led by the

previous Director of Research, Gordon Hobday. Consequently, the loss of family

leadership was a significant juncture that made this time period stand out from T2.

Further, in 1968 the company also acquired the 600-strong UK chain of

hardware/chemists shops, Timothy Whites and Taylors, which extended Boot’s

network of retail branches considerably. The following year, Boots successfully

launched to market their most well-known drug, Brufen, which further supported

new growth for the business.

175

Expanding was something the company were keen to achieve in this time frame but

had bids rejected by The Monopolies Commission for both Glaxo Laboratories in

1972, and House of Fraser (1973) which would have also included acquiring

Harrods. Nevertheless in 1972 Boots were able to purchase Crookes Laboratories

which added to Boots’ product portfolio. Largely blocked from expansion in the UK,

Boots attempted to expand internationally and in 1977 took-over Rucker Pharmacol

in the U.S. and Tamblyn Drugs Stores chain in Canada a year later. The company

also had a 70% interest in the French “cosmetic” business Sephora. This was

because company pharmacy was illegal in Europe which significantly hampered

Boots in attempting to expand their retail pharmacy business more widely

overseas. However, it did not arrest Boots from international activity since the

company owned or had significant shares in pharmaceutical manufacturing

companies overseas alongside a few stores in New Zealand and Fiji that had been

established in the previous time frame.

Boot’s Identity at T3 (1950 – 1977)

Boots as a “chemist”

That Boots were a ‘chemist’ was a theme that endured from T1 having been

elaborated in T2 to a health service and but had now had been constricted back to

being chemist. This dynamic was likely to have been influenced by the development

of the

NHS

because:

176

Since the commencement of the National Health Service, the major portion

of our shop fitting programme has been the refitting an enlarging of branch

dispensaries to cater for the greatly increased number of prescriptions.

Between July 1948 and March 31

1951, 263 new or enlarged dispensaries

have been completed.

Thus, in response to the

NHS

, Boots focus was on expanding their dispensaries

rather than health services, a primary indication that pharmacy was central to

Boots. However, alongside expanding pharmacy services, Boots were also enlarging

the range and quantity of No 2. (non-pharmaceutical merchandise) so that the

company was sometimes misunderstood as a more general retailer or department

store which was noted by the company in 1965. In a general brochure, it was

declared that despite this, being a chemist was primary:

Although the company carries on a wide range of activities there is a single

thread which runs through everything we do. We are first and foremost

retail chemists and all our activities are related on more or less degree to

that one objective

. (334/20, The Development of Boots Pure Drug Co. Ltd,

C1965).

The centrality of pharmacy to Boot’s identity was further qualified in a

contemporary annual report that mirrored the above quote:

177

The importance of dispensing to our business cannot be too strongly

emphasised. All our managers are pharmacists and thus professionally

qualified. They therefore bring to their work the high standards of

responsibility and service that this implies, in this they are ably supported by

their pharmacist colleagues not yet in management

(Annual Report, 1965).

A strong focus on pharmacy was iterated later as part of an image study carried out

by Boots in 1973. This was referred to in the annual report of that same year within

which it was reported that: ‘

One in ten of all our customers visit our branches in

connection with our traditional dispensing service which remains the cornerstone of

our business

.’ The bedrock of pharmacy to Boot’s identity was further confirmed in

company communications to its retail employees in relation to the priority given to

both the pharmacy counter and goods when planning new stores:

These [pharmacy goods] are called No1 department and when a new shop is

being planned, they receive the first priority in the design and apportionment

of space. Only when the full requirements of the No1 departments have been

satisfied does the introduction of other types of merchandise into the branch

receive consideration

(334/7, About Boots, 1970).

Meanwhile, retail managers were also being reminded that: ‘

as chemists first we

must pay attention to the service we give our prescription customers’

(A92,

Leadership circular, C1965), and through staff education and training manuals,

178

employees were left in no doubt that: ‘

the backbone of the Company’s retail

business has always been dispensing’

(3006/21, Newsletter No3, April 1950).

Communicating a chemist identity to staff was also supported by

Boots News

(1973,

1977), the re-titled staff magazine which was formerly known as

The Bee.

Conversely, in external communications the company were projecting to

stakeholders and the public in no uncertain terms that: ‘

BOOTS WILL ALWAYS BE

CHEMISTS FIRST

‘(334/3, About Boots Business, C1970s). A further strong piece of

evidence externally communicating a chemist identity was an interview recorded in

the

Chemist & Druggist

(3120/1, 31

Aug, 1974) between Gordon Hobday

(Chairman) and the journal editor which read:

He [Gordon Hobday] emphasised the statement in the Company’s Annual

Report that “Pharmacy is the keystone of Boots business” and he added that

many had overlooked that half of their branches were small shops of less

than 1000 sq ft of selling area. As a Company therefore they were very

concerned with the wellbeing of the smaller pharmacy for the small

pharmacy was an essential part of their business....When it was suggested

that Boots had begun in pharmacy but now had left that image, Dr. Hobday

did not agree. So far as he could see Boots would always “relate to

pharmacy”. He and his colleagues did not want the Boots name to be

associated by the public with any other operation than a pharmacy. They

had shown their decision to hive off The Timothy Whites activities use that

179

name for non-pharmaceutical operation. If the Harrods/House of Fraser deal

had gone through then the Harrods name would not have been replaced by

Boots, it would have been a distinct and separate operation.

The strong emphasis in claiming to be a chemist appeared to be somewhat

defensive and related to increasing diversification in Boot’s retail offering since

there were noticeable increases in beauty product and household goods

advertising. This was also coupled with the takeover of home-wares chain Timothy

Whites and Taylors in 1968 that added to Boot’s non-chemist inventory. Thus,

Boots were attempting to retain, and continued to claim a chemist identity in the

face of increasing diversification.

Boots as a “public service”

Added to the increased volume and diversification in non-chemist merchandise,

was a change in emphasis around Boot’s identity as a ‘public Service’ of which being

a chemist had traditionally played a primary part. Now, emphasis was placed on

offering value and affordability across all goods, not just chemist lines, coupled with

a noticeable reduction in additional health services. Arguably, this change had been

influenced by the development of the

NHS

which appeared to have had multiple

effects on the company. On the one hand the development of ‘

the NHS had played

an important part [Boot’s expansion within pharmacy]

(3006/54, Newsletter No 42,

Sep/Nov, 1959) yet on the other hand prescription levies and reduced

remuneration on dispensing by 1962 also led to a loss in public service:

180

...because of this lower rate of profitability, we [Boots] have to re-examine

the dispensing service in our day-and-night shops and have already had to

eliminate at least one of the 10

(Annual Report, 1962).

The following year two more day-and-night pharmacies were closed (Annual

Report, 1963), and because people could make appointments to see a G. P. free of

charge (3124/3, The Pharmaceutical Journal, October 13, 1979), in-store nurses

were also increasingly phased out. Thus, Boots relationship with the

NHS

was

something of two edged sword in that with one stroke it increased pharmacy

expansion which was a key part of Boot’s past public service identity, but with the

other stroke, reduced Boot’s additional public service offerings.

Although meeting public demand for dispensing remained core to Boots self-

understanding as a public service (Annual Report, 1968), the company had also

recognised that public needs were shifting away from health provision toward

general affordability of domestic and “luxury” goods in an inflationary post-war

economic climate:

Our national income is growing, the standard of living is rising, and people

have more money to spend. Commodities that were the luxuries of yesterday

have become the necessities of today. In the face of such trends, the demand

is for bigger or brighter shops with a wide range of merchandise

(334/6,

Building for the Future, June 1960).

181

Thus, it would not be unreasonable to suggest the change toward offering a greater

range and quantity of affordable non-chemist merchandise could also be regarded

as a public service by virtue of continuing to meet wider public demands. For

example, in a centenary brochure in 1977 (459/1), Boots claimed that they were

now selling: ‘

new electrical aids to beauty, which the modern Boots has brought in

reach of everyone, much as Jesse did with soap

.’ Indeed, what was increasingly

evident from the archival data was that the company regarded that “affordability”

was a key component of giving public service irrespective of whether the product

was health-related or otherwise. The idea that Boot’s public service identity now

coalesced around a generalised affordability policy was supported by further

evidence. For example, in the process of national transition between Purchase Tax

to VAT, Boots claimed in an article in

Boot News

[1976]:

Boots walk away with cut price honours. At least we would be the first in the

High Street cut-price rush which we knew was to follow the Chancellor’s

speech... These price reductions made fully three weeks before we are

required to do so under the terms of the new tax are in continuance with our

policy of always being extremely competitive in the High Street. More than

this they should be seen as evidence of our willingness to play our full part in

helping contain inflation in the economy

Thus, offering affordability was to serve the public through an economic rather than

public health agenda since public health had now, in effect, been nationalised.

182

Serving the public through supporting economic as opposed to health issues was

also evidenced in the decade preceding the 1970s by Boots actively supporting the

post-war “I’m Backing Britain” campaign. In particular, the company claimed to be

combating inflation through temporary price-freezing and price reductions (C & D,

Jan 1968, p.52). That Boots were generally mindful of the publically supportive role

their affordability policy played in the wider social landscape was evidenced by the

following Newsletter excerpt:

Signs of changed economic conditions have been visible in Britain where

experts have discerned ‘a little slow down in industrial activity’ and point to

steel and textile output as illustrations. Slackening output leads to lower

incomes and lower spending... At such a time Boots consistent policy of low

price for high quality merchandise comes fully into its own

. (3006/50,

Newsletter no. 37, Sep/Oct 1958).

Emphasising this, the primary slogan adopted consistently by the company during

this time frame was “

Boots for Value and Variety

” (Boots Archive/doc, A History of

Strap-lines).

Although notions of public service were largely centred on economic issues for the

time frame as a whole, Boots did still continue to offer health services at the front-

end of the T3 period with numerous letters of appreciation for help rendered

appearing in staff magazines. However, overall what appeared to have happened

183

during this time frame was that with the

NHS

overseeing public healthcare, Boot’s

public health services gradually declined. However, the decline was balanced by

increasing focus toward socio-economic issues and improving wide-scale affordable

access to modern luxuries and everyday items for the general public. Consequently,

while Boot’s identity as a public service stayed the same, what constituted that

public service had changed in relation to wider changes in the healthcare and

political/economic landscape of Great Britain.

Boots as “pro-social”

Because Boot’s public services were increasingly less focused on healthcare there

were less clear overlaps between public service and being ‘pro-social’ as there had

been in the previous time frame. Nevertheless, the company were still reproducing

a pro-social identity across the T3 period. Being pro-social was reflected by Boots’

wider involvement in issues of social concern such as the economy and the

environment. Rooted in the previous time frame, between the two world-wars,

Boots had previously perceived itself, alongside other large businesses, as having

made a contribution to solving unemployment while at the same time driving up

retail standards for the wider public:

In my opinion it is true to say that bad as though unemployment was

between the wars it might well have been worse had it not been for the

great effort made by the multiple shops of every sort to maintain demand by

giving the public the best possible value, and by constantly improving their

184

product while at the same time lowering their price

(Annual Report, 1949-

1950).

However, in this time frame the company were now beginning to show a wider

concern for environmental issues by limiting both their externalities and consuming

habits:

All manufacturing operations particularly those involving the synthesis and

formulation of chemicals inevitably gives rise to some wastes which require

safe disposal. We are very conscious of our responsibility to the community

and all toxic chemicals are effectively neutralised. Matters affecting the

environment are of great moment to us and we have a senior member of the

staff who is wholly concerned with our practice and reputation in this field

(Annual Report, 1972).

BOOTS CUT A MILLION – off the water: The Boots Company are saving

millions of gallons of water a week at their Beeston and Nottingham sites.

Normal consumption is 430m. gallons a year, and now chief engineer Mr.

Charles Scarth is looking for ways to make the total saving 3m. gallons a

week to match Severn-Trent Water Authority’s call for a 40 per cent

reduction

(3124/5, Evening Post, September 20, 1976).

185

In addition to engaging in pro-environmental behaviours, Boots were also perceived

as actively helping to cut the cost of living for the wider public and were thus

supporting wider society toward having a better standard of living:

One of the major contributions made by Boots to reducing living costs – and

enhancing the Company’s prosperity – has been the manufacture of its own

brand of pharmaceutical, toilet and even food specialities which are usually

sold at much lower prices than nationally advertised products although their

quality is at least as high

(3120/1, Investors Chronicle, 11

Sept 1959).

Indeed, this was also supported by the City view of the company that: ‘

Boots is one

of those shares of which it easy for the investor to be proud. He can see his money

rendering useful public service in most towns of the country

(377/20, Financial

Times, Feb 25 1952). But such public value attributed to a shareholder-based

company such as Boots, also carried with it the spectre of nationalisation and

rumours of such existed. Although nationalisation of a company may occur on

account of its failure, it can also be a reflection of its necessity and centrality to

public life. With an extensive branch network, manufacturing and distribution

capability, the latter was the case and revealed in a report in the

Evening Post

Business Review Section

headlined:

Boots - The Case Against Nationalisation:

186

It might be difficult to find a better example than Boots of a company which

bridges the gap between two of the most salient features of the British

economy – the importance of a chemical industry on the one hand, and the

existence of a huge mass of retail outlets covering almost every strategic

street in the country on the other

(3120/5, C1970s).

Salient in the quotation above were Boot’s retail branches, details of which

featured in the archive that also revealed a generalised pro-social identity,

particularly through shop design. For example, when rebuilding stores to rejuvenate

high streets in a nation-wide programme of post-war regeneration, Boots claimed

they had a ‘

responsibility to the towns and villages in which they intended to build’

Notably, this was as a self-professed responsibility rather than a legal responsibility

through newly introduced planning legislation [1947]. In planning for a branch,

Boots claimed that ‘

each shop must create no offence – indeed if possible it should

be a worthy addition to its surroundings’

(334/12, Welcome to Boots, 1950).

However, in towns or cities that were heavily bombed (for example, Swansea,

Plymouth and Southampton)...

...

the opportunity has been seized of creating new stores which are an

inspiration to the shopper and a delight to the town planner and the

architect

(334/11, Come Behind the Counter, 1956).

187

Pictures of shop interiors also showed Boot’s stores were designed to be accessible

(334/3, About Boots Business, C1970s) and make shopping as convenient and

comfortable as possible for customers (Sales & Selling, July 1962). Thus, Boots were

actively contributing to post-war urban regeneration and demonstrating sensitivity

to the environment in which they were building (see also 334/3, About Boots

Business, C1970s). When considered alongside a growing sense of responsibility for

the environment and combined with their affordability policy for the general public,

a theme of being ‘pro-social’ was generated.

Boots as “expansionist”

Corresponding with the shift in Boot’s public service identity from health to wealth

was the loss of the earlier theme of “nationalism”. In the archive there was

insufficient evidence for this theme to be generated with only a few, more

reflective articles that referenced Boots as a national enterprise. Rather, the focus

at this time was on ‘expansion’. This theme was represented through technical

documents of various mergers and acquisitions across the period that of

themselves did not directly reference expansion but were key indicators of it. For

example, mentioned in the introduction to this section was Boots bid for Glaxo

Laboratories quickly followed by House of Fraser, that were both blocked by The

Monopolies Commission:

Dr. Hobday also points out that Boots rely on their retail business for about

90% of their turnover thanks to their growing market penetration. But he

188

says that it is now difficult for Boots to maintain their retail momentum

given that they are already so powerful in certain merchandise groups. The

answer is new merchandise groups. This is a tricky venture for Boots on their

own. Therefore they have decided to merge with a successful group in other

areas and in their opinion House of Fraser fit the bill, especially because

Boots are precluded from expanding in Europe under their own steam. EEC

regulations prevent Boots from extending their present UK type operation to

Europe. But if they own House of Fraser... or a similar company...they can

become a truly European group. So far as a possible Monopolies commission

investigation is concerned the Boots chairman cannot conceive how the

merger could possibly be against the public interest

(3120/1, The Glasgow

Herald, 5 Nov 1973).

Later, Boots purchased Rucker in the U.S. (Company Circular, 11 May, 1977) and a

chain of drug stores in Canada – Tamblyns (3118/2, Boots News, 1977). To deal with

the unique European problem of chain-pharmacy being illegal, Boots purchased a

70% stake in Sephora, a French cosmetics group (3120/5, The Times, May 4, 1977).

Other stakes were also held in international firms in South Africa (3006/33,

Newsletter No 21, 1954) and a West German chemical firm (3118/2, Boots News,

1977). Meanwhile, on the ground back in the UK Boot’s shops and home industry

was also expanding:

189

Boots is now not only a major manufacturer, but also one of Britain’s leaders

in the development of research-based pharmaceutical and agricultural

chemicals, many of which are manufactured and sold all over the world.

Boots shops have not stood still. In the 1970s development has been faster

that any time in this century, with the shopping area in Boots increasing by

25% over the last three years to about 4 million sq.ft

(459/1, 100 years of

Shopping at Boots, Centenary Brochure, 1977).

Thus, rather than cleaving to their past identity as a national institution Boots had

adopted a new expansionist identity marker that was increasingly leading the

business to create bigger stores and become engaged on a wider international

stage.

Boots as “innovative”

Boots’ focus on expanding the business did not coincide with a loss of ‘innovation’

which endured from the previous time frame in a number of ways. Most clearly, the

research department at Boots was the hub of innovation at Time 2; however, in this

time frame the company felt that the

NHS

were encumbering development of new

pharmaceuticals:

We in common with other large firms spend scores of thousands of pounds

on research. The only way in which this money can be recovered is by putting

out our own named products which are the outcome of the Research. But

190

nowadays when the State, through the National Health Service, is the main

buyer, pressure is being brought to bear upon the doctor to limit prescribing

to products appearing in official publications such as the British

Pharmaceutical Codex in order to reduce expenditure. Unless British firms

are allowed to recover the cost of Research in the products they sell, they

cannot continue to spend money on research. This could only mean that

more and more specialities would have to be bought from abroad,

principally the United States, and Germany where immensely more money is

spent on Research than this country

(Annual Report, 1952-53).

Despite this, expenditure in research continued to be made and was documented

as being in the region of £750,000 p.a. and rising (Annual Report, 1961). Continuing

to invest in research was driven by a belief that innovation was a key component of

success:

In many countries it is the same medical specialities which are rapidly

establishing a name at home, that lead the way in a growing Boots business

overseas. One almost universal formula for successful marketing has proved

to be a drug, chemical or other preparation, based on Boots research or on

original development. Such products are unique; they carry a tried and

trusted brand name and the demand for them is often world-wide

(334/6,

Building for the Future, June 1960).

191

On this basis, Boots were searching to develop an original drug that they could

market internationally. In 1969, such a drug emerged from Boot’s Research

Laboratories – Brufen (Annual Report 1968; 1970) that was further developed into

the milder anti-inflammatory, Ibuprofen (Annual Report, 1972). Although this was

perhaps Boot’s most famous innovation, other developments were also arising

from Boots Research. One document in particular highlighted that:

Between 1950 and 1961 Boots created 18 new products which received

patents. These were a mixture of human drugs (eg. anti-histamine,

antiseptic, amoebicide, anti-rheumatic, antibiotics), herbicide and fungicide,

and veterinary products

(318/3, Novel products originating from the

research department: Dr. D. A. Peak, C1968).

Parallel to innovation in chemical and pharmaceutical products, innovation was

widespread right across the company. A key example was the introduction of an

experimental new type of retail pharmacy, introduced in 1951 and based on

American ideas of self-service (The Bee, April 1951, Vol 22 no. 2). In the two years

following, a court case surrounding self-service pharmacy took place between the

Royal Pharmaceutical Society and Boots [1953] on the contract of sale. The court

ruled in Boots’ favour paving the way for self-selection pharmacy stores to be

adopted by the UK pharmacy trade as a whole. Other examples linked to innovation

were Boots introduction of retail technology:

192

A great deal of thought and energy is being devoted to the efficiency of

administration, and we are studying, designing and installing various new

administrative systems. Last year I reported that we had installed an Emidec

computer... A great deal more work is now being handled by this

equipment... In this way we are building up a centralised information and

statistical service designed both to reduce our operating costs and to

improve management efficiency

(Annual Report, 1962).

Combined with this computer system at head office for managing statistical data,

Boots were also the first retail company in the UK to introduce EPOS till technology

that fed into the increasing data-net Boots were creating:

Boots have installed a Sveda Universal Product Code reading system to

experiment with computerised point of sale information...The UPC

installation is claimed to be unique because it is the first system to go live in

the UK

(C & D, September 1978, p.538).

Thus, across the board, the company records evidenced an identity of being

innovative which was both an expansion and reproduction of their previous identity

as innovative. In the past this had been solely based on research and

pharmaceutical product development but in this time frame there was an

additional and wider-level of innovation in retail and selling.

193

Boots as “self-confident”

A theme predicated on the past but nevertheless new to T3 was Boot’s increasing

“self-confidence”. For example, ‘

the Company’s determination to be in the forefront

of Retail and Business Methods

’ (A33/26, RB, 1966) was a confident ambition rather

than simply a reflection of their increased size. Such ambitions were arguably based

on the success the company were achieving in their home market of Great Britain

because of their historically grounded and competitive affordability policies:

Boots watchwords have always been Biggest, Best, and Cheapest. The

phrase was coined by the founder of the business and over a period of three-

quarters of a century, can be seen to have paid off handsomely. The

Company tried to offer goods on the basis of its equivalence value at a lower

price than competitors offer, or better value than the competitor offer but at

the same price

(3006/41, Newsletter no 49, 1956).

Moreover, success wasn’t just in the past but also being currently enjoyed by the

company’s innovation of Brufen and an increasing success in international

marketing of other Boots products. The spirit of self-confidence in success and

achievement was evident in an article appearing in

Boots News

, 1974:

The popular image of Boots as a highly successful retail organisation is only

too obvious if one walks down any busy High Street in Britain. What is

perhaps less obvious to the public is the very high degree of success the

194

Boots Company is enjoying internationally in the highly competitive

pharmaceutical industry. In an industry which, in the UK alone, is worth

more than £193 million a year, Boots are currently placed number 10 by

annual turnover having moved up from 22

place in 1969. Internationally

Boots are one of the most rapidly expanding pharmaceutical companies and

in 1974 overseas sales were worth £32.5 million having more than doubled

since 1972. This notable achievement which includes sales in chemicals, agro

chemicals and toiletries, gained Boots the Queens Award to industry in

1974... Leader: On this basis Boots were not only able to increase

dramatically the sales of their products broadly against overseas

competition, but in the case of their most successful product Brufen, to lift it

to market leader in many markets around the world. It is with Brufen, a drug

used in the treatment of rheumatic disease, that the success of Boots

overseas is most closely allied

Noted in the text above, Boots had received the Queen’s Award to Industry (1974)

and although royal recognition had begun in the previous time frame under the

theme of ‘trustworthy’, in this time frame patronage had been extended by three

other appointments as: “Manufacturing Chemist to Her Majesty”, “Chemist” and in

1965, “Suppliers of Horticultural and Agricultural Preparations” (Boots News, 1972).

Thus, this level of endorsement now went beyond trustworthy to demonstrate

even a royal confidence in the company’s capabilities and products. Boot’s new

drug Brufen, was also mentioned above as being the company’s leading

195

international product meaning Boots were increasingly able to

‘control our own

destiny in the market place’

and enabled them to be

‘operating in all 26 European

markets’ and ‘in some Iron Curtain Countries’

(Boots News, 1973). This level of self-

confidence within the markets was unsurprising given the importance and value of

this new, globally successful drug:

Brufen continues to be an outstanding successful export product. It has been

a subject for discussion at major medical meetings in all five continents. At

the XIIIth International congress of Rheumatology held in Japan last October,

for instance, 68 papers about Brufen were read by clinicians from 22

different countries. Brufen is now available in no less than 90 countries of

the world; it is established in most of the East European countries and

following a successful symposium held at the institute of Rheumatology in

Moscow we have now received our first order for Brufen from the USSR

(Annual Report, 1974).

The manufacturing of Brufen took place at the company’s famous D.10 factory;

which served as another historically grounded but continuing statement of self-

confidence in which many years after its completion the company still proudly

claimed was: ‘

one of the finest chemical plants in Europe [and] a triumph of

industrial architecture and modern engineering’

(Y280, Advert Cuttings). Alongside

D.10, other operations existed at the Beeston site such as the printing works which

following its rebuild after the Blitz, was also referred to by Boots as:

‘One of the

196

most modern printing works in the country’

(Annual Report, 1952-53). Importantly,

both D.10 and Boots Print Works were operational previous to this time frame

meaning that Boots’ confidence and pride in their current capabilities were to some

extent predicated upon what they had managed to achieve over the course of their

past. At the organization’s centenary this was highlighted in advertising that

proudly proclaimed to the British public:

1977 is our centenary year. It is just 100 years since Jesse Boot took over his

mother’s herbalist shop in Goose Gate, Nottingham – a shop that was to

become the springboard for a huge pharmaceutical enterprise whose

products now carry the name Boots across five continents. From that tiny

shop has grown one of the largest organisations in the world with total

outlets – Boots the Chemist, Timothy Whites, Boots Farm Service and others

- numbering almost 1,500. From a work force of two – mother and son - the

Company now has a payroll of almost 68,000, in 21 different countries. This

indeed is a century of achievement

(Boots News, January, 1977; see also

Financial Times, Mar 1, 1977).

Boots as “assured”

Self-confidence however, did not give rise to complacency and Boots continued to

maintain an identity as ‘assured’ with respect to their offerings. Indeed, it was also

professed by the company that the quality of Boots Own products were not

sacrificed in pursuit of offering affordability: ‘

Whatever happens to the general level

197

of prices or margins customers may rest assured that our quality standards will

never be debased’

(Annual Report 1964). This was reiterated a few years later in the

company’s annual report of 1967 as a cornerstone policy that reflected Boots’

quality standards as set forth at the beginning of this time frame:

The importance of ensuring that every item of merchandise prepared by

Boots Pure Drug Co. Ltd. for sale to the public conforms to a high, uniform

and rigid standard of quality, makes it essential that the responsibility for

maintaining this standard throughout the firm should rest entirely in the

hands of one single department – the standards department.... The

standards department is one of the key sections of the Company and, as can

be seen from the number of tests carried out, tremendous efforts are made

to ensure that Boots products are indeed of the highest possible quality

(Annual Report, 1951-52).

Assured quality of Own Products was a key factor when the company engaged in

external communication meaning that “we are assured” was clearly an identity

marker for Boots. In adverts (The Countryman has a Word for it, C1950s; Y280,

Advert Cuttings) and brochures from the 1950s (334/11, Come Behind the Counter,

1956), the 1960s (334/6, Building for the Future, June 1960) and the 1970s (334/3,

About Boots Business, C1970s), Boots drew attention to the high standards of

quality exerted by the company. This was supported by self-professed claims that

between the 1960s and 1970s the company were spending £30,000 annually on

198

analytical quality control (334/6, June 1960; 334/3, C1970s). A further crucial piece

of evidence that showed the rigour and lengths Boots took in protecting their

reputation for assured quality was the finding that the quality standards

department in the UK had to approve products that were manufactured

internationally. Evidencing this, in Newsletter, No 41 (3006/53, Apr/Aug 1959) it

was stated:

We can now report that thanks to Mr. Whalvin and Mr. Peatfield, initial

difficulties have been overcome and Own Goods lines marked ‘made in

Pakistan’ are being sold all over West Pakistan. A sample of every batch is

flown to this country for prompt testing by Standards Department, so that

Pakistan customers are assured of the same high quality whether the Boots

product that they buy came from Nottingham or was made on the spot.

Checking of internationally manufactured Own Goods was also reported to have

happened with Laboratorios Coca who were manufacturing and distributing Boot’s

herbicides and human drugs such as heparin within Spain (3006/36, Newsletter No

24, Dec, 1955). Indeed, such quality control was highly rigorous and scientific. Some

of the more technical details were highlighted to shareholders in annual reports

(1951-52; 1964; 1965) that emphasised the extent of the quality control process for

pharmaceutical products:

199

Quality control is the responsibility of our standards department. Specialised

methods are used and chemical, physical, micro-biological and bio-assay

techniques are employed... Coupled with this control at the manufacturing

end, a close watch is kept on retail stocks to ensure that any products which

have reached the end of their shelf life as determined by the standards

department are promptly withdrawn, and in this way merchandise in the

shops is kept in prime condition. Whatever happens to the general level of

prices or margins customers may rest assured that our quality standards will

never be debased

(Annual Report, 1964).

Assured quality did not stop at pharmaceuticals but was also extended to non-

chemist goods from radios to stationery. In short, if a product carried the Boots

name, then both quality and value were assured (334/7, About Boots, Retail Dept

circular, 1970).

Boots as “customer service oriented”

Building on a previous service orientation in the previous time frame, with a loss of

focus on healthcare services was an increasing focus on generalised customer

service. Indeed, central to Boots in this time frame was their claim:

‘We believe that

our primary task lies in serving our customers’

(334/6, Building for the Future, June

1960). To emphasise, this philosophy was represented across the whole time frame

since a decade earlier Boots had taken up a similar position communicating to staff

that: ‘

our customers are more than are guest – they are a paying guests’

(The Sower

200

33, C1950s). In staff magazines (e.g. The Bee, 1951, vol 22, No1; 1957, vol 28, No 3;

The Mixture, 1955; Boots News, Nov 1972; Jan, 1977) all employees were

admonished on the importance of giving the very highest levels of service (334/29

& 30, NTL, 1973). Meanwhile, branch managers were also being encouraged

strongly in this direction (see also: Sower 1, c1950s:

The two parts are interdependent. Service to the Customer obviously

depends on service to the counter. Your service to the customer objective is

of paramount importance and deserves all the analytical thought you can

give it as an operation on its own. Good service to the customer will follow

naturally if the service to the counter is right, 90% of good service to the

customer in these days is having the stock when it is asked for

(A92,

Leadership circulars for Managers, C1965).

To communicate what customer service actually meant in practice, the company

sometimes published examples of outstanding customer service designed to spur

employees on. One particular salient example was printed in Staff Newsletter No.

20 (3006/32, 20

June, 1954).

You may be interested to hear of a little incident which shows that Boots

reputation for service is a high as ever... One lunch-time, recently, the chief

pharmacist of a large general hospital rang up the office here to see if we

could tell him the composition of proprietary home permanent-wave kit, as a

201

three year old child had been admitted to hospital in a serious state after

consuming one of the bottles in the kit. The call was received at this end by

one of our secretaries, Miss Peggy Millard, who managed to find out the

telephone number of the makers from the toilet buying office; she rang the

manufacturers and asked them immediately to get in touch with the hospital

concerned. Fifteen minutes later she rang the hospital and found out they

had received all the necessary information... it is interesting to note that the

hospital concerned chose to ring up Boots on the assumption that we have

the answers to all problems, and we are very pleased in the way that one of

our staff was able to settle the enquiry promptly and efficiently.

Communicating a customer service orientation to the wider public was not

especially noticeable in the archive, apart from a few adverts suggesting Boots were

aligned with customer needs (Y280, Advert Cuttings). The general lack of projection

to the public of a customer service identity was likely to reflect that customer

service is an experience only individual customers can qualify. To support that

Boots were perceived as being customer service oriented by the public, was a

plethora of “letters of appreciation” from satisfied customers that were published

as exemplars for employees in staff magazines. Given the large quantity of these,

which appeared frequently across many issues of

The Bee

, three have been selected

and are offered below:

202

May I bring to your notice my very sincere pleasure derived from being

attended to by Mr. Hunter in your store at the corner of Union Street and

Argyle street here. In these days when so many shop assistants adopt a

“Take-it-or-leave-it” attitude, I feel I cannot let Mr. Hunter’s courtesy, and

desire to please to pass without a word of gratitude. It certainly made the

world of a difference to my Saturday morning

(The Bee, October 1951, vol

22 No.4).

As these days one finds so much to deplore in service, I feel it only just to

write and commend the treatment your customers get in your shop in

Queen’s Street, Wolverhampton. It is always a joy to go there. No matter

how busy your assistants are, they give to each one courtesy and

consideration; in fact, my husband, son and I are always holding them up to

other shops in Wolverhampton as the perfect store. I think your Lichfield

branch may be just as good, but I do not shop there

(The Bee, March 1957,

vol 28 No.1).

Also please let me say very special thanks to the young lady who measured

me for stockings. She was so kind and sweet and it is such a change to be

treated as a human being and by one so young

(The Bee, Jun/july, 1966 Vol

37 No.3).

203

These letters, although published for the purpose of promoting customer service

among staff, were nevertheless likely to have been genuine experiences of

customer service. On the basis of these alone it was not sufficient evidence to claim

that

all

customers’ experience of the company were positive, but they were of

sufficient quantity and frequency to support the idea that the company were

perceived more widely by the public as caring for their needs. A care that was

documented as especially valued in the face of apparent declining levels of

customer care across the retail sector more generally. To an extent this

comparative belies that customer service was a source of competitive advantage.

However, this did not negate that customer service was a point of differentiation

from contemporary retailers thereby rendering it as an identity marker.

Boots as “trustworthy”

Further to customers’ perceptions and experiences of Boots as concerned for them,

customers also attributed ‘trustworthiness’ to the company. This was mainly

experienced by customers at the branch-level and was evidenced by the same

source above – published letters. Across copies of

The Bee

, published

correspondences praised staff for their honesty:

I have always considered that Boots is a Firm which is reliable and

trustworthy and once again this has been proved

(The Bee, Feb 1956, vol 27

No.1).

204

I do not know how to express the pleasure that I have felt because of a

member of your staff, who having given me short change was so honest as

to send the 6d she owed by the very first post afterwards. It is rare to find

honesty of this degree these days and there is no way that I can repay this

except to acknowledge it and congratulate you on your choice of staff

(The

Bee, March 1958, vol 29 No1).

Moreover, at a corporate-level, Boots were also seen with good regard as a

trustworthy investment: ‘

Boots enjoy a fund of good will, especially among

institutional investors who value the strong combination of a quasi-monopolist with

a well earned reputation for being a fine retailer’

(3120/1, Business News, June 20

1971).

That Boots were perceived as a ‘fine retailer’ may have been related to the

seriousness with which they took customer safety – further support for the idea

that the company were trustworthy. For example, in response to a health rumour

concerning some types of baby lotions, Boots immediately stopped selling the

products despite there being no scientific evidence they were of danger (3124/4,

The Yorkshire Post, Feb 19

, 1972). Thus, rather than take risks Boots withdrew the

stock. An alternative but equally strong example of the regard Boots gave to

customer safety and assuring product quality was research into packaging integrity:

205

By extensive testing the laboratory staff can determine the fundamental

properties and potentialities of different forms of pack. Some supposedly

airtight seals prove not to be so, some containers break up or distort in

humid conditions, some colours fade badly, and some packs do not

withstand transport hazards, and so on and so on. Conversely, a container

may be especially chosen because it gives a first-class closure or offers

outstanding resistance to moisture permeability

(3006/46, Newsletter No.

34, May/July 1957).

Such exacting efforts were designed to ensure the safety and reliability of Boots

products that denoted notions of trustworthiness and reliability surrounding the

Boots Company (

cf.

identity theme of Assured).

To other chemists in the trade that sold Boots products, the Boots name was

sometimes a bitter pill since in selling Boots products they felt they were providing

free advertising. In response to claims that this was unfair, Boots sought to find a

solution to the problem. They did so by creating an alternative brand name for

Boots products that were widely sold among all chemists to mitigate the fact that

Boot’s products were of themselves their own advertising for the company. Thus,

even among competitors in the trade, the company were enacting a trustworthy

identity by attempting at times to play fair and be ethical competitors by

accommodating smaller retailers’ concerns:

206

In response to criticisms from several chemists that the inclusion of Boots

name on the packs of Dulsils and Top Score had the effect of steering repeat

purchasers into Boots branches, the Company is introducing from July 1 a

new name, Lenbrook Laboratories ltd., on the pack of those products. No

reference to Boots will appear on the packs. Terms continue as present. A

second change in policy is to make Boots artificial sweetener Sweetex a

Lenbrook product and to widen its distribution to all chemists. Again no

reference to Boots will appear on the pack. The manufacturers point out that

Sweetex sells at exceptionally competitive prices and already, despite a

hitherto restricted distribution, is considered the National brand leader in

tablet sales. National advertising is continuing with the difference that

henceforth customers are being directed to “all chemists.” Independent

chemists and Boots branches will benefit equally from all and promotion

schemes and material produced for the product

(C & D, June 1967, p.519).

Taken together, the safety and quality measures Boots employed, alongside the

company’s honesty toward customers and sometimes fair, ethical stance to

industry competition, suggested that Boots could be considered a trustworthy

organization.

Boots as a “nurturing” company

Another theme continuing on into this time frame was that the company continued

to be a caring employer. There were many documents that attested to Boots as

207

taking staff welfare as a serious obligation that led to generating a ‘nurturing’

identity theme. Annual reports were a particularly strong source in communicating

this aspect of Boot’s identity. For example, the company professed an

organizational-level belief about staff that was communicated to shareholders as:

We think that all these things [staff welfare] are important for the morale

and efficiency of the 40,000 people who make up our staff and on whose skill

and devotion the Company depends. Its strength is the strength of the

people who compose it

(Annual Report, 1962).

Comments of gratitude were frequently extended to the whole body of Boots staff

thanking them for their contributory efforts. A strong example was the grateful

recognition by the Chairman of the support staff gave during the process of

dispensary enlargement (1950-1951). In further annual reports, staff welfare

initiatives were also documented. These included a profit-earning bonus scheme

(1961), tributes to staff and mention of four full-time doctors for staff health

(1962), a 25 year service award (1971), staff safety and works councils (1974), an

occupational health unit (1974), staff training (1966), and a new management

training scheme (1968). These were all in-work benefits for those currently

employed at Boots; however, the company also greatly valued those who had

retired from the business – a strong indication that nurturing staff was more

fundamental to Boots than being a good employer.

208

[Our] interest does not cease at retirement, Over the past few years we have

been able to improve the pensions paid to most of our older retired people,

particularly those with small pensions

(Annual Report, 1962).

We as a firm care deeply about our staff and our pensioners; we must never

become so immersed in the affairs of business as to forget those whose long

and loyal service has contributed so much to the position we enjoy today

(The Bee, Feb 1966 vol. 37 No1, p.20).

Caring for retired staff was also evidenced across staff magazines

The Bee

and

Boots

News

, which regularly depicted narrative stories of retired staff members and

accounts of pensioner social activities supported by the company. Indeed, pensions

were considered an important aspect of staff welfare, which had begun initially for

male staff in 1935, but by 1956 were extended to women under the same scheme.

Moreover, following the merger with Timothy Whites in 1969, all were placed on

the Boots pension rates (Boots News, Feb, 1973):

General Pension Scheme meeting: The meeting was historic because it was

the funeral service of the Pension Scheme which commenced in 1935 and

also its reincarnation as a new Boots General Pension Scheme with bigger

and better benefits... Applicable to all members – both male and female

members were now included in one Pension Fund instead of having separate

Funds...a new principle has been adopted so that the Company contributes

209

twice as much as every pension fund member

(The Bee, June 1956 vol. 27 No

2, p.12).

This new pension scheme also suggested a desire to promote and support equality

among staff. For example, as a company, Boots professed in the pages of

The Bee

they were committed to gender equality:

Mrs Pankhurst would be proud of us. In these days when women are taking

their place alongside men in all the top professions, we at Boots can claim a

well established tradition of women in management, going back to 1932

when our first lady manager on the company was Miss Annie Souter 666

(Elgin). We now have 43 lady managers. The next logical step is a lady

T.G.M, and in the words of Mr Derek Budge, deputy manager, Retail staff:

“The sky’s the limit for women in the company today.” Not so long ago lady

managers were something of a phenomenon. Now we accept them on equal

terms with their male colleagues and, indeed, their opportunities and

working conditions are exactly the same as for men. Similarly, the attitude of

women themselves has changed too. Nowadays many girls joining the

company as pharmacy graduates have management in mind as a career and

with this end in view they have been given the chance of attending our

training for management courses during their first year’s postgraduate

training. The statistics are already improving in favour of the future lady T.

G. M. whereas a very small percentage of women entered pharmacy in the

210

immediate post war years; the figure is now as high as 35 per cent

(The Bee

Sept/Oct 1969, p.12).

This was more than a rhetorical piece of text since further evidence confirmed the

presence of three female Directors on the Boards of Lancashire, Southern and

Northern Boots Companies (Annual Report, 1949-1950). Other sources such as

The

Bee

, also depicted accounts of female pharmacy managers (1950, p.21) which was

again reiterated in

Boots News

(April 1979 edition). However, discourse about

gender equality sometimes still portrayed a certain amount of gendered

stereotyping:

A reference to “women’s lib” provided a topical talking point at the annual

presentation of awards made at the Secretarial Training Centre, Beeston,

recently. Addressing girls who had just completed their courses at the

Centre, Mr XXXXXXXXX, training services manager said: “There’s no doubt

that we are moving towards greater equality. By 1975 the Equal Pay Act will

have come fully into force and already a number of traditional barriers

dividing the sexes have been broken down. Women are beginning to exert

themselves – to an extent they always have of course, but now it is more

noticeable. In secretarial jobs girls have an inbuilt advantage – for who

would want a male secretary? But in general, the better her qualifications

and the more skilled and effective she is in carrying out her secretarial

211

duties, the more chance she will have of gaining equality and gaining both

satisfaction and success

(Boots News, March 1972).

Potential biases and discrimination were addressed formally by the company when

they published their first “Equality in Employment” policy in 1976 (a year after the

Equal Pay Act), that was designed to ensure ‘

marital status, race, colour or creed’

were not barriers to ‘

pay, training, promotion and recruitment’

(Boots News, Jan,

1976). Underpinning inclusive policy making besides UK law, was also an

organizational-level belief in meritocracy in which Boots regarded staff as primarily

people (The Bee, vol 35. No 1, 1963) to whom they could offer opportunities and a

fulfilling career (Annual Report, 1968). This was achieved through staff training that

was parallel with, rather than a response to the Industrial Training Act of 1964

(Annual Report, 1962, 1966, The Bee, Sept/Oct, 1966). Meanwhile, potential

situational barriers to staff promotion and progression, such as difficulties of

relocation, were mitigated through a House Purchase Scheme in which Boots

helped employees buy a home by providing interest-free loans and one-off

payments (House Purchase Scheme, Q & A, C1970s).

Overall, the amount of staff welfare activities and sentiments expressed by the

company through T3 were of such extent that to include all references would be

impractical. Indeed, Boots’ concern for staff welfare was projected and professed in

recruitment brochures across the 1960s (Box A33), in adverts (Y280), and in a

number of promotional brochures, and newsletters. These revealed there were

212

staff suggestion boxes on the Beeston site, showing Boots valued employees ideas

and opinions (3006/41, Newsletter, no 23, July 1956), that notions of staff welfare

were embedded and traditional (334/11, Come Behind the Counter, 1956), that

staff facilities were provided for (A33/7, Recruitment Brochure, 1970; The Bee,

1950, p. 8-9) and health and safety was considered (3006/53, Newsletter No 41,

Apr/Aug 1959). In sum, it was beyond doubt that across the archive for this time

frame there was plentiful documentary evidence that Boots were a ‘nurturing’ and

caring employer. Indeed, the evidence showed that Boots were committed to

equality, supported staff to achieve their best, protected and provided for their

needs while valuing them as core contributors to business success.

Boots as “relational”

Boots identity as nurturing by caring for staff welfare had overlap with the identity

theme of Boots as ‘relational’. For example, Boot’s relationship with staff was

synonymous with the concept of family:

At all times we try to induce a family spirit in the firm and give everyone a

personal interest in its progress. We arrange for all managers to spend a

week in Nottingham periodically where they can see the Head Office

organisation, visit the factories and meet the people to whom they write so

often but never see

(Review of Activities, 1953-54).

213

This spirit of family inclusively also extended out to Boot’s leavers, reflecting a type

of Alumni relational practice marked by get-togethers held for former employees to

maintain contact (The Mixture, 1958; Annual Report, 1962). Outsiders to the Boots

family such as Timothy Whites staff were also integrated by placing them on the

same rates of pay and service as Boots staff and providing access to joint training

(Annual Report 1969). Generating inclusion to the family through personnel policy

was reflected by Boots recognition of the importance of the ‘

human element’

about

which the company claimed: they ‘

have always tried to maintain the highest

possible standards in personnel relation and in the future this policy will continue’

(334/6 Building for the Future, June 1960). Moreover, even suppliers were

considered as part of this human element to business, revealed in the following

text:

Many of these suppliers have served us well for a generation and some

indeed from the earliest days of the Company. We value most highly the

happy relations we enjoy with our suppliers and I would like to take this

opportunity in expressing our grateful thanks

(Annual Report, 1962).

Interestingly, although the Boots professed to have cordial relationships with

suppliers, they were not actively included in the company’s stakeholder business

model. Instead, Boots professed to have what they called an: ‘

eternal triangle of

commerce’

(The Bee, March, 1954, vol 52 No 1) in which it was claimed:

214

There are three partners in our business – our customers, our shareholders,

and our staff. All three have an interest in our profits and our policy is

directed to ensuring that all gain from the extension and improvement in our

business

(334/6, Building for the future June 1960).

Mentioned in the quote directly above was a reference to expansion of the

business, leading to a different example of the way in which Boots enacted a

relational identity. With expansion also came reconsideration of the overall

structure of the company that was guided by the consultancy firm, Peat Marwick

Associates (now

KPMG

). They audited the firm in 1966 and published a report of

their observations and recommendations for improvement in the company

structure. The specific findings, too detailed to be offered here, suggested Boots

ought to adopt a complex divisional structure reflecting the complexity of the

various businesses and subsidiaries. While Boots did adopt some structural change

by creating a number of “divisions” with their own separate Boards, their response

was cautious since they understood themselves as a relational, interdependent

entity:

The great strength of this business in the past has lain in its unity of purpose.

We do not consist of a large number of unrelated activities joined together

solely by bonds of common financial ownership. Each parts of the business

has an important role to play in supporting every other part. We must be

careful in the changes which lie ahead to preserve this sense of common

215

purpose. Against the Company’s background of achievement, no change is

worthwhile unless it can hold out the promise of improvement. But if we are

careful to preserve what is good in the old: while being willing to seize the

opportunities offered by new ideas and concepts, I believe we can build up

for ourselves and organisation which will give fuller scope to the energies

and abilities of all our people at all levels in the Company; and which will

enable us to match in the future the achievements

(334/7, Shaping up for

the Future, Peat Marwick Response, December 1966).

That Boots reacted to the Peat Marwick Report in this way was unsurprising since

the previous year the company had been talking about itself as:

‘a single unit [with]

no division of the Company as into autonomous or semi-autonomous units of the

lines now so common in large organisations’

(334/20, The Development and

Organisation of Boots Pure Drug Co, Ltd, C1965).

Understanding itself as a uniquely relational business, the company also fostered

personal relationships with its international businesses and subsidiaries. From

Australia to India, relationships were maintained through personal visits by the

Chairman: ‘

to enable him to meet as many as possible of the Company’s overseas

staff... [that] and will serve to emphasise our inter-dependence’

(3006/41,

Newsletter No 29. July 1956; see also No 20, 1954, & No 33, 1957). Other overseas

relations were also developed, albeit for more strategic purposes. For example, a

mutually beneficial manufacturing arrangement was established with UpJohn in the

216

U.S. (Newsletter, No 15, Jan 1953). On a final note, one may question where such a

relational spirit emerged from and it appeared it may have been rooted in the

company’s past. Of note, Jesse Boot’s relational maxim that ‘

the only satisfactory

business is one that satisfies both buyer and seller’

was invoked during this time

frame (Annual Report, 1968; 334/7 About Boots- Circular brochure for retail staff,

C1970). A maxim that had also been adopted by John Boot (Lord Trent):

Of all the many wise principles enunciated by Lord Trent in respect of the

Company’s business, there is one that seems worthy to be writ in letters of

gold – ‘No transaction that is unsatisfactory to the customer is satisfactory

to us’. On that foundation Boots reputation for service has been built. Can

we not see, in all this, clear proof that basis of Lord Trent’s success was his

genius for handling to the satisfaction of all parties, the eternal triangle of

commerce – customer, shareholders and staff

(The Bee, vol 25 No 1, March,

1954).

Boots as “historically grounded”

References to the history of the company were noticeable throughout and

contributed to the generation of a new and final identity theme for this time frame

– ‘historically grounded’. There were multiple references to the company’s past

included in Chairman Speeches to shareholders in annual reports. For example:

217

Boots for value is basic to our trading policy. It is a valid claim confirmed

over the years. Jesse Boot took as his slogan when he had achieved over a

hundred shops, “Biggest, Cheapest, Best”. This still applies and our slogan

today is but the logical development of his, and one from which we shall not

depart

(Annual Report, 1971).

Further references to Jesse Boot’s philosophy or the historical grounding of certain

current organizational practices covered a number of areas including: catalogue

distribution (3006/30 Newsletter No 18, Dec 1953), staff welfare (Boots News, Jan

1973), philanthropy (Boots News, Sept 1977), customer centrality (334/7, About

Boots, retail circular, C1970) and staff education through Boots College (334/3,

About Boots Business, C1973). In these and other areas the company drew on its

past as justification or explanation for what it was doing in the here-and-now. Using

history as basis for justifying current practices, values and beliefs culminated at the

end of the time frame in 1977 with Boot’s centenary year, during which the

company projected a historically grounded identity through mnemonic documents

such as adverts and press releases (Rowlinson et al., 2010). These documents

celebrated the successes of the business from its humble beginnings to something

of an empire attributed to adherence to Jesse Boot’s original values, ideas and

beliefs (459/1-6, Boots Centenary Press Release – Barbara Attenborough Associates

Ltd.).

218

In total, there were 47 individual textual references across all other identity themes

and spread across the whole time frame that drew on the company’s past heritage.

Thus, by not simply coalescing around the centenary as a marketing-led activity,

reliance on being ‘historically grounded’ appeared to be a component of Boot’s

identity and central to the way in which the business understood itself in this time

period. On this basis it was considered appropriate to generate an identity theme

that reflected Boot’s self-professed dependence on their past ideas, beliefs, values

and practices as they developed into their future.

Explaining Boot’s OI at T3

It was calculated that around 70% of themes (nine out of a total of twelve) identity

themes were reproduced in this next time cycle that was marked by John Boots

retirement in 1954, the rise of the

NHS

and an absence of extensive war involving

the UK. Thus, there was a strong empirical pattern of reproduction in identity

themes in this time unit. For example: “innovative”, “trustworthy”, “public serving”,

“pro-social”, “nurturing to staff”, “assured”, “relational”, “customer service

oriented”, and a “chemist” were all themes which endured. New themes were also

apparent such as: “self-confident”, “expansionist” and “historically grounded”.

Accompanying expansion was also identity loss in which “capable” and

“nationalistic” were no longer evident from archival sources. Consequently,

although there was some dynamism in Boot’s OI during this third time frame there

was a recognisable level of stability that I now move on to develop an explanation

for.

219

With Boot’s OI previously argued to be rooted in a combination of entities in the

wider institutional-level environment, it was expected that with the wider social

changes in this time frame, that Boot’s identity would also have changed. This

prediction was suggested on the basis of previous research which has highlighted

the contextual dependency of OI. For example, when the comparative context

shifts changes in OI can occur to maintain positive distinctiveness from

contemporary organizations (for example: Elsbach & Kramer, 1996). Further, when

the operating environment changes OI has been shown to be strategically adapted

to maintain organizational legitimacy (He & Baruch, 2010). However, many previous

identity markers that had been generated for Boot’s OI in T2 were evident again in

T3 meaning that Boot’s identity had not changed. This was counter to theoretical

expectations of what would have been likely to occur, prompting further discussion

of how and why endurance and elaboration in Boot’s OI did occur.

With the company being interdependent with the wider social context for its

identity, social change could be considered a threat to Boot’s emergent OI. For

example, when evidencing OI themes the empirical data revealed that the creation

of the

NHS

resulted in a loss of Boot’s traditional public services of nurses and day-

and-night pharmacies. Likewise, the loss of strong family leadership would also

have been likely to destabilise Boot’s sense of who they were since both Jesse and

John Boot had been chief articulators and communicators of Boot’s OI in the

previous time frames (

cf.

Gioia, et al., 2010). Thus, a salient starting point for

explaining the dynamics in Boot’s OI was scholarly work relating to organizational

220

identity threat. Under conditions of identity threat, researchers have suggested that

organizations have a number of options open to them such as to re-evaluate and

change their identity in line with stakeholder demands (Gioia, et al., 2000; Scott &

Lane, 2000), change emphasis on which identity markers are fore-grounded

(Elsbach & Kramer, 1996), adaptively change OI (He & Baruch, 2010; Dutton &

Dukerich, 1991), or even do nothing and ignore the situation (Gioia et al., 2000;

Fombrun & Rindova, 2000).

In enacting such options, leaders and managers may also draw upon the

organization’s past in a reflexive way to evaluate and reconstruct their OI (Ravasi &

Schultz, 2006; Ericson, 2006; Schultz & Hernes, 2013). Conversely, they may tear

the past up to make a break for organizational change (Brunninge, 2009;

Humphreys & Brown, 2002). Implied by these studies were that history can be used

by organizations in identity management in which ‘the past is seen as increasingly

salient during times of crisis or transition’ (Schultz & Hernes, 2013, p. 1-2). For

Boots, during this time of identity threat, their historical identity became salient.

This was to the extent that a new theme of being ‘historically grounded’ was

generated reflecting the company’s reliance on who it had been in the past (see

Table 3.).

However, as discussed in my literature review, history within the context of

organizations is often regarded as something that is malleable (Gioia et al., 2000)

and rhetorical – created for strategic purposes and thus not the past at all (Suddaby

221

et al., 2010; Pedersen & Dobbin, 2006). Increasingly, notions of path dependency

(Booth, 2003) in which an actual past constrains the future (Ran & Golden, 2011)

have been side-lined in favour of the view that organizations strategically

reconstruct their past to serve corporate objectives (Anteby & Molnar, 2012;

Suddaby et al., 2010; Brunninge, 2009; Chreim, 2005). Given that an organizational

history is constructed and revised in the here-and-now by agents to justify, create

and manipulate a current OI (Gioia et al., 2000), what then can be said of a pre-

existent historical identity that temporally precedes organizational members?

In their discussions of critical realism both Searle (1995) and Reed (2005), have

argued what is constructed in the here-and-now must be referent to some

independent and historically preceding reality from which to construct. In the

context of OI, organizational agents’ are therefore likely to draw upon a tangible

organizational past to construct both organizational history and identity. Thus, what

is constructed in terms of identity is both framed and shaped by the past (Ravasi &

Phillips, 2011), meaning the past is inescapably reproduced in the present (Appleby,

1998). In Boot’s OI at T3 their past OI was present since not only were historical

referents empirically evidenced (leading to a theme of historically grounded) but

many generated markers of the company’s preceding OI were reproduced. To

understand reproduction of OI as enactment of the past, Archer (1995; 1996)

reminds us that the content of an archive, as an historically situated entity with

emergent properties, is relevant. Indeed, during T3 Boot’s past OI had been

increasingly collected into an archive forming a cultural-system that was parallel to

222

the company’s OI as an emergent property of the combination of social entities in

the wider institutional-level environment.

However, on their own terms the archive and its contents are of themselves

relatively benign and non-emergent. Importantly, Archer (1996) points out that the

way in which organizational agents interact with what exists in the archive (or the

past), is how the propositional contents of such cultural entities come to be

enacted by agents (and therefore reproduced or elaborated) – an emergent

property in present time. Thus, with Boot’s past OI now also embedded in Boot’s

archival cultural-system, it was possible that agents’ interactions with their past OI

could explain the ongoing patterns of reproduction and elaboration, despite the

presence of wider change in the institutional environment.

That agents engage with a past OI has been elucidated to some extent by research

cited earlier in which it had been suggested that organizational members can both

ignore and/or elaborate a historically situated OI. Thus, agents’ engagement style

with an organizational past seemed to be of importance. In the data from T3

several engagement styles with past OI were identified. First, agents engaged

protectively with their past OI. In particular, when Boot’s identity as a chemist and

healthcare service was threatened by the

NHS,

the company’s historically situated

chemist identity was treated as sacrosanct by agents even when Boot’s OI was

becoming less like a chemist and increasingly like a department store. Second,

agents engaged creatively with their past OI. When Boots as a ‘public service’ came

223

into competition with the nationalisation of health through the

NHS

, the company

re-interpreted what it meant to be public service by foregrounding alternative

aspects of Boot’s past, such as offering value and making high-quality goods

affordable for all. Indeed, with a loss of its more traditional public services, the

company also had to drop a ‘health service’ aspect from their OI to return to their

OI at T1 of being a chemist. This did not have to happen since the company could

have embraced a new identity as a department store. However, because the

company’s past OI was engaged with protectively, this past OI marker was

reproduced.

In some cases reproduction of identity was not based on agents interacting with

their past OI but using it to adapt to loss and change in the underlying combination

of social entities from which Boot’s OI was emergent. For example, the marker of

‘relational’ seemed to have been reproduced through re-situating it within

alternative and historically rooted aspects of OI. To explain, being relational at T2

had been generated from empirically observing a number of strategic

collaborations to develop drugs. These had arisen from the presence of war and a

national need to improve production methods, particularly of penicillin and to

secure British supplies. Contributing further to collaborations for the innovation of

new drugs was a relative laxity in State regulation for new pharmaceutical products

before the

NHS

(Abraham & Shepherd, 2009, pp. 13-14). However, in T3, the State

(through the

NHS

) were now the largest customer for drug purchasing in the UK

and increasingly regulated and dictated terms to British pharmaceutical companies

224

(

op cit

). Thus, collaborations with other companies to develop new products would

have become less appealing since the

NHS

decided what it would and would not

purchase and new drugs were expensive. Meanwhile, the absence of war ended a

need to be closely allied to and work with the Government. Thus, there was a

significant change in the social entities that Boot’s OI was dependent on and it was

from these wider changes that the company’s emergent ‘relational’ identity was

threatened. However, the company responded to this threat adaptively by re-

situating their relational OI internally within the business itself. Given that Boots’

staff had been and continued to be an ongoing and relatively stable foundation for

Boot’s emergent OI in T1 and T2, achieving this at T3 was possible and explained

the shift in the theme from external collaboration toward internal interrelations.

While protectionism and creative repositioning were notable active engagement

styles, there was also evidence that agents disengaged from their past OI and in

doing so did not reproduce it. The theme in which this had been observed was

Boot’s identity as nationalistic. With the absence of war, the company no longer

needed to help secure Britain’s pharmaceutical and chemical resources. Instead,

the imperative for Boots (and the British economy more generally) was exporting

goods to boost a damaged post-war economy. Given that Boot’s national identity

had been strongly related to both World Wars, now in the absence of war,

reproduction and enactment of a strong national identity was likely to have been

regarded as unimportant by agents. Thus, agents simply appeared to disengage

with this aspect of their historically situated OI in T1 and T2. Indeed, there were

225

very few empirical data across T3 that revealed any mention of nationalism

meaning the identity theme was not generated. Thus, the absence of war, (war

being previously one of the entities on which Boot’s emergent OI depended),

meant that nationalism could no longer be reproduced as an emergent identity

marker. Moreover, this condition also made it undesirable for organizational agents

to engage with ‘nationalism’ as embedded within Boot’s archive. Consequently,

nationalism was not reproduced at T3, neither was it elaborated. Instead in the

absence of contingent conditions for its expression at the level of events, the

powers of this OI marker to be reproduced were suppressed.

Accompanying identity loss there was also creation of new identity markers that in

similarity to T2 were enabled by Boot’s past identity. ‘Expansionism’ was one such

new identity marker that coincided with the suppression of Boot’s nationalistic

identity but nevertheless was expressed by organizational agents in relation to

earlier notions of Jesse Boot’s business philosophy in T1. Indeed, it was claimed that

it had been Jesse Boot’s vision and philosophy to “expand the business more

generally”, indicating that this new ‘expansionist’ identity marker had a basis in

Boot’s past. Meanwhile, Boot’s identity as ‘self-confident’ also coincided with the

non-reproduction of Boots as a ‘capable’ organization. In the previous two time

frames, Boots had expressed an identity centred on their capabilities. However,

non-observation of capability in T3 could not be explained through suppression as

with nationalism. Instead, having built a proven identity as ‘capable’ for over 50

years previously, a ‘self-confidence’ in being capable rather than simply ‘being

226

capable’ was forthcoming. Finally, having an identity grounded in history was also

evidenced and explainable on grounds that at this point Boot’s had a lengthy past.

However, without agents’ engagement with their past to construct OI in T3, such a

theme would not have been generated. This added further support to my

argument, that what had been observed and generated in T3 was to some extent

dependent on and related to who Boot’s had previously been.

The dynamics in Boot’s identity during this time frame were somewhat more

complex than the reproduction and elaboration of Boot’s OI in the previous time

frame since there were changes in the stability of the wider social milieu from

which Boot’s OI had been emergent from. Theoretically, it was expected that such

changes would have also meant change in Boot’s OI as the company adapted to

these changes. However, this was not the case with many past OI themes being

reproduced. The explanation I advanced for this was that Boot’s OI had escaped

dependence on wider social entities for its emergence and was now also present as

a cultural entity, emergent from Boot’s archive. Consequently, the company’s OI

was not only emergent from the wider social environment but also independent of

agents and available to them as ready-made.

Nevertheless, for past OI (as part of cultural-system) to be reproduced requires

socio-cultural interaction (Archer, 1996), meaning that agents had to have engaged

with what pre-existed them in terms of OI for it to be visibly reproduced

(elaborated and/or transformed). My findings showed that agents did engage with

227

their past OI in three different ways: protectively, creatively and through non-

engagement and that this was able to explain reproduction, elaboration, and

suppression of past OI. However, what was constructed was not voluntaristic or

negotiated with stakeholders (Gioia et al., 2000; Scott & Lane, 2000), neither was it

strategically rhetorical to create an appearance of continuity with the past to serve

corporate objectives (

cf.

Suddaby et al., 2010). Instead, what was reproduced,

elaborated and suppressed in terms of past OI was arguably contingent on wider

contextual changes. For example, the absence of war, the creation of the

NHS

and a

loss of family leadership conditioned what was reproduced and suppressed in terms

of Boot’s past OI. Thus, the dynamics of Boot’s identity in this third time frame

could be explained by contingent interactions between Boot’s past OI and the

current social context, enabling and constraining what agents could reproduce in

this time frame in terms of their pre-existent OI.

228

Chapter 7

Results IV: Death and Resurrection of Identity

Introduction

In this results chapter, I present the evidence for Boot’s identity during T4 which

was the final time unit within the study. Organisation of the findings was somewhat

different to the previous presentation since from initial analyses of the data, it was

apparent that there were a number of changes in this period. To capture this, it was

outlined in my method section that the data had been split into three groups which

improved the sensitivity of the analysis and avoided losing identity dynamics by

taking too panoramic a lens. In particular, data were divided into early (1978-1989),

middle (1990-1999) and late (1999-2002/3) periods. These same demarcations have

been followed in the way this chapter was constructed. However, despite being

analytically divided, to maintain continuity with the previous time units T4 should

be taken as a complete unit of time. Before looking closer at each identity theme in

the three subsections of time, an overview of this whole time period has been

offered to help orientation in what was an increasingly complex organization.

The socio-political landscape at this time had become particularly salient since two

years after Boots centenary in 1977, Margaret Thatcher, leader of the Conservative

Party came to office following what had been a Labour Government under James

Gallaghan [1976-1979]. This change marked the march forward of neoliberal

229

political ideology in Great Britain that reduced taxation on business, deregulated

monetary policy, encouraged privatisation of nationalised industries (Martinez &

Garcia, 1997) such as coal, which led to the Miners strike of the mid-1980s. Thus,

this time period represented a dynamic shift in the socio-political landscape of UK

that saw business becoming increasingly privatised, competitive, international, and

deregulated. It was into this environment that Boots emerged with a new Chairman

at the helm, Peter Main (1981 – 1984), followed by Robert Gunn in 1985 who led

the company for the rest of the 1980s. Sir Christopher Benson took up the position

in 1990, but by 1996 had been replaced by Sir Michael Angus who took Boots

forward for two years until 1988 (Nottingham Post, March 23, 2010). Lord Blythe

adopted the position for another two years before John McGrath succeeded him

from 1999 to 2003 taking us to the close of the time period.

Notwithstanding a number of changes in leadership, the business also underwent

multiple changes during this time frame that were reconstructed from annual

reports. During the 1980s the company had engaged in several acquisitions, for

example, Optrex, the eye-product manufacturer was purchased in 1983, which

through a process of mergers became Boots Opticians. Farleys Health Products

were also purchased in 1986. A year later, Boots made a decision to open its own

new chain of stores unrelated to pharmacy, called Children’s World – a retail outlet

for parents shopping with their children that exclusively sold children’s products.

Underwoods chain of Chemist shops was acquired in 1989, the same year in which

the company made an aggressive bid for the Ward White Group which consisted of

230

Halfords (bicycle and car-parts chain stores), Payless DIY chain and FADS, a home

decorating chain. At this time, the Boots business was also divided up since it had

become too large and diverse to act as a single entity. This translated to the

creation of several companies that operated under the banner of The Boots Group.

In the group were Boots the Chemist shops (BTC), Boots retail division (that all

other retail business were subsumed under), Boots Pharmaceuticals and Boots

Properties. However, during the 1990s many of Boot’s non-chemist business were

proving to be unprofitable so inasmuch as acquisitions had occurred, many areas of

the business were also sold off including Boot’s pharmaceutical research division

which was bought by the German group BASF in 1994/95. This left behind at the

turn of the century a leaner Boots consisting of three operational units – Boots the

Chemist, Boots Healthcare International, and Boots Contract Manufacturing. It was

evident that the dynamism of Boots over this time frame was complex which

justified my pragmatic decision to treat the data with a higher degree of sensitivity

by creating multiple sub-units. In what follows, generation of identity themes began

with the early period, was repeated for the middle sub-unit and finished with the

later period.

Boot’s Identity at T4 (1978 -2002)

T4 Early Period (1978-1989)

Surprisingly, interrogation of the archive material across this period did not offer up

a sufficient quantity of identity related text to generate many OI themes. This was

231

represented in Table 3. presented at the start of Chapter 4 as a noticeable blank

section within the table. There were of course some texts, but these were disparate

and stood alone meaning there was not sufficient quantity of material to generate

identity themes for the early period. Nevertheless, there were some data that

allowed at least two themes to be generated.

Boots offer ‘quality’

Visible across annual reports in the 1980s were increasing company-level steps

toward maintaining quality control in the face of increasing non-pharmaceutical

merchandise:

We continue to develop our own Boots Brand ranges in many different areas

of brought in merchandise, with increasing assistance from our new Quality

Assurance Laboratories. They also check deliveries of these and proprietary

products to ensure they conform to our specification and thereby enable us

to supply customers with high quality goods in technological fields where

faulty merchandise is all too common

(Annual Report, 1980).

It was a theme that had been repeated from all the previous time frames, although

previously it had been labelled under ‘assured’. In this time frame it was evident

that merchandise consisting of both Own Goods and re-branded products that bore

the name “Boots” had to be of the highest quality since assured quality was

232

something that had been professed to be the basis of Boots offering across time.

According to Dr. Main, who succeed Gordon Hobday as Chairman:

Boots brands have long been a source of corporate pride; with their

combination of quality, price and product features they present to our

customers an image of the Company which embodies the highest standards

(Annual Report, 1984).

It was apparent from the above text that the quality of Boot’s own branded

products was regarded as a material aspect of Boot’s identity, that projected an

image of what the organization was like to customers who used Boots’ products.

Given that this “image” was predicated on products (which pertained to corporate

identity) and was mediated through products (projected identity), this text was

deemed to relate to organizational identity as opposed to notions of organizational

image (

cf.

Gioia et al., 2000). A focus on quality continued to be important to Boots

when Robert Gunn took over the Chairmanship since he also continued to speak of

Boot’s quality. In his annual address to shareholders he spoke of the inherent

quality and value within Own products to be a differentiator in the face of

competition with other retailers (Annual Report, 1987). In the same report it was

further mentioned that quality and value were traditional aspects of Boots Own

products:

233

A new and aggressive pricing policy with more positive efforts to promote

our traditional standards of quality and value-for-money - particularly in the

area of Own Goods - have more than paid off in the Battle for the High

Street

(Annual Report, 1987).

Although efforts to project Boots quality were not apparent in advertising at the

time (which was primarily related to specific individual products rather than general

prestige) it was projected to potential employees that: ‘

As a company, we offer a

name which for more than a century - has been associated with quality in the field

of pharmacy’

(2582/4, A Fresh Look at Careers in Pharmacy, C1985). To customers,

notions of quality were being subsumed and communicated under a much wider

remit of a customer initiative called “Assured Shopping”. According to Steve Russell,

the Chief Executive of Boots at the time, Assured Shopping was:

’not so much as a

public statement, but as an expression of the Company’s guiding belief in Quality,

Service, and truly caring for customers’

(Boots News, 1982).

Boots as “socially responsible”

The only other generated identity theme for which there were sufficient data

sources within the early period of T4 was Boots as a ‘socially responsible’ company.

In similarity with T2, this was in the direction of national unemployment levels

which were rising. Under the political office of Margaret Thatcher unemployment

rose considerably in the UK during the 1980s with over 3 million people out of work

(BBC, The Thatcher Years in Statistics, 2013). In response to this a Youth Training

234

Scheme (YTS) was initiated by the British Government in 1983 designed to ease the

problem by placing young people into a work-based training position. Boots were

supportive of this project as evidenced in an annual report of that same year:

‘the

high level of unemployment greatly concerns us, and the Company has agreed to

become fully involved in the new Youth Training Scheme’

(Annual Report, 1983).

Although it could be argued that cheap labour was an incentive for businesses to be

involved in the scheme, this appeared to be a genuine concern since Boots

professed to be actively addressing youth unemployment before YTS had been

initiated:

In response to growing concern for the plight of unemployed youngsters,

Boots has dramatically increased the number of work experience places for

young people in the Nottingham area. Mr. Muncey (recruitment and Dev

manager): “Managers throughout the Company are in agreement that

employment for young people carries high priority and is a social

responsibility which the Company is determined to shoulder”

(Boots News,

1981).

Concern and support for unemployment and job creation were also being

expressed by Boots in other ways:

‘We are also increasing our support for the

Business in the Community to encourage development of new small business

ventures’

(Annual Report, 1986). This began with supporting six local enterprise

agencies in 1986 and rose to 108 just two years later (Annual Report, 1986/1988).

235

Alongside this, Boots also continued in charitable giving (£622

in 1988) through

Boots Charitable Trust which had originally been established in 1970 during the

previous time frame.

Environmental concerns were also coming to the fore during the 1980s particularly

regarding the deleterious effects of CFCs on the Earth’s ozone layer. Boots actively

joined with other companies to manage this problem by taking action:

Boots has added its name and support to a move by a number of toiletries

manufacturers of CFC aerosols. The Company has pledged to eliminate CFSs

from all its products (except medicines) by the end of the 1989 at the latest.

The move follows debate over the possible danger from CFCs to the earth’s

atmosphere by damaging the ozone layer. A number of organisations like

Friends of the Earth are increasing their campaigning activity to make the

public aware of these possible dangers. Reductions in CFC levels in aerosols

have been taken in line with an EEC directive of 1980 and Boots has been

among industries leaders in reducing levels further than recommendations

require

(Boots News, 1988).

This was not the only example of environmentalism since Boots also had adopted

recycling initiatives around the re-use of cardboard packaging. However, since this

was noted to be a cost-saving measure rather than social responsibility, it was not

included as a theme generator. Neither was the company’s concern for

236

environment sufficient for establishing an identity theme of social responsibility by

itself, but when combined with Boot’s involvement in YTS and “Business in the

Community” there was a trend toward being somewhat socially responsible

although the evidence for this was not particularly strong. It was also not clear the

extent to which engaging in socially responsible activities were strategic for the

business or driven by a more ideological position. While T4 early period was

relatively silent with regard to OI themes, in the next decade there were a greater

number of identity themes generated.

T4 Middle Period (1990-1999)

In the middle period of the 1990s there were a greater number of archival

documents concerning Boot’s identity as well as changes in leadership from Robert

Gunn to Sir Christopher Benson who was later succeeded by Sir Michael Angus.

Across this decade a greater number of identity themes could be generated which

have been outlined below

Boots as a “chemist”

Having been carved off to stand as a separate business within the Boots Group,

Boots the Chemist (BTC) was a distinctive operational unit in which it was claimed

that:

‘healthcare remains at the heart of Boots the Chemists and we have continued

to improve the service we offer’

(Annual Report, 1991). Service improvements were

to residential homes that took the form of introducing an innovation - monitored

237

dosage. The innovation was simple yet effective, a plastic tray in which pharmacists

could pre-dispense tablets into different sections divided by times and days of the

week to reduce the possibility of error when care staff administered medicines to

patients. In talking about service development within BTC more generally, it was

evident there were considerably more service improvements:

We support the view that community pharmacy should be more active in

providing primary healthcare, in parallel with the evolving role of general

practitioners. To this end we are experimenting in a number of stores by

offering services such as cholesterol testing, general health screening and

chiropody. Our food business is closely linked with our healthcare heritage

and it goes from strength to strength

(Annual Report, 1991).

By offering these kinds of services, BTC were asserting a primary identity as a

healthcare and pharmacy-led business. The clear focus of BTC on being for health

and personal care (Annual Report, 1993) enhanced its performance leading to:

‘

increasing its concentration on its core healthcare and beauty businesses’

Meanwhile, BTC also became allied with the Royal Pharmaceutical Society ‘

develop the pharmacist’s role in providing healthcare advice’

(Annual Report, 1996).

This took the form of developing a role in primary health more generally through

repeat prescription monitoring and attempting to align the company with specific

therapeutic groups as “Pharmacist of Choice” (2935/7, Task Force on Health

Promotion in Pharmacy, C1995).

238

In projecting a chemist identity, Boots took the perspective: ‘

We see healthcare as

very much the heartland of the business’

(Pharma Journal, Dec 9 1995, pp 817-819).

This quote was made in an interview between Steve Russell, and the journal editor

in which he stated a second time: ‘

I have long believed that pharmacy lies right at

the heart of the business’

. The idea of the centrality of healthcare and pharmacy at

BTC was reiterated to shareholders (Y45, Shareholder magazine, 1996; 1997; 1998)

and to staff members in training manuals (2261/29, Stores Staff Handbook, 1996).

Of importance to remember is that BTC was but one part of the wider Boots Group

in which there were also a number of non-chemist businesses. Many of these were

underperforming and dispensing was no exception to this. However, rather than

lose dispensing, the Boots Group chose to shed unprofitable non-health care

businesses while protecting dispensing. This was evidenced by records that showed

Boots sold their non-pharmacy businesses but when probed about the possibility of

giving up pharmacy, Boots made the statement:

‘Exiting pharmacy, even with

declining unit dispensing profitability is not an option’

(2935/7, Task Force on Health

Promotion, C1995). Thus, for the Boots Group as whole, dispensing was regarded as

a protected aspect of what they were about even when dispensing as a revenue

stream was losing profitability. Moreover, in the structure of annual reports that

covered the activities of the whole Group, BTC seemed to have a privileged status

always appearing first.

239

Boots as a “shareholder focused” “business”

The subtitle above indicated that these newly appearing themes of being

‘shareholder focused’ and ‘a business’ were interdependent and thus, although

generated as two separate themes, the evidence for them was the same meaning

they have been presented as co-generated. It was evident in many documents that

by this time period, Boots had begun to frame their discourse in greater levels of

corporate language suggesting that Boots understood itself to be a ‘business’ that

was ‘shareholder focused’. This was contra to the data from previous time periods

in which company records had demonstrated a more stakeholder oriented

approach and inclusive language. “Business-speak” and a shareholder focus were

epitomised in Boot’s mission statement which first emerged in the 1990s:

The Boots Company embraces businesses operating principally in retailing,

the manufacture and marketing of health and personal care products

throughout the world and the development and management of retail

property. Our objective is to maximise the value of the Company for

shareholders. We will do so by investing in our businesses to generate strong

cash flows and superior long term returns while vigorously pursuing our

commercial interests...

Boots’ leadership also put it another way as:

240

The Boots Company now has a new structure and management philosophy

which clearly links reward to improvement in shareholder value. We are

driving this philosophy through every level of the Company – a considerable

task but the results are already becoming evident...The absolute goal for this

evolution in management is that the group and its constituent businesses all

focus on sustained cash generation and the creation of shareholder value

(Annual Report, 1993).

Indeed, being a business, for shareholders, was manifested through further

statements such as:

‘We believe that the best overall measure of long term

performance is total return to shareholders, comprising gross dividends paid and

growth in share price’

(Annual Report, 1996). The sum of the quotes offered above

demonstrated an uncompromisingly business-like approach and that Boots believed

it was primarily a vehicle for shareholder wealth creation over and above its

traditional stakeholders that included customers and staff. That Boots had actually

“changed” in this direction was made clear by the Chairman, Lord Blythe:

I sometimes hear people saying that Boots isn’t the company it used to be.

They are quite right. It isn’t and it mustn’t be. Anyone who operates in

intensely competitive markets as we do, has to keep moving and changing to

stay ahead of the game. Standing still simply isn’t an option. The last ten

years have been particularly challenging as the pace of change has

accelerated. We work for a very different company now – leaner, fitter,

241

faster on its feet, with greater focus, clearer accountabilities, and better links

between performance and reward. It may not be quite such a comfortable

place to work but I believe that any risk of complacency has been replaced,

throughout the organisation, by a new energy, creativity and above all a

growing sense of pride and purpose. # The sense of purpose flows directly

from the value based management (VBM) philosophy that we have adopted.

VBM is a very simple idea. Everything we do has to maximise the value of the

company for our shareholders. It provides a consistent framework for

strategic planning and an unambiguous measure of our achievement. It

harnesses the skills and knowledge of all our staff and it establishes a clear

link between shareholder returns, the performance of our businesses and

individual rewards. # Value based management is at the heart of the way we

do business. I have no doubt that it is and will continue to be a source of

immense competitive advantage

(2661/16, The way we do Business,

C1997/8).

Boots as “knowledgeable”

This was also a new theme but appeared to have some grounding in Boot’s past.

Having had time to develop mature capabilities in retail, marketing and selling,

Boots had developed a ‘knowledgeable’ identity marked by expertise. This enabled

Boots to be confident in attempting expansion into wider markets:

242

The Boots Company already has highly developed core competencies in

skincare through the huge experience of BTC and BCM. Now we are going to

apply that expertise to other major markets in Europe

(Y45, Shareholder

magazine, Spring 1997).

The knowledge gained by the company from its past experiences (for example,

nutritional products during World War II – T2), extended beyond its traditional

remit of pharmaceutical and beauty to include additional markets such as food:

Boots has an advantage over other food retailers because we are recognised

as experts on health and diet related matters. Now we are offering our

customers a highly professional diet analysis service which is tailored

specifically to the eating habits of the individual

(Boots News, Jan 1992).

The theme of knowledgeable was also generated from Boot’s developed expertise

in quality standards meaning when novel products came to market, the company

were able to use their experience to devise their own quality standards (334/28,

Quality Times, C1990s). Moreover, further to the company demonstrating and using

its knowledge in entering markets and creating quality standards, there was further

support derived from a marketing study that asked for the public’s perception of

Boots. The results of the study showed in particular, that the Boots name was

associated with being: ‘

analytical, academic, and clever’

(2651, Market Research

study Corp name change Crookes Healthcare, C1999). However, it seemed that in

243

practice this was not so much an academic knowledge in pharmaceutical

development since Boots sold off their research division to BASF in 1995. Rather,

knowledge was manifested as a market-based knowledge of retailing, enabling the

company to take strong market positions: ‘

Boots the Chemists is market leader in

many areas of its business including healthcare, cosmetics, toiletries, baby

consumables and film processing’

(Annual Report, 1996).

Boots as “socially responsible”

This was a complex theme for the company in which they claimed a general socially

responsible identity that was expressed through two arms of environmental and

community concern. Inasmuch as Boots were now following a strong corporate

business model in which shareholders were clearly a primary stakeholder, the

company did not abandon notions of being ‘socially responsible’ which were

embedded in the latter part of Boot’s formal mission statement:

...while vigorously pursuing our commercial interests we will, at all times,

seek to enhance our reputation as a well managed, ethical and socially

responsible company’

(Annual Report Cover, 1993; 1996).

This statement was intended as an orienting guide for business operations that was

echoed by the Chairman, Christopher Benson who despite wanting Boots to be a

competitive business recognised a commitment to enacting care and responsibility:

‘It [Boots] is a company that is caring, committed to its objectives and

244

responsibilities and strongly competitive at the same time’

(Annual Report, 1991).

This sense of guided purpose was also integrated formally into Boot’s model of

corporate governance emphasising further Boots’ commitment to ideals of ethical

and socially responsible practice:

The Company is committed to the principle of sound corporate governance.

We regard this as nothing more than an extension of our historic stance

regarding ethical behaviour in the general conduct of our affairs

(Annual

Report, 1993).

One area in which Boots were acting in a socially responsible way was through the

company’s philanthropic and charitable activities. For example, Boots were

sponsoring charities such as Action for Children’s Safety (Boots News, 1992) and in

1996 had contributed £4.1million to various charities and agencies (Annual Report,

1996). However, although the company regarded charity as connected to their

heritage, they did not regard it as being socially responsible. Instead, Boots believed

that their ongoing success as a corporate business was of itself their most socially

responsible activity. Clarifying this, it was recorded in a document that the belief of

the company was that wealth creation maintained and created employment, raised

taxes for the Treasury and contributed to the economic life of the country.

Charitable giving is part of the Boots heritage dating back to the personal

philosophy of the Company’s founder, Jesse Boot. Today the Boots Company

245

believes that the greatest contribution it can make is to build the business

and create wealth for shareholders and the community as a whole – by

contributing to economic growth and employment, by adding to the

spending and saving power of its workforce and through the payment of

personal and corporate taxes

(Boots in the Community, 1996/97).

This stance reflected a Freidmanite view of social responsibility in which businesses

create social good as a by-product of their corporate activities to primarily create

shareholder wealth (Mele, 2008). Although espousing such a position, in practice

Boots were more actually more pro-active. A key demonstration of social

responsibility in the face of being a competitive corporation was evidenced by

Boots concern about the marketisation of medicines. While the company believed it

could successfully compete in such a climate they deemed such competition as

unsafe for the public. This was evidenced in the

Pharmaceutical Journal

(July, 1995,

p.89-93) in which Gordon Houston the Managing Director of BTC claimed:

If resale price maintenance were abandoned and we found ourselves

competing in a deregulated market we would not be the losers. We have

demonstrated our ability to compete vigorously and effectively in many

other markets where this occurred 30 years ago. But we believe that the

public safety is paramount. We do not believe that medicines should be

treated as normal articles of commerce. And we have always accepted the

246

argument in favour of safeguarding the economic viability of community

pharmacies.

Even when deregulation of pharmacy would have increased competition and been

likely to generate improved shareholder value, the company recognised that

regulations were an important safeguard to both the public and local pharmacy

trade compared with a race to the bottom. Thus, although pre-dominantly driven

by shareholder interests, there was a realisation that some boundaries ought to be

respected to protect the public interest which revealed a certain degree of

consideration for the wider public good. Other ways in which Boots promoted

social good alongside shareholder wealth creation was through community

initiatives and environmental projects. As such, this revealed a level of

contradiction between Boot’s belief in the commonly termed ‘trickle-down effect’

and being pro-active in generating social benefits. The next two themes look more

closely at these pro-active company activities that were interrelated with Boots

claim to be a socially responsible organization.

Boots as “community oriented” – CSR

Allied to notions of being a socially responsible company, Boots claimed that:

‘support for the community is central to Boots philosophy’

(Community, 1995) and

this was demonstrated in a number of ways. The company supported the

Government’s “Tackling Drugs Together” campaign by working with police forces in

the creation and delivery of strategy which saw Boots shortlisted for and win

247

community prizes (Annual Report to Staff, 1998). Additionally, the company was

also a

‘founder of Nottingham Development Enterprise, a partnership between

public and private sectors’

(Annual Report, 1993), permitted charities to use vacant

Boots premises, and formed associations with specific charities such as the National

Association of Carers (Quality Times, Nov/Dec, 1994). To emphasise their

community work, Boots frequently cited and projected a concern for the

community that they linked to their past (Community Review, 1998; 334/60

Planning for Tomorrow’s Town and Cities, C1995). For example, to employees the

company claimed about Boots Charitable Trust:

Concern and commitment to the communities in which the companies

operate and those further afield continue to be a fundamental part of Boots

culture. Boots is one of the most longest established and generous

Companies in the UK in terms of its corporate support for the voluntary

sector, educational development and job creation. This philanthropy was

begun by Jesse and Florence Boot, perpetuated with formation of a

community relations department. Today the work of the trust and the

community relations department are entirely complimentary... Between

them they administer between £1.8 million per year which the Company

provides in both material and financial support and in employees time to

improve the social and economic health of variety of beneficiaries

(Boots

News, Jan, 1992).

248

Consistently, across the 1990s, Boots both claimed and projected themselves as

being community-minded and spirited that was typically supported with examples

of their active engagement in community-level projects as justification.

Boots as “environmentally concerned” – CSR

Concern for the environment also formed a sub-identity theme for Boot’s wider

identity as a socially responsible company in which Boots claimed: ‘

We believe good

environmental policy is not only socially responsible but makes sound business

sense’

(Annual Report, 1993). Although Boots asserted to be

‘committed to an open

dialogue on environmental issues and practices’

(Annual Report to Staff, 1993)

there was an inherent duality reflected by an economically driven mindset, making

it impossible to ascertain between pro-social or shareholder wealth creation as a

motivation. Nevertheless, Boots did adopt environmentally friendly and sustainable

practices with enthusiasm.

The company initiated ‘Save-a-Cup’ scheme in 1992 for recycling plastic cups across

the business (Quality Times, Mar/Apr 1995), joined the World-Wide Fund for

Nature in 1992 and through this partnership, by 1995, had transferred to

sustainable wood pulp and paper products. Boots also developed cradle-to-grave

ratings for their products (334/61, Which Leading Employer, 1991), reduced energy

and fuel consumption by improved branch management and goods transportation

(Boots News), and collaborated with local authorities on waste disposal schemes

for engine oil [Halfords] (Y45: Shareholder Magazine 1995). To consolidate their

249

environmental pursuits and to: ‘

ensure that Boots maintains momentum’

, the

company: ‘

established a new Environmental Working Party which includes senior

managers nominated by the Managing Director of each business

(Annual Report,

1996). To shareholders, Boots commitment to the environment was articulated in

very clear terms:

We are committed to four key principles – to reduce adverse environmental

impact; to use materials and energy efficiently, to re-use and recycle where

possible, and to follow the principles of sustainable development

(Y45,

Shareholder Magazine, 1995).

To summarise, Boots as concerned for the environment (albeit likely to have been

connected to a business case – Mele, 2008) and their level of community concern

and involvement offered support to the more generalised theme of being ‘socially

responsible’. However, because these elements were represented in sufficient

quantity there was also a strong enough case for their development as stand-alone

identity themes.

Boots as “relational”

This theme, which had been evidenced in previous time frames was again present

in this time frame. However, it was noticeably different to what had been

previously generated. During T3, being relational had been more broadly spread

throughout the business, but in this time frame a ‘relational’ identity theme was

250

generated through the way in which Boots enacted their socially responsible

identity. Indeed, relationships were realised by forging alliances and partnering

with charities such as the National Carer’s Association (Annual Report, 1996).

Another similar partnership was with the British Association of Early Childhood

Education, in which Boots created and delivered four under-fives fairs and a series

of follow-up workshops for parents (Annual Report, 1996). Having previously

demonstrated a past commitment to education through Boots College, educative

activities seemed a natural area for Boots to be involved in and the company

stated:

Relevant and timely educational opportunities offer a key to the future and

Boots works closely with Government and education authorities to unlock

the doors to lifelong learning and workplace skills’

(Community Review,

1998/99).

Thus, working together with others, Boots were actively involved in education for

young learners and students entering working-age alike as outlined in

Community

Magazine

The Boots Company recognises the need to work with Government and

education authorities to ensure people entering the workplace have the skills

needed to be successful. We are also committed to develop the concept of

life-long learning. We form partnerships with national and local

251

organisations to give students the opportunity to gain and insight into the

world of work and use the business to provide teachers with access to

additional resources...Almost 200 Boots Group employees signed up as

voluntary tutors with “Success for All” a pilot literacy scheme launched by

Nottingham City Education Authority in October, 1997 within schools in the

city’s most deprived Meadows area...This is believed to be the largest

volunteer tutoring scheme in the world

(Community Review, 1998).

Through working both in partnership and engaging in teaching relations, Boots

were able to support education, and in doing so demonstrate their ‘community

oriented’ identity by direct involvement in social development projects. These were

not limited to education but also included urban regeneration projects. Boots

worked with over 70 different local authorities on this particular issue (Boots News,

1993). One example was the development of Nottingham City’s tram system. The

company contributed to this project by seconding a project manager from their

own ranks, and provided both expertise and funding of £50,000 (Boots News,

1993). Other incidents of relational working were closer to Boot’s identity as a

Chemists, since the company were also working together with the

NHS

in health

promotion initiatives (Community Review, 1998/99), and involved in collaborative

dialogues around developing the relationship between pharmacy and primary

healthcare services (2935/7, Task Force on Health Promotion, C1995).

252

Boots as a “supportive” employer

The idea of being relational linked to Boot’s identity as supportive employer since

working with the UK government, Boots were a founding member of “Opportunity

2000”, a scheme to ‘

to promote the role of women in British industry’

(Shareholder

Magazine, Spring 1995). The creation of this initiative was reflective of Boots’ wider

concerns about equality in the workplace that had begun to surface in T3.

Boots is among leading employers committed to voluntary initiatives

designed at recruiting and maintaining a balanced work force made up of

skilled and dedicated people. Moves to attract more women to the

Company, as well as more members of ethnic minorities and people with

disabilities, have now become well established aspects of policy

(Annual

Report, 1993).

To operationalise their concern for equality, the company undertook gender and

ethnic monitoring programmes that were extended to include employees with

impairments by the company becoming a ‘

signatory to the Department for

Employment’s agenda on disability that confirms this commitment’

(Annual Report,

1993). Notions of equality in personnel policies at Boots were underscored further

by notions of monetised meritocracy since Boots claimed:

‘now more than ever we

are striving to recognise individual performances and to make sure they are

rewarded appropriately’

(Annual Report, 1993). Recognition was in the form of a

new

“Pay for Performance”

strategy of accountability and performance monitoring

253

for staff (Annual report, 1993; 2261/14 Working in the Boots Company, 1998;

2261/29, Stores Staff Handbook, C1996). To help staff to achieve their best, Boots

offered staff training that was recognised through receipt of

Investors in People

award (2261/29, Stores Staff Handbook, 1996). Training took the form of not only

in-house sessions, but Boots were also

‘a pioneer of the National Vocational

Qualification’

(Annual Report, 1993).

It was unsurprising that Boots received recognition for being an outstanding

employer since training investment was guided by Boot’s belief that staff were of

great value and worth to the business:

If customers are the most important people in our stores then the second

most important people are the staff who serve them. That is why high

priority is attached to training within all the Company’s retail chains to

secure well-trained, skilful people who can adapt quickly to change...At

Boots the Chemist, training is now regarded as an integral part of all

business planning

(Annual Report, 1993).

We recognise that our most valuable asset is staff and we are absolutely

committed to a level of investment in training that will enable each

individual to achieve his or her full potential

(Y45, Quality Times, Mar/Apr

1993).

254

However training could only bring staff forward so far. In a further demonstration

of commitment to and understanding of staff needs, the company adopted a

flexible approach to employment terms (2582/7, The Future in Pharmacy, C1995).

For female employees in particular (

cf.

Opportunity 2000 initiative) there was the

following recognition:

We understand the pressures of combining work with family commitments –

and we are frequently reviewing ways to ease them’

(334/5, An Open

Minded Approach, C1988) such as

‘family friendly policies including flexible

working hours, term-time working, job shares and career breaks

(Annual

Report, 1996).

To provision was also added protection with one of the strongest examples being

Boots supportive stance to employees with socially stigmatised difficulties:

We regard problems such as alcohol or drug dependency as health rather

than disciplinary issues, providing the individual seeks and maintains

rehabilitative treatment. We will not discriminate against employees who

are HIV positive or who develop AIDS and we will take appropriate steps to

protect individuals from harassment because of their condition

(2661/14,

Working in the Boots Company).

255

While concern for staff welfare was apparent, the style of approach was somewhat

different to the company’s earlier welfare model that came across with varying

degrees of paternalism. Staff welfare in this more modern time showed an

empowerment based approach consistent with the times that also intersected with

notions of employees as assets and value generators as opposed to beneficiaries

and key stakeholders.

Boots as “customer service oriented”

In keeping abreast with change in wider society, Boots were also mindful that what

customers needed and wanted was also changeable meaning:

‘every part of the

Company needs to move quickly to keep up with consumer’s appetite’s for things

new and different’

(Annual Report, 1998). However, as customers’ appetites may

have been changeable, Boots as ‘customer service oriented’

remained the same.

Customer service was regarded by Boots as integral to who they were and what

they offered, noting that a relationship between the company and customers had

been built up over many years (Annual Report, 1996). Indeed, not just years but a

century:

For well over 100 years Boots has been developing products to meet the

challenging needs of the consumer. One thing that hasn’t changed however

is our commitment to customer satisfaction and assurance and the quality of

our merchandise

(334/28 Quality Times, undated).

256

Company discourse around customer service was prevalent in a staff magazine

called

Quality Times

, specifically created to focus on this one aspect. Across issues

of the magazine examples of excellence in customer care were showcased to retail

staff as part of Boot’s “Assured Shopping” initiative that was launched in the 1980s

by Steve Russell (see T4 early). The idea behind this was decidedly customer service

driven:

Quality assurance is a commitment to total customer satisfaction. The

quality process itself is regarded as the customer representation within the

organisation... a way of seeing with the customer’s eyes. That’s why quality

assurance is more than just a promise at Boots

(334/28, Quality Times,

undated).

Customer care was thus an intrinsic component of Boots earlier identity expression

of quality that was not represented in this time period as product quality. Rather,

product quality appeared to have been assumed with the focus shifting to the

creation of added value in quality through excellence in customer service. Indeed,

where product quality had previously been reported to be a differentiator between

Boots and its competitors, levels of customer service were equally defining.

Customer service [which] should be at the top of our agenda because it is

perhaps the most important point of difference between us and our

competitors

(Y45, Quality Times, Oct 1995).

257

Added to

Quality Times

, a customer service identity was also communicated

through recruitment advertising to potential new employees (2582/7, The future in

Pharmacy, C1990s). Meanwhile to shareholders, customer service was professed to

be a central part of the company’s ‘philosophy’ (Y45 Shareholder, Spring 1995) that

was manifested and enabled through staff training and embracing technology.

Boots the Chemist has maintained its commitment to its long tradition of

customer service by implementing the latest technology, embracing modern

marketing principles and encouraging all staff to acquire a high level of

knowledge relevant to their jobs

(Y45, Shareholder Magazine, Spring 1995).

Examples of technology were Boots Advantage Card which enabled the company to

collect data about customer trends and thus keep retail offerings consumer

tailored; Boot’s MediLink database of patient records that facilitated cross-

pharmacy service provision; and internet shopping. Uses of data technologies to

improve customer service were also supplemented by strategic store planning and

tailoring products and services to local community needs (Shareholder Magazine,

Spring 1998).

Boots as “historically grounded”

The final theme generated for the 1990s was that Boots were ‘historically grounded

which had also been the case at T3 previously. To some extent, this has already

been demonstrated in some excerpts of text offered above indicating that more

258

generally across the period, there was an anchoring of identity claims and activities

within the company’s past. In total, 22 references to Boots history were made in

documents that I analysed across this period. One source not yet mentioned was a

series of information booklets called

Factfile

that regularly included a historical

timeline of Boot’s activities.

Shareholder

magazines also featured a history section

(1995, 1996) and the company employed a full-time archivist, Katey Logan – an

indication of Boots regard for their history. Her perspective of the company was

summarised in

Shareholder Magazine

, 1996:

It is uncommon for a business founded in the mid-19

Century to be

engaged today in more or less the same core activity. Katey explains “There

is a wonderful continuity in the history of Boots as Chemists. Our records

chart the company’s development throughout the twentieth century –

through periods of social unrest, wars, economic booms and slumps, and of

course revolutions in technology”

Other sources in which Boots expressed itself in relation to the past were

recruitment brochures that included historical images and texts:

Insisting on every latest technique, Boot (Jesse Boot) ... had telephones

installed to connect him and his managers with all twenty one retail

branches -

Counter pages were photographs with relevant historical

259

information:

photo of telephone operator

(A145/13 Graduate Opportunities,

C 1995).

Boots history was also offered to shareholders as way to ground and justify the

current form of the business, its activities, ideals and beliefs. In doing so the

company were linking “who they were” in the past to “who they were” in the

present and using this as a springboard for facing future challenge:

A strategy built on value: Jesse Boot: “I had an idea that the herbalist and

chemist at that time was very much out of date...I thought the public would

welcome new chemists shops in which a greater and better variety of

pharmaceutical articles could be obtained at cheaper prices.”... So wrote

Jesse Boots as he looked back, after several decades, on the early years of

the firm he had founded. At the heart of that statement was the key to a

successful enterprise – providing value. If moving with the times was

important then, it is even more so now – in age of competition and ever

changing consumer demands. In the 1870s, years of rapid growth for the

business, ownership was concentrated in the Boots family; now there are

over 140,000 shareholders. But the drive for value persists, working in the

long term interests of investors. In such a large organisation with diverse

business streams, strategy is crucial in maintaining competitive advantage.

Boots makes no secret of its aim to hold its place among the top retailing

companies in terms of financial performance, while maintaining a caring and

260

responsive attitude towards customers and employees. So who are the

inheritors of Jesse’s entrepreneurial spirit and how do they plan the

company’s future?

(Y45, Shareholder Magazine, Autumn 1995).

As evidenced from the text itself, this linking between past and present was

somewhat rhetorical. For example, linking Jesse Boot’s vision to offer value was re-

translated as related to the development of shareholder value. As has been

evidenced in previous chapters, Jesse Boot’s perspective on value was to the

advantage of the public, through breaking an independent chemist price monopoly

and bringing affordable health-care and medicines within reach of all. Here, value

was reinterpreted as value creation for shareholders rather than value for the

public, indicating that shareholders rather than the public were the principle

concern to Boots. Moreover, the text confirmed this by highlighting the company’s

focus on creating strategic competitive advantage to enhance shareholder value

and being “mindful” of customers and staff rather than regarding them as key

stakeholders as Jesse had done. Thus, although it was possible to generate a theme

that Boot’s were historically grounded, their own use of their history as a company

was for strategic communication and somewhat rhetorical and revisionist (for

example: Gioia et al., 2000; Chreim, 2005)

T4 Late Period (1999 -2002/03)

Following the challenge to shareholders to look to the future, we can also join them

in the last stage of this analysis in which no new identity themes were added.

261

Themes generated in this closing window were consistent with previous identity

themes. However, since this period spanned only 2-3 years, textual evidence was

limited and thus should be read as an extension of the previous section. Of

importance during this time was Boots decision to dispose of its remaining non-

healthcare business, Halfords, in 2002 at a loss of £123.3 million (Annual Report,

2003) and scale down its No 2. merchandise which included music, video,

stationery, children’s clothing and leisure goods (Annual report, 2001). This marked

a change for Boots that saw the company move in the direction of “wellbeing” as

opposed to healthcare. Under new leadership by Chairman John McGrath, Boots

rebranded themselves as a wellbeing company and offered services such as hair

removal, cosmetic teeth whitening, leisure centres, massage and complimentary

therapies (Annual Report, 2001).

Boots as a “chemist”

The development of Boots as a wellbeing company was subservient to their primary

offering of pharmacy, chemist and toilet goods in which it was claimed:

‘BTC is the

heart of the business and the Brand. Chemist still dominates reality’

(2650, Boots

Tomorrow). Thus, although attempting to expand their offering through new

wellbeing services, Boots continued to strongly maintain a ‘Chemist’s’ identity. This

was mediated through Boot’s heritage in both pharmacy and retailing (Blueprint,

2002). A chemist identity was shored up further since wellbeing services were

making significant operating losses (£20.7m, Annual Report, 2001). In response the

company closed down its wellbeing centres 2 years later. Following their closure

262

and downsizing non-pharmacy led offerings, John McGrath described the business

as being:

...

more focused than it has been for over a decade and a good deal leaner.

We are now able to concentrate attention and investment on a single

Company with two core businesses: BTC and Boots Healthcare International

(Annual Report, 2003).

To support this, increasing investment was made to in-store pharmacy as the

company ‘

confidently expect[ed] our pharmacists to play an increasing role in

Primary Healthcare and was perceived that ‘customers trust [us] Boots to provide

primary healthcare advice and services

’.

Boots as “customer service oriented”

Directing Boots short-lived development from healthcare to wellbeing was the

company’s continuing focus on ‘customer service’. Notions of wellbeing were

considered to be the epitome of an updated customer-led approach that

encompassed as wide a range of customer needs within a healthcare remit by

adopting an holistic approach (2650, The Boots Brand Corporate Model, 2000; 2651

Boots Corporate Brand Completion Process, June 2000).

263

Boots as “trustworthy”

Being ‘Trustworthy’ continued to be evident for Boots OI throughout all previous

time frames (T1, T2, & T3) and into this final one. Thus, trustworthiness appeared

highly important to the company and it was:

...perceived... as the Key Boots Value rooted in the Company heritage and

assuring credibility for the future: A pharmaceutical heritage (White coated

man, Pharmacist to the Nation) and a service heritage (relational, caring)

and an ethical heritage (quality, efficiency and safety)

(2651, Co-sight, Boots

Socratic Approach branding presentation, Sep 2000).

Notions of being trustworthy were also linked to Boots’ CSR activities (Annual

Report 2003) and were announced in an environmental performance brochure

(2927/33, 2001/2002) in which the company claimed:

Much of the power of the Boots brand comes from the trust it inspires in

people – and that trust has to be earned...that is why we take CSR very

seriously’

The company logo was also seen as another point of trust between the public and

the business (Boots logo guide, 2003) as well as the company’s heritage in being a

chemist (2650, The Boots Brand, Corporate Model, Feb 2000). When senior

managers were constructing the Boots brand it was argued in documents that:

264

The Boots Company benefits from a paternal type of trust that the Company

has historically developed through its pharmacy heritage. Despite this

historical basis, Trust remains relevant and dynamic with audiences trusting

the Company to forge new areas of innovation and ideas

(2651, The

Corporate Brand, CB Team Meeting, Eperon Wells, 2000).

Boots as “knowledgeable”

This theme also seemed to continue over from Boot’s as a knowledgeable

organization that first appeared in the previous decade. In keeping with a

pharmacist heritage it was suggested that Boots were an ‘expert and authority’ but

this was clearly linked with knowledge. An annual report in 2001 evidenced this

since the Chairman stated:

For many years Boots has been distinguished from its competitors by its

expertise in helping people to take care of themselves, symbolised by the

pharmacist – the ‘man in the white coat’. But the promise of dependability,

integrity and authority remains the same: no one knows more about

wellbeing than Boots.

In particular, expertise and knowledge played a key role in brand development as

already expressed in the quotes above but now also highlighted even further

below:

265

The Boots offer, derived from the Strategic Intent, can be simply stated as

“An unrivalled knowledge and range of everyday health and beauty products

and services accessible wherever you are”

(2651, Boots Brand – progress

update and key decisions, 2000).

This was a point the company appeared to pride itself upon and communicated

readily to stakeholder audiences in their CSR reporting:

Within any Boots store is a wealth of knowledge on many health issues. This

makes us perfectly placed to share our expertise with customers and the

wider community enabling everyone to have access to the information they

need to take greater control of their own health

(3837/40, Community

Investment Performance, 2000).

Boots as “communitarian”

Boot’s expertise and knowledge in healthcare also provided a basis for their

offering to the community and thus created a seamless link to a ‘communitarian’

identity. For Boots, being an active member of the community was related to

notions of CSR in which the company claimed it had a strong tradition:

Boots is one of Britain’s most trusted brands. The foundation for this is the

company’s long established community investment programme and desire

for continuous improvement in its environmental performance....Boots is

266

determined to live up to its proud social heritage and the trust that

customers place in the Boots name

(Annual Report, 2003).

Community investment was described as working closely with Nottinghamshire

NHS

to deliver health promotion initiatives at a cost to Boots of £5 million (Annual

Report, 2003). Meanwhile, other programmes of community investment were

extracted and summarised from the Millennium edition of

Community Review

magazine*:

Boots recycling project; Patients benefiting from donations of surplus goods;

Working with the National Trust; Financially supporting more than half of

the town Centre Management regeneration initiatives in the UK during the

year; Operation Respect (Partnership with Nottingham Police to combat

juvenile crime); Safety Zone (promotion of personal safety among school

children); A sensory garden for visually impaired in Wollaton Park,

Nottingham; Supporting fostering and adoption publicity etc.

(Community

Review, 1999/2000) [*summarised not verbatim].

From this extensive list it was clear to see that Boots were actively involved in

supporting and initiating community projects and were an exemplar among

companies:

267

Boots willingness to champion community issues has achieved recognition

throughout the UK. We aim to extend that recognition to all the countries in

which we plan a significant presence. With the help of our employees, we

strive to promote healthy living and lifelong learning, support the

environment and promote safe caring communities. The partnerships we

initiate and support provide the catalyst that makes a difference both to our

business and our communities

(Community Review, 1999/2000).

Boots as “socially responsible”

As earlier in the 1990s, the theme of communitarian outlined above was ultimately

embedded within a greater identity theme of Boots as a ‘socially responsible’

business that now went beyond the local-level to global issues. That this was the

case was evidenced by the following article that appeared in the staff magazine

Blueprint

(2001):

Boots has recently been rated as one of the top 50 companies in the first

FTSE4 good UK 50 Index of Companies. The Index helps investors to identify

companies with good records of corporate social responsibility, reflecting the

success of those working towards environmental sustainability and universal

human rights. The Boots vision is to transform its global business in a way

that can make a real difference to the social and environmental wellbeing of

the workforce and local communities, now and in the future.

268

A growing attention to global, in contrast with local community-level issues, was

reiterated by Boots in their 2003 Annual Report in which the company stated it was

adopting ethical sourcing:

By building social accountability into our purchasing procedures we aim to

ensure that we and our customers do no unwittingly support abuse of

human rights, unsafe working conditions, unfair wages, child or forced

labour

Indeed, CSR remained very much at the heart of Boots into the Millennium. It was

intrinsic to the new branding development (2651, The Corporate Brand team

meeting, 2000) and adopted as an all-encompassing philosophy since comparative

to their earlier Friedmanite view of social responsibility (

cf.

1990s) Boots were now

claiming:

We see a concern for social for social and environmental wellbeing, within a

broader sustainability agenda as an integral part of the way we do business

(Annual Report, 2001).

Boots as “relational”

Once again carrying over from the 1990s, Boots also continued to enact a

‘Relational’ identity suggested by their ongoing commitment to developing

community partnerships. Notwithstanding the relationships previously evidenced

269

as part of Boot’s community investment programme, there were other larger scale

collaborations with the Department of Health by linking the Boots Advantage Card

with the

NHS

Organ Donor Scheme (Annual Report, 2001). Other collaborations

involved working with the

NHS

to provide 7-day-week, walk-in health centres in 20

of Boots stores, the largest of which was located in Birmingham (Blueprint, 2002).

The idea behind working in partnership with the

NHS

was offered in

Boot’s

Community Investment Performance

document (3837/40, 2002) as:

...

by actively contributing to health promotion and social inclusion, our

initiatives support the NHS with its requirement to widen participation and

improve access to services which promote positive health.

Thus, it seemed that the

NHS

was naturally allied with Boots since they appeared to

share common objectives to offer healthcare services, to be an active heart of local

communities, and to promote positive health. However, it was also important to

realise the strategic value of such collaborations with the

NHS

in what was a

neoliberal socio-political climate. In particular, during this time frame, New Labour

was in political power and had developed the concept of Public Private Partnerships

(PPP), also known as Private Finance Initiatives (PFI). These had been established to

reinvigorate public services by encouraging increasing investment from private

industry into public services such as the

NHS

– in effect opening a backdoor for

gradual privatisation (Pollock, 2005). Thus, Boots’ collaborative allying with the

NHS

270

must also be critically read in this light, as perhaps a somewhat more strategic

positioning for the purposes of shareholder wealth creation.

Boots as “grounded in history”

Finally, across the identity themes and quotations of text offered for this time

period, it was apparent that Boot’s identity continued to be ‘grounded in history’.

Heritage was relied upon for rebranding, to inspire and encourage customer service

(Blueprint, 2000; 2002), to justify family-friendly policies (Blueprint, 2001) and to

frame community involvement (Annual Report, 2001). From these it was clear that

to some extent Boot’s history provided a spring-board for the company’s self-

understanding in brand creation and corporate communications in which there

were continuing attempts to link the company’s past with its present.

Explaining Boot’s OI at T4

In the initial part of this time unit it was empirically demonstrated that almost no

preceding identity themes had been reproduced. Indeed, within the archival data

there was a generalised dearth of identity related text. However, in the following

decade of the 1990s it was possible to generate a greater number of OI themes. In

this middle period only six OI themes reproduced what was in the previous time

frame while there were a number of new themes appearing such as being “a

business”, “shareholder focused”, “community oriented” and “environmentally

responsible”. The latter two themes reflected an increasing presence of corporate

271

social responsibility discourse and activities that had become a common feature

within identity related texts during this decade. Toward the end of the time frame

in which I generated Boot’s OI around the Millennium, OI discourses largely became

couched in terms of corporate brand with the company engaging actively in a brand

creation exercise during this time. In doing so, many of the OI themes from the

1990s were reproduced; however, notions of being shareholder oriented and a

business had become absent. Clearly, T4 was an interesting and complex time

frame that moved from an almost total absence of OI to a renaissance of identity. In

this final part of the results section, the focus was to explain these dynamics

building on arguments developed over the previous time frames and drawing on

both theory and the empirical data.

Beginning with the early part of the time frame which for the most part reflected

Boot’s OI during the 1980s, there was a notable absence of identity themes

reflected as a primarily blank section in Table 3. This equated to an archival silence,

which often have their own unique story to tell (Decker, 2013; Anteby & Molnar,

2012). However uncovering this silence was not about giving expression to a

previously repressed voice as is common to the way archival silences are treated

within history (Decker, 2013). Instead, I wanted to explain what was the non-

production and non-observation of Boot’s OI. In the previous time frame it had

been argued that when past OI themes had not been reproduced this had been

because agents did not engage with their past OI. Building on this same premise in

272

this time frame, agents’ non-engagement with past OI was clearly widespread with

only two themes of “socially responsible” and “offering quality” reproduced.

A possible explanation for non-production of identity may have been that agents’

were naïve to Boot’s past OI since the company were increasingly moving forward

in time and thus becoming more temporally distanced from their past. However,

naivety or lack of knowledge of Boot’s past OI was unlikely to have been the case

given that the organization had celebrated its centenary at the close of T3 in which

many aspects of the company’s history had been celebrated. Ignoring (Anteby &

Molnar, 2012) or disengaging from past OI (Brunninge, 2009) was more plausible

than organizational agents not having knowledge of their past in the early part of

T4. A key question then, is why did agents disengage with Boot’s past OI and not

reproduce it? To answer this Archer (1996) reminds us of the factors underlying

reproduction, or suppression of what exists in terms of a past cultural-system. In

particular she identifies this as being based on complementarities and/or

contradictions between elements of the propositional logics of the past and the

current cultural status quo. Thus, what the current contextual situation of the

business was like during the 1980s seemed likely to be a relevant factor.

As noted at the start of this chapter, during the 1980s was the rise of neoliberal

ideology, promoted on a trans-Atlantic scale by leading political figures namely

Thatcher in Great Britain and Reagan in the United States. Neoliberalism is a

contested and poorly articulated concept in the social sciences (Boas & Gans-

273

Morse, 2009), but can be understood normatively as a socio-political and economic

ideal that emphasises privatisation, reduces business regulation and public services

while promoting individualisation of the social good (Martinez & Garcia, 1997). In

common with contemporary businesses, this was an ideology that Boots embraced

during the 1980s by adopting a single-minded focus on profit-making and market

domination. This was evidenced by Boots rapid expansion and diversification into

non-chemist markets such as home decorating, DIY, and children’s products.

Moreover, identity discourses were also replaced by an economic and corporate

business language with much archival data focused on figures, targets, profits and

acquisitions that limited generation of OI themes and also implicitly indicated that

Boots had begun to adopt neoliberal values.

In reflecting further it became apparent that neoliberal values and ideas were also

contradictory to the wider values, beliefs and ideas that Boot’s identity had been

parallel with at T1 and was emergent from in T2 (and to an extent in T3). In

particular, previous company identity markers like being a ‘public service’ and ‘pro-

social’ had been predicated on promoting the wider interests of society along with

the wellbeing of staff and stakeholders. These identity markers had been previously

sustained by Boots’ “eternal triangle” of stakeholders (shareholders, the public and

employees) who had been central to Boot’s past OI. However, in this new neoliberal

business environment, Boots attention had shifted to shareholders as their central

stakeholder group and a belief that profitable return on investment was the

principal objective of the business. Consequently, Boot’s past OI ceased to be

274

relevant for the company and more strongly could even be considered

contradictory to Boots adoption of a neoliberal corporate mentality. Given such

contradiction between Boot’s past OI and its current status quo of neoliberal values

suggested a reason for why agents did not reproduce past OI. To do so, would have

surfaced an ideological and identity conflict between who Boots had been and who

they were now.

While this explained the absence of identity themes on the basis of the company’s

past OI as existing within the Boots archive, I have also previously argued that OI is

emergent from a combination of wider social entities, values and beliefs in the

wider institutional-level environment. Therefore, a second reason for the absence

of identity themes at the early part of T4 was also forthcoming. Following my

previous arguments that OI is an emergent property and thus, dependent on a

combination of lower-level social entities and values etcetera, then Boots adoption

of neoliberal values and a focus on shareholders would have had a disruptive effect

on the combination that underpinned Boot’s emergent OI. In particular, this narrow

rather than broad focus would have supported only one relation – an economic

relation between the company and its shareholders as vehicle for wealth creation.

The effect of this would have been to render Boot’s previous emergent OI as non-

existent, thus also explaining why it was not produced during the 1980s. However,

it is also important to note that although Boot’s emergent OI had become

significantly redacted, Boot’s past OI continued to exist within the Boots archive.

Nevertheless, as discussed above, agents did not engage with this past OI and

275

consequently did not reproduce or elaborate it. Taken together, both reasons can

account for why Boot’s OI was not visible during the 1980s.

Although non-visibility of identity was the primary observation in the 1980 period,

two themes were generated that were reproductions of Boot’s past OI. On the basis

of what has already been suggested it was relatively simple to explain their re-

appearance since both were complimentary with the company’s neoliberal values,

philosophy and their emergent OI as an economic. For example, ‘offering quality’,

which followed from Boot’s identity as ‘assured’ in T3, was continuous since

offering good quality products would have been fundamental to maintaining

repeated sales in consumable goods. Indeed, the congruence of this theme with

creating shareholder value was self-evident. The second identity marker of ‘pro-

social’ also re-appeared but in a different guise since it was more reflective of being

‘socially responsible’. It is well known from research that being socially responsible

adds value to a business in a number of different ways (see Kurucz et al., 2008 for

an overview). Some scholars have gone further to claim that corporate social

responsibility of itself enables capitalist relations to flourish since it conceals rather

than reveals shareholders as the dominant stakeholder (Utting & Marques, 2010).

Thus, to the extent that being ‘socially responsible’ and offering ‘quality’

contributed to shareholder value, meant that at least some elements of Boot’s

historically situated identity could be reproduced from emergence and/or

reproducing past OI from an archive.

276

The death of Boot’s identity in the 1980s was not the end for Boot’s OI since during

the middle-to-late period of T4 a resurrection of Boot’s historically situated OI was

evidenced. New identity themes were also generated such as a ‘shareholder

focused’ and a ‘business’ identity. These new themes reflected the neoliberal ideas

and values which had become central to Boot’s emergent OI rather than were

based on elaboration of Boot’s past OI as had previously been the case with new OI

themes. These two new themes were particularly evident in documents such as

annual reports, in which the company’s central mission statement was proclaimed

as:

“our objective is to maximise the value of the Company for the benefit of its

shareholders”

(Annual Report, 1993). The evidence for the 1990s also showed that

Boot’s were projecting, professing and enacting a socially responsible identity. At

first, I considered that this may have been evidence of dual identity in which two or

more competing identities co-exist in an organization (Albert & Whetten, 1985).

However, given that enacting social responsibility is thought to support

shareholder’s economic objectives (Kurucz et al., 2008; Utting & Marques, 2010)

the split between being socially responsible on the one hand and shareholder

oriented on the other was self-reinforcing rather than reflecting a dualistic tension.

Supporting this was the finding that the resurrection of Boot’s past OI had been

related almost exclusively to CSR.

During the 1990s reproduction of the past identity marker of being ‘socially

responsible’ became articulated in a much broader way by organizational agents at

Boots, leading to the development of new identity themes that were strong enough

277

to be independently generated but easily subsumed under a generalist CSR label.

These were ‘community orientation’, being ‘environmentally responsible’, with

‘supportive of staff’ also increasingly coming under a social responsibility remit

incorporating equality, diversity, sustainability and individual growth of employees.

The theme of ‘relational’ had also changed significantly and was now related to

strategic partnerships in community development projects. Although appearing to

be a reproduction of Boot’s past relational identity this theme could not be

understood in this way. To clarify, previously this theme had been far wider and

foundational to Boot’s offering of public and national service in T2 and reflected an

interdependent company-wide relational culture in T3. Specifically, in this time

period ‘relational’ was constituted by community-level relations integrated within

notions of CSR. Thus, although appearing to be reproduced, the resurrection of

relational identity was not intrinsic to Boot’s OI as an economic shareholding

company but related to CSR.

Other past OI markers also seemed to have been reproduced, for example notions

of “social responsibility”, being “supportive of staff”, “customer-led” and being a

“pharmacist”. In similarity with the previous time frame, history had also been used

by the organization in articulating its OI and thus being “historically grounded” was

also reproduced. However, comparative to T3 on this occasion history was less

engaged with by organizational agents in the previously mentioned styles of

protectionist, creative, and disengaged. Instead, it was strategically and selectively

appropriated in company communications such as recruitment brochures and

278

shareholder magazines to justify and position current CSR activities. The

observation that managers used Boot’s history strategically to frame current OI and

CSR, rather than be a point of engagement with the past that led to reproduction or

elaboration of OI, meant that within this time frame, Boot’s OI appeared rhetorical

and constructed (Gioia et al., 2000; Brunninge, 2009; Suddaby et al., 2010).Thus, in

what was a surprising twist, Boot’s OI appeared to have become a socially

constructed and rhetorical identity incorporating historical narrative (He & Brown,

2013; Czarniawska, 1997).

The final sub-section of T4 further supported this since notions of OI were finally

abandoned altogether in creation of a corporate brand. In creating the Boot’s

brand, organizational agents perceived Boot’s past OI as socially rich and thus drew

upon it to generate brand claims such as ‘trustworthy’, ‘socially responsible’ and

‘knowledgeable’. Of note was non-observation of Boot’s OI as ‘shareholder

orientated’ and ‘a business’ from almost all identity related texts. To emphasise,

Boot’s

CSR

credentials,

healthcare

heritage,

customer

focus,

and

community/relational identity were of relevance to a number of potential wider

stakeholders than to their necessary and centrally defining shareholders. Thus,

through creating a corporate brand at the Millennium, Boot’s were attempting to

reposition the organization in wider social relations by reconstructing parts of their

historically situated OI to build the wider legitimacy and social relations that Boot’s

had previously experienced prior to T4. Thus, in the latter part of T4 reproduction

of past OI also appeared to be strategic and rhetorical.

279

However, to claim that Boot’s OI was now a socially constructed and malleable

phenomenon with agents making it appear as though OI was enduring would make

the epistemic fallacy (

cf.

Bhaskar, 1979). Indeed, to suggest that OI had now

become a malleable construct on the basis of the empirical appearance of OI in this

time frame alone, would conflate ontology with epistemology. Thus, we must ask

again what could explain agents’ strategic reproduction of past OI in the here-and-

now of T4? On the basis of arguments from the previous time frames it was

possible that Boot’s past OI as emergent from the company archive may have had a

role in what was produced in terms of OI. To remind, Boot’s OI had not become

ontologically voided when the relations from which their OI emerged broke down in

the 1980s. Instead, Boots past OI was preserved in the archive as an ontologically

independent entity. Thus, given that some of Boot’s past OI appeared to have been

reproduced, and that agents drew on the company’s history, it was possible that

Boot’s OI as situated in the archive may help provide an explanation.

As mentioned previously, agents’ reproductions and enactment of past OI (as a

property of the cultural-system) are constrained and enabled by contradictions and

complementarities that exist between its content and dominant socio-cultural

values and ideas (Archer, 1996). In this case, the content of Boot’s historical OI and

neoliberal values were largely contradictory. However, where complementarities

could be found, these elements of past OI were fore-grounded and expressed. For

example, Boot’s past OI as customer service oriented in T3 could be reproduced in

T4 without contradiction since being customer service-led promotes shareholders’

280

interests. That such costumer service was shareholder, rather than customer-driven

was suggested by the way in which Boots regarded customer service as a point of

competitive advantage against a backdrop of shareholder value, rather than

articulated from a customer as stakeholder perspective. Thus, notions of customer

service were complimentary with both neoliberal values and the company’s

emergent OI as economic.

However, there were less complementarities in Boot’s claims to being “socially

responsible” although these were ostensibly professed and projected to be a

continuation of the company’s past. Comparative to Boot’s previous OI as ‘pro-

social’ and a ‘public service’, at T4 Boot’s were neither a public service nor

particularly pro-social. Instead, Boot’s past OI was conflated with current CSR

activity as agents sought to justify and strategically make links with their past for

competitive advantage and legitimacy (Vanhamme & Grobben, 2009; Suddaby et

al., 2010. To some extent this could be interpreted as rhetorical, and indeed, that

agents at Boot’s constructed their OI in current time is not disputed. However, what

was reproduced were not past identity markers per se. but specific examples of

previous enactment of a pro- social and public service OI. Thus, by drawing on

examples rather than these past OI markers as a whole, complementarities were

located between past OI and the present rather than full reproduction of being pro-

social or a public service.

281

On the one hand Boot’s OI appeared to be rhetorical and have become a social

construction in which agents strategically drew on their past OI (

cf.

Ravasi & Schultz

2006; Ericson, 2006; Ravasi & Philips, 2011). However, on the other hand, it can also

be argued that what agents constructed in terms of a socially responsible umbrella

identity at T4, was a partial reproduction of past OI in which agents reproductions

of it were contingently enabled and constrained by complimentary and

contradictory interactions between Boot’s past OI and its current OI as being

primarily economic and shareholder driven. Of importance in this distinction were

notions of temporality. From an ahistorical perspective, Boot’s identity was socially

constructed in T4 by agents using their past OI as a resource; however from an

historical perspective, what agents constructed in terms of OI at T4 could be

understood as a partial reproduction of their organizational past.

To summarise, given the dynamics of Boot’s OI through the T4 period, ‘death and

resurrection of identity’ was an appropriate chapter heading. In the early part of T4,

under the contingent condition of a neoliberal State and socio-political climate, the

combination of wider social entities from which Boot’s OI had been emergent was

broken-down. In its place was left behind an economic identity emergent from a

single relationship between the company and its shareholders supported by

neoliberal values. Under this situation, many aspects of Boot’s historical OI became

defunct. The effect of which situated Boot’s previous OI into the Boots archive as

organizational history. Although continuing to exist within the archive, Boots past

OI was still not reproduced by agents. Indeed, because Boot’s past OI contradicted

282

Boot’s emergent and economic OI, agents ceased to engage with their past OI

which explained non-observation of OI reproduction at the start of this time frame.

Progressing into the 1990s, Boot’s historical identity began to be engaged with once

again but rather than creatively or protectively, it was engaged with strategically,

filtered through a lens of value creation making Boot’s OI appear rhetorical and

constructed – in its extreme a corporate brand at the Millennium. However, agents’

use of their past OI to construct OI in the here-and-now of T4 was not voluntaristic.

What agents produced in terms of OI at T4 was constrained and enabled by

contradictions and complementarities of what pre-existed them in terms of OI.

Therefore, the OI that agents constructed at T4 was a partial reproduction of the

company’s past OI. The most clear example being establishment of links between

Boot’s past OI as socially concerned and its strategic value for shareholder wealth

creation, reputation and organizational legitimacy when re-framed as corporate

social responsibility.

283

Chapter 8

Discussion

Introduction

The previous four chapters formed the results section of my thesis in which I

followed steps three and four of my research strategy to empirically observe and

explain OI dynamics at Boots over multiple time units. In this chapter, I now

progress to the fifth and final step of my research framework which was to develop

an account of OI based on what has been both observed and argued for. It is to this

end that the first part of this chapter is oriented and which resulted in generation of

a number of theoretical propositions about OI. Following this, I then revisited what

had been discussed in my literature review in Chapter one, applying my findings

and account of OI to make a theoretical contribution to the literature. Three

contributions were identified that a) addressed conceptual unity in OI theorising, b)

the endurance and changeability debate and c) made a call for a more critical

research stream within OI scholarship. Through further reflecting on my findings, I

also considered how my account of OI may be useful for management of OI within

an organizational context. Consequently, additional to a theoretical contribution I

used my research to also make a practical contribution.

284

Toward Developing a New Account of Organizational Identity

Having discussed and explained the data, my findings and explanatory arguments

were now brought to bear on the research questions I posed at the beginning of my

thesis. These were centrally concerned with developing a clearer understanding of

the ontological nature of OI with two questions raised. First, contra to a dominant

social constructionist conceptualisation of OI, I asked if OI was essentially enduring

but empirically appeared to change? The second question I asked was: could OI

escape its makers (i.e. perpetual social construction) to become an independent

phenomenon capable of being reproduced or elaborated by agents through acting

back upon them? Addressing these questions was with the objective of contributing

to organizational scholarship and theory development in light of unresolved

debates about OI (Ravasi & Schultz, 2006; Gioia et al., 2000; 2013).

Grounded in my explanatory discussions of the empirical data an answer to the first

research question was forthcoming. Over the course of three time frames, which

covered a period of 84 years, Boot’s OI was observed to be primarily enduring with

some degree of changeability in themes. Omitting the creation of OI in T1, identity

markers in T2 and T3 were largely reproduced being added to and subtracted from

in relation to each preceding time frame. However, for me to claim that OI is

enduring on the basis of empirical evidence alone could be criticised as making an

epistemic fallacy. In my study however, the enduring nature of OI can be

established from its explanatory power as

) an emergent property of a

combination of social entities at the ontological level of the real and

) as a socio-

285

cultural emergent property of the contents of an archive which is also ontologically

independent at the same level (Archer, 1996). Although, this suggested a difference

between structure and culture, within critical realism they are both ontological

constructs that behave in the same way (Archer, 1996; Hays, 1994). Thus, while it

may have been worthwhile to explore this distinction, for pragmatic reasons I

purposefully do not since it was it was tangential to my primary objective of

developing an account of OI. Instead, of more pressing importance was to

consolidate my findings and analytical arguments.

My empirical findings showed that Boot’s OI appeared to be relatively stable and

enduring in T2 and T3 which was explained on the basis that OI is an emergent

property of an underlying combination of social entities (such as war, the State,

stakeholders, values, beliefs and ideas etc.). This was predicated on earlier findings

(chapter four) that Boot’s OI at T1 had been constructed alongside such entities,

comparative to emulating the chemist trade of the late-nineteenth and early

twentieth century. It was further argued that because this combination remained

relatively stable and intact into T2, Boot’s OI also remained stable, was reproduced

by agents and thus endured. During T3 however, this underlying combination

became destabilised since extensive war involving the UK was absent and the State

had adopted a welfare economy in which healthcare had been nationalised through

the

NHS

. Thus, Boot’s OI was threatened. To buffer against OI loss or change, the

company engaged with their past OI (which had become increasingly situated into

an archival-system) and in doing so agents reproduced past OI by being

286

protectionist and creative; repositioning OI markers in alternative aspects of their

past. In this way OI was reproduced in T3 with many OI themes empirically

observed to be enduring.

That OI was explained to be an emergent property of a combination of social

entities means that OI can be considered enduring inasmuch as the combination

from which it emerges is also enduring (

cf.

Elder-vass, 2005). This I refer to as

contingently

enduring

. However, when that combination was destabilised as in T3

or as was suggested in T4, removed altogether, then OI would no longer be

enduring since it would no longer be emergent. This was evidenced in the early part

of T4 when Boots adopted neoliberal values epitomised as an economic relation

between the organization and its shareholders. In this case, the company’s

previously emergent identity was for the most part no longer empirically

manifested. This finding supported my argument that Boot’s OI was an emergent

property since when the combination that had held Boot’s OI stable was

destabilised, so too was Boot’s identity destabilised. Importantly, in this case study,

Boot’s had also collected their past OI into an archive, creating a parallel OI as a

property of the archive’s contents. Given this, Boot’s OI did not stop existing when

its emergence from a combination of social relations broke down but it continued

within the company archive and was ready-made, pre-existent, and available for

agents to engage with.

287

Through different ways of engaging with their past OI, agents at Boots reproduced

some aspects of it in both T3 and in the latter part of T4 which then explained why

observation of identity endurance had occurred in the face of a breaking down of

emergent OI. From this, it can be understood that when embedded within the

contents of a corporate archive, past OI does not depend on agents for its existence

but endures as a socio-cultural object that is not dependent on agents for its

ongoing existence (

cf.

Archer, 1996). For example, in the early T4 period agents did

not reproduce past OI during the 1980s, nevertheless, they were still able to

reproduce elements of a decade later it in the 1990s. This long pause, followed by

ongoing (re)production of past OI, demonstrated that past OI had existed (and thus

endured) independently of agents’ enactment and reproduction of it for around ten

years. In this way, an historically situated OI can be understood to be

essentially

enduring

and ontologically independent.

This is not to say that such a past OI is a fixed unchanging object, since over time,

the contents of an archive (and thus OI) can be elaborated and transformed as what

agents reconstruct and create in terms of OI in the here-and-now of itself additively

feeds back into the archive over time (

op cit

). However, at any given moment in

time, when constructing OI in the here-and-now, agents encounter a pre-existing OI

that is enduring as an object independently of whether agents do or do not

reproduce it. From these arguments it was then possible to summarise into the

following two theoretical propositions:

288

Organizational identity is an emergent property of a combination of social

entities that exist at the level of the real. Inasmuch as this combination

remains relatively enduring then OI will also be enduring.

If collected into an archive, over time, OI becomes an emergent property of

its contents that transcends dependence on agents for its existence. So long as

the archive endures, then OI will also be enduring independently of whether

agents reproduce it or not in their constructions of OI

These two statements reflected that within this case study, Boot’s had two forms of

OI. Statement (1) reflected that Boot’s OI was emergent from dependence on a

combination of social entities existing at a lower-level of organisation (in the level

of the real). Meanwhile, statement (2) showed that Boot’s OI was also existent

within the company’s archive. This seeming duality of OI reflected that OI can be an

emergent property of structural relations on the one hand, and on the other hand

also be a socio-cultural entity. However, as aforementioned, because culture and

structure are interrelated and behave in similar ways (Hays, 1994), the possible

differences or similarities between them have not been explored further. Instead,

the important point from these two statements was that irrespective of whether

emanating from the structural or cultural domain, OI can be conceptualised as

contingently and/or essentially enduring at an ontological level.

Having argued that OI is enduring at an ontological level, what then can be said

about OI as only having only the appearance of endurance at the level of the

289

empirical? Indeed, it was claimed by Gioia et al. (2013) that OI only appears to

endure but is of itself actually changeable. This argument was to an extent

supported by my empirical findings which showed in the latter part of T4 that

managers linked Boot’s past with their present which created the appearance of

endurance in OI especially in relation to being socially responsible. However,

because I took a longitudinal perspective, this was not the only way in which data

from T4 could be interpreted. Instead, it could also be argued that what preceded

managers in terms of a past OI contingently enabled and constrained what they

could reproduce of past OI, rather than voluntaristically making use of the past to

construct OI.

In particular, when constructing an identity as socially responsible in T4, managers

engaged with their past OI. However, they did so reflexively using exemplars from

Boot’s past OI as ‘socially idealistic’, ‘pro-social’, and ‘a public service’. However, in

doing this agents did not reproduce this past OI in its fullest sense since what they

could reproduce was limited by the organization being a primarily economic and

shareholder centred entity. To have reproduced past OI would have been

contradictory to Boot’s emergent OI as an economic entity for creating shareholder

wealth. Thus, exemplars were used by managers to support an OI of being socially

responsible, which as an identity marker is not the same as being socially idealistic,

pro-social or a public service. Therefore, despite appearing to be related with Boot’s

past OI (and thus enduring), being socially responsible reflected that the company’s

OI had actually changed from being pro-social to becoming ‘socially responsible’.

290

Consequently, at an empirical level Boot’s OI was in fact changeable rather than

enduring. This can also be confirmed by noting that the content of OI themes also

changed. For example, notions of public service in T2 had changed in T3, so too had

Boot’s relational identity. Thus, despite appearing to endure because of the identity

labels being reproduced, in content Boot’s OI was empirically changeable. Initially,

it therefore seemed that Gioia et al.’s (2013) assertions were correct; that although

appearing to endure OI is changeable.

Such a claim is not unreasonable when looking at the empirical data alone. Indeed,

my findings show that at the level of generated OI themes, OI can have the

empirical appearance of endurance which can also be facilitated by the way in

which managers’ draw on history to construct OI (for example: Gioia et al., 2000).

Conversely, OI can also be considered changeable if one considers the content of

themes and how this changed over time. However, the claims of Gioia et al. (2013)

are arrested at the level of the empirical and cannot be the basis for a claim that OI

(at an ontological level) is changeable since such a claim makes the epistemic fallacy

(Bhaskar, 1979). Moreover, Reed (2005) argues that social constructionist ontology

(which underpins Gioia et al’s claims) is one-dimensional and flat and thereby

unable to be a foundation to advance such an ontological claim about OI.

Consequently, what can be reliably claimed on the basis of empirics is that OI

appears to be changeable (or enduring) rather than

(at an ontological level)

changeable.

291

This is precisely what was found by my research; that at an empirical level OI can

appear to be both enduring and also changeable depending on how OI is generated.

At a greater level of interpretive abstraction, for example by generating OI themes

as I have done, then OI can appear enduring over time as my data showed.

Meanwhile, from a more empirically driven and content-based perspective then OI

could have appeared to be changeable over time. However, when I attempted to

explain what I observed in the dynamics of Boot’s OI through retroductive

arguments and reasoning, it was surfaced that OI of itself was a credible

explanation for the findings. Therefore, in this study, OI was simultaneously both

explanans

and

explanandum

(Donati & Archer, 2015). Indeed, as an empirically

manifested phenomenon, OI is something that must be explained, but yet in

explaining dynamics in empirical OI over time, the existence of OI as an

ontologically independent entity was surfaced. That this was found to be the case

and not be merely a circular argument was because of my analytical and theoretical

inclusion of temporality. For what at one time is empirical and socially constructed

in terms of OI, over time becomes independent of agents and emergent, acting

back upon agents’ construction of OI in current time. On this basis it was also

apparent that my second research question had also been answered – that OI can

escape its makers (i.e. perpetual social construction) to act back upon them?

Along the lines of this understanding, it can be claimed that OI is dual as opposed to

being dualistic (

cf.

Giddens, 1984; Archer, 1995; 1996). More specifically, drawing

on the language of critical realism, that OI as a phenomenon is both ontologically

292

and temporally stratified. First, in terms of Bhaskar’s ontology, OI is contingently or

essentially enduring (propositions 1 & 2) at the level of the real, while at the level of

the actual (in which OI is enacted) and the empirical (in which OI can be observed),

OI appears to be changeable, or in some cases could also appear enduring. Thus,

the reverse to Gioia et al.’s claims can be stated:

that OI is essentially enduring but

‘empirically’ appears to change

. Second, OI is temporally stratified. Situated in the

past, OI is an ontologically independent, emergent property of the contents of an

archival cultural-system. Meanwhile, in the here-and-now OI is dependent on

agents to enact and construct OI. However, in current time what agents construct

in terms of OI is contingently enabled and constrained by what precedes them in

terms of a pre-existing OI. In this way OI acts back upon both agents and itself,

contingently determining agents’ constructions of OI as of themselves, those same

agents determine and construct an OI in current time. This can be summarised to

develop two further propositions about OI that answer my research questions.

Organizational identity is ontologically stratified. At the level of the real, OI

is essentially and/or contingently enduring as an emergent property.

Meanwhile at the level of the empirical OI appears to be changeable (and in

some cases enduring).

Organizational identity is temporally stratified. Situated in a past temporal

space, OI is ontologically independent of agents as a socio-cultural property

of an archive. Meanwhile, in the here-and-now OI is dependent on agents’

constructions of it. However, agents’ constructions of OI are not voluntaristic

293

since what they construct in term of OI is contingently enabled and

constrained by an OI that precedes them

These theoretical statements about OI constituted my original contribution to OI

scholarship since they have been developed through combining concepts and ideas

from critical realism with taking an historical approach to developing a theoretical

understanding of OI. To my knowledge, such an approach has not previously been

advanced in the OI literature. In keeping with my critical realist framework, while

referent to the empirical data, the explanations for my findings were not grounded

in the data of itself. Importantly, this guarded against a slide into both epistemic

fallacy and narrative that could have occurred by over-depending on the data to

explain the data and give up a theory. Instead, I developed a theoretical

explanation for the empirically observed dynamics in Boot’s OI, which through

doing so surfaced that OI of itself was a credible explanation. In identifying OI as a

structural/cultural explanation for OI dynamics over time, meant that OI could be

conceptualised as an ontologically independent social entity which I have

articulated through the four theoretical propositions. Although achieving this

marked completion of the final step of my research framework, I continue my

discussion by explaining the contribution that my conceptualisation of OI makes to

issues in OI theorising that were surfaced in my literature review.

294

From Chaos to Cohesion in Conceptualising Organizational Identity

The account of OI advanced in my thesis made several steps toward conceptual

integration in OI scholarship, which was the primary objective in undertaking this

research given the conceptual plurality of OI (He & Brown, 2013; Ravasi & Canato,

2013; Ravasi & Schultz, 2006; Whetten, 2006; Hatch & Schultz, 2000). In attempting

to bring about cohesion some have attempted to unite different strands of OI

research under a single theory. For example, as explained in my literature review

the five facet model (Soenen & Moingeon, 2002), the culture-image model (Hatch &

Schultz, 2000), and a psychologically oriented sense-making model (Ran & Golden,

2011) have all been proposed as integrationist theories. However, as yet, full

integration has been elusive and calls to achieve this have been made (van Rekom

et al., 2008). The lack of integration has arguably been ongoing because unity has

been sought at the level of epistemology, yet driving differences in OI scholarship

has been a deeper ontological schism that has been overlooked and which I have

attempted to address in my research.

Common to these unification theories have been an absence of ontological

questioning and a leaning toward social constructionist and psychological

paradigms. As a result realist conceptions of OI have largely been rendered mute

meaning full integration of OI theories has been only partial. Arguably, bringing

realist approaches under the same umbrella has been difficult through an absence

of realist discourses that do not reify an organization (Cornelissen, 2002). However,

the realist conceptualisation of OI I have advanced in my thesis did not require

295

drawing parallels with individual actors to make sense of the independence and

non-reducibility of OI which are core to realism. Moreover, my dual conception of

OI was also able to incorporate social constructionist views of OI as depending on

agents. Finally, it was also possible to accept psychological understandings of OI in

that agents experience and encounter an OI that determines them.

To illustrate how integration was facilitated by my critical realist informed account

of OI, I move on to explain how my theory differed from but built upon each of the

main approaches to OI. Starting with realism, reliance on metaphor resulting in

reification was avoided by not drawing upon notions of individual agency that are

common to discourses and interpretive observations of the way in which

organizations appear to act (King et al., 2010). For example, social actor theory

draws upon notions of the legal accountability of organizations, and perceived

demonstrations of self-determinacy to justify an independent organization that has

both capabilities and intentionality (

op cit

). On this basis it was also reasoned that if

a social actor, then an organization must possess an identity. Further, it has also

been claimed that possessing an OI guides and gives a rationale for self-

determination and independent decision making (Golden-Biddle & Rao, 1997;

Whetten & Mackey, 2002). Thus, social actor theory typically relies on deductive

reasoning to conceptualise OI as ontologically independent.

Conversely, my approach did not attempt to develop understanding of OI

deductively since I based my account of OI on inductive generation of OI and then

296

observed its dynamics over four time frames. From these observations, a

retroductive style of reasoning was employed to account for what was observed

meaning that what was theoretically generated about OI was based in empirical

data and not on comparative metaphor or cross-level comparisons to individuals.

Notably, it was found that while OI was socially constructed at each point in time,

over time it was argued that these patterns could be explained by a preceding OI.

On this basis, a theoretical understanding was advanced that in addition to being a

social construction in the here-and-now, OI was also an emergent property of a

combination of social entities, ideas, values and beliefs existing in the wider

institutional-level environment or emergent from an intransitive archive cultural-

system. As an account of the independence of OI and its non-reducibility, this was

quite different to notions of OI as independent based on drawing parallels between

organizations and individuals. Thus, reification of an organization was avoided while

still being able to account for the independence of OI from agents.

It was further possible that social constructionist perspectives could also be

included in my account. This was for two interrelated reasons. First, because I

included temporality it was possible to separate structure from agency (Archer,

1995; 1996). In particular, what is historically situated in time is related to structure

(and culture), while the present belongs to agency. Second, critical realism has a

stratified ontology in which structure and culture exist at the level of the real, while

agency is inherently empirical and interpretive (Bhaskar, 1979; Easton, 2010). On

the basis of these two assumptions, OI could be conceptualised as existing in two

297

parts or as a stratified phenomenon that incorporates both realist and social

constructionist ideas.

Based on my findings and theoretical arguments, in the ontological level of the real

and

in a past temporal space a preceding OI is emergent from a contingent

combination of structured social entities, ideas values and beliefs, and/or the

contents of a cultural system. Meanwhile, at the level of the empirical and the

actual, which are situated in present time, agents construct an OI (Gioia et al., 2000;

Scott & Lane, 2000) which to an extent may be based on referents emanating from

the past (Gioia, et al, 2000; Ravasi & Schultz, 2006; Ravasi & Phillips, 2011; Shultz &

Hernes 2013). Indeed, it was my finding that when agents constructed an OI in any

given time frame that a historically situated OI was one such referent.

However, I have gone further to argue that a historically situated OI is more than a

reference point drawn upon by agents to construct OI, but one that contingently

enables and constrains what can be produced in terms of OI in the here-and-now.

Consequently agents’ constructions of OI in the present are not voluntaristic in

which they freely use history, but their constructions of OI are enabled and

constrained by the past. When applied to my research, OI can thus be

conceptualised to be both dependent on and constructed by agents in the present

yet simultaneously ontologically independent of and influential over them through

its situation in the past. An account consistent with both critical realist and

sociological notions of social reality as dualistic, in which agents determine

298

structure that simultaneously determines them (Giddens, 1984; Archer, 1995).

Thus, additional to including social constructionist and realist ideas about OI,

questions of structure vs. agency in OI theorising were also addressed by this

stratification.

Having discussed and located realist and constructionist perspective within my dual

and stratified conceptualisation of OI, the next approach considered was the

psychological account of OI. Core to this, is an understanding that the causal

capability of OI arises from perceptions of organizations and OI as if they were real

(Haslam et al., 2003). Consequently, OI is reducible to an epiphenomenon of

cognition and perception lacking true ontological independence from agents. Such

a stance is called central conflation in which a social entity determines agents while

simultaneously is constructed by them rendering them mutually constitutive

(Giddens, 1984; Archer, 1995; 1996). To demarcate between structure and agency,

the psychological sense-making approach highlights that while some agents

construct and negotiate OI, others perceive and encounter OI as ready-made (Ran

& Golden, 2011). Thus, within psychological accounts the ontology of OI becomes a

matter of power and perception. Some have suggested this approach to OI is

popular because it privileges managerial hegemony within organizational settings in

that managers’ constructions of OI can be a coercive and strategic tool to advance

organizational objectives (Alvesson & Wilmott, 2002; Humphreys & Brown, 2002;

He & Brown, 2013).

299

While I do not dispute that OI can be constructed and manipulated by managers,

and used as a tool of power, in practice my account moderates the idea that OI is

wholly within the scope of managers’ sense-giving capacity to construct an OI as

they choose. In, particular, this was because I analytically demarcated between

structure and agency by using temporality. As a consequence, although at one time

OI is constructed by powerful agents as entrepreneurs of identity (Haslam et al.,

2011), over time a preceding OI is encountered by all agents as ready-made in

which even powerful agents’ constructions of OI can be constrained (for example:

Humphreys and Brown, 2002). Thus, ideas that OI can be manipulated through

managerial powers alone (Gioia at al., 2000; Brunninge, 2009), are held in check by

the contingently enabling and constraining effects of past OI on what can and

cannot be successfully be constructed in terms of OI (Humphreys & Brown, 2002;

Ravasi & Schultz, 2006; Nag, Corley, & Gioia, 2007; Ravasi & Phillips, 2011).

Moreover, in terms of inclusion within a unified approach to OI, it was evident that

despite implying some moderation, my account could accept psychological

accounts without challenge.

Yet to be considered was a final conceptualisation of organization as a moral actor

(Barney & Stewart, 2000), in which organizations can be labelled as possessing

virtuosity (Moore, 2002). This overlapped with social actor theory since notions of

virtue are related to an Aristotelian discourse of individual human character

(Mellahi et al., 2010). However, a “human-like” understanding of organization was

not a necessary prerequisite for moral discourses about an organization. Reflecting

300

on Moore’s (2002; 2012) virtue framework based on MacIntyre (1985), moral OI

arose from the production of organizational goods with external goods (wealth and

success) related to less virtue and internal goods (relationship, satisfaction etc.) to

more virtue. Further, since “virtue” cannot be taught, being typically realised

through self-determination and making ethical choices (Mellahi et al., 2010), then

Moore’s work implied that organizations possess autonomous agency – a social

actor view. Nevertheless, when transposed onto my account of OI, it can be argued

that agents’ production of goods (rather than by the organization of itself), are

determined by an OI. For example, as an emergent property dependent on a

relational combination of stakeholders’ values ideas and beliefs (and various social

entities and institutions), organizational agents are constrained to produce goods to

uphold these relations. Thus, production of external vs. internal goods would be

mediated by the organization’s emergent OI, rather than as an autonomous activity

of a self-determining organization.

A number of divergent conceptualisations and approaches have been argued above

as possible to integrate under a single, temporally sensitive and stratified critical

realist informed account of OI such as I have contributed in my thesis. Realist

notions of OI as independent from and non-reducible to agents can be accounted

for through the emergence of OI from a contingent combination of social entities

existing in the ontological level of real in which social reality is constituted by

relations between social entities. Thus, realist notions of OI were justified without

relying on metaphor or reifying an organization. Moreover, because of the passage

301

of time, this emergent OI also becomes historically situated and in doing so acts as

a constraining and enabling referent on which agents base their ongoing

constructions and enactment of OI in the here-and-now. Consequently, social

constructionist perspectives of OI as ongoing project of production were also

included, but are moderated to the extent that discursive constructions of OI in

current time are enabled and constrained by an OI that precedes them. Finally,

psychological notions of OI could also be integrated since my account accepted that

in practice OI is socially constructed by those with power and received as ready-

made by others. However, agents’ “powers” to construct an OI are not absolute

since over time, all agents encounter a ready-made and pre-existent OI that

contingently determines what can be constructed and enacted.

The Enduring versus Changeability Debate

Questions over whether or not OI is enduring were surfaced in my literature review

and have been central to my thesis. So much so, that my initial research question

posed was about this issue. In conducting my research which has surfaced that OI is

dual, so too can OI be understood as both enduring and changeable at the same

time. While this may initially sound paradoxical, this was not the case because I was

able to analytically stratify OI as an object of study by using critical realist ontology

and temporality. Through this, OI can be understood to appear changeable at an

empirical-level whilst at an ontological level is contingently enduring as an

emergent property of structural relations among a combination of social entities, or

essentially enduring as a property of an archival cultural-system. These terms also

302

highlight that OI is stratified temporally existing in the past as an enduring entity

but in the present is contingently and reflexively enacted and (re)produced by

agents which makes OI appear changeable. Thus, by showing that OI can be both

enduring and yet also changeable a second contribution was to reinvigorating the

endurance vs. changeability debate.

That this could be said to rejuvenate rather than be an answer to the debate was

because Gioia et al. (2013) have claimed that a wide body of literature points to the

conclusion that OI is changeable. Given that what has been achieved here is only a

single case study of OI, then to argue that the debate has been settled would be

premature and an over- extended claim. However, what my conceptualisation of OI

has achieved is to challenge the hegemonic strength of claims that OI is changeable

by showing that given a different set of theoretical assumptions, then OI can be

considered to be both changeable and enduring rather than couched in terms of

either/or changeable vs. enduring. Moreover, my findings also have not refuted the

idea that OI

changeable since the claims of Gioia et al. were made from a social

constructionist standpoint. Consequently, from the vantage point of this ontological

paradigm (and also in current time), then OI is necessarily constructed by agents

and thus discursive and changeable. In recognising this, I also recognise that my

account is not of itself an alternative monopoly on understanding OI and thus what

I have offered in my thesis makes a contribution toward, rather than is a conclusive

solution to the debate. Indeed, where my contribution lies is that I have offered a

303

realist account of OI, which apart from a social actor conception, has been absent

from the debate.

Expanding the Horizons of Organizational Identity Scholarship

A third contribution that my research and findings made was toward developing a

more critical discourse within OI scholarship. Not foreseen by my literature review

was the impact that institutional-level values and beliefs were found to have on OI

dynamics suggesting this issue is non-salient and is therefore unlikely to have been

well addressed. However, my findings showed that the socio-political environment

was related to OI meaning that this is an area that could be developed further. In

particular, during T3 and T4 there were changes in the socio-political environment

that had a notable relationship with Boot’s OI. For example, during T3 the climate

had moved toward welfare economics which threatened Boot’s emergent identity

and in T4, further observations were arguably related to the proliferation of

neoliberal ideas and values from the 1980s onward. Thus, I revisited my findings to

make comment upon institutional-level issues which could spark interest in

developing more critical discourses within the field.

During the first two time units of T1 and T2 (1892-1950), the dominant socio-

political ideology in Great Britain was New Liberalism in which State involvement in

public life and welfare were present but relatively limited (Alcock, Daly, & Griggs,

2014). However, at the end of T2 and into T3 (1951-1977) welfare economics came

to the fore as a dominant mode of socio-political thinking. As evidenced in Chapter

304

six, this change had repercussions for Boot’s OI which I conceived of as a threat to

their emergent identity. In particular, the development of the

NHS

and the

increasing involvement of State in matters of healthcare threatened Boot’s identity

as a public and healthcare service. Indeed, having argued that prior to T3, Boot’s OI

had been dependent on and emergent from a combination of social entities in the

wider institutional environment, when this changed, Boot’s OI was necessarily

threatened. The effects of this were to an extent mitigated by Boots finding

alternative anchor points in their past, for example, by re-focusing public service

along socio-economic as opposed to healthcare lines. Thus, the rise of the British

Welfare State had an impact on Boot’s OI in which it became increasingly

economically oriented comparative to being socially focused.

In Chapter seven which dealt with the fourth time frame and began shortly before

the 1980s, the British Welfare State shared a platform with neoliberal socio-

economic ideas (Alcock et al., 2014). At this time Boot’s OI almost completely

disappeared from the company records. Given my earlier arguments that Boot’s OI

had been dependent on and emergent from the wider institutional-level

environment, it was suggested that the observed absence of identity had been

related to this change. In particular, it was proposed that by accepting neoliberal

values and ideas all relations between the organization and wider social entities

had been severed, replaced by a singular focus on shareholders as the most

significant stakeholder group for the company. When coupled with neoliberal

principles, Boot’s relationship with shareholders was primarily economic meaning

305

that Boots had arguably become an economic entity with a functional purpose to

generate shareholder wealth. This was evidenced by Boot’s market expansion

programme in the 1980s, and foregrounding shareholders in company documents

in the 1990s through espousing a “Value Based Management” (VBM) philosophy as

a cornerstone policy. Although it was noted there had been a resurrection of

identity in the 1990s and Millennium, what was generated was largely related to

shareholders needs and focused through a lens of CSR, rather than emergent from

a wider range of stakeholders and social values as in previous time frames.

Given these parallel changes in the socio-political landscape and dynamics in Boot’s

OI, then it was likely that the socio-political landscape was a significant factor for OI.

In particular it could be suggested that welfare economics have a deleterious effect

on OI for business organizations that are primarily established to serve the public

and wider social needs. Indeed, when the State provides public services, then the

role of businesses in promoting social benefits may be reduced comparatively to

the size and scope of public welfare initiatives. Such potential effects of welfare

economics on OI have not to my knowledge been well-explored by the literature,

which traditionally takes a more organizational or psychological-level approach.

Thus, my research findings highlighted that institutional-level studies of OI may be a

novel area for development within OI scholarship.

That the institutional-level could be a profitable area for further work was also

suggested by the dynamics of Boot’s OI during T4. Although this period was not

306

about competing identities between the State and business, it did show that

neoliberal values and ideas may be impoverishing for OI. It was also argued that

economic entities lack social meaning for wider stakeholders and thus, OI helps to

make an organization socially meaningful. Consequently, under neoliberal

conditions when the possibility of a rich and socially valued emergent OI is limited,

organizations may look for ways to connect with wider stakeholders to improve

their social legitimacy of which adopting and disclosing CSR helps (Vanhamme &

Grobben, 2009; Omran & Ramdhony, 2015). Consequently, the uptake of CSR and

its increasing importance for business organizations may be related to the poverty

of OI within a neoliberal context. Some research has critically explored the

relationship between CSR and neoliberal privileging of shareholders (Utting &

Marques, 2010), and considered socio-political change on strategies of

organizational legitimacy (Bucheli & Uk Kim, 2014). However, my findings suggest

that there may be space to include OI as part of this critical discourse.

A final point for comment is on the possibility that the socio-political context may

have also had an impact on understanding and approaches to OI scholarship.

Prompting this was that neoliberal values and ideas, which have been argued to

economise OI, became widespread post 1980s which coincided with when much

research into OI has been undertaken (Ravasi & Canato, 2013). Consequently, most

OI research has taken place within a neoliberal-rich environment in which

businesses construct OI to give meaning to what otherwise would be an economic

entity. Thus, researchers are likely to have encountered organizational identities

307

that have been highly constructed by managers rather than emergent from an

underlying combination of wider social entities in the institutional-level

environment. As result, understandings of OI that have been centred on sense-

making approaches in which managers construct OI (for example Ran & Golden,

2011; Haslam et al., 2003), or OI as narrative (Brown, 2006; Humphreys and Brown,

2002; Kahane & Reitter, 2002; Chreim, 2005) may in part be a reflection of the

neoliberal context in which many business organizations operate and are studied

within. Indeed, such a situation may also further explain why social constructionist

accounts of OI have been dominant within the literature.

The extent to which the institutional-level socio-political environment is

interrelated with OI has yet to be established. However, my findings have

highlighted that there may be connections that are worthwhile for further

exploration and that could move toward development of a critical stream within OI

scholarship. Importantly, socio-political beliefs (or ideologies of the State) are not

static over time (Bucheli & Uk kim, 2014), suggesting that in addition to the

institutional-level, temporal and/or historical approaches for organization studies

are also useful (Rowlinson et al., 2010; Schultz & Hernes, 2013) and may help to

surface critical issues. Moreover, given that OI research may of itself have been

constrained by a socio-political environment, reflexivity on this may lead to new

findings and discourses that critically challenge the hegemony of neoliberal

ideology on both social reality and epistemology (Plehwe, Walpen, & Neunhoffer,

2006).

308

How Do We Know Who We Are?

In my literature review in Chapter one, I discussed the importance of a realist

conception of OI for the legitimacy and authenticity of organizational claims about

“who we are as an organization”. Scholarship has shown that OI is an important

component of organizational legitimacy (Suchman, 1995), which is enhanced when

OI or CSR claims can be historically grounded and thus called ‘enduring’

(Vanhamme & Grobben, 2009; Rowlinson & Hassard, 1993; Gioia et al., 2000).

However, if organizational history and identity are malleable and revisionist (Gioia

et al., 2000; Suddaby et al., 2010), then how can claims to OI as “enduring to who

we are” be authenticated? Indeed, the authenticity of OI claims are important since

if current OI claims professed as enduring are uncovered to be false, organizational

legitimacy can be undermined (Booth, et al., 2007). Thus, in my literature review I

suggested what was at stake for organizations by addressing realist notions of OI

were what could reliably be claimed as enduring identity.

From an argument of common-sense, to be reliably claimed as enduring an OI

marker must have actually endured across time. However, in the context of identity

claims, empirical appearance of endurance in OI is not necessarily a pre-requisite

for “who we enduringly are” because endurance in OI can be made to appear (e.g.

Chreim, 1995; Anteby & Molnar, 2012) and is at the level of epistemology rather

than ontology. For example, looking at empirical dynamics in which Boot’s OI has

endured is at the empirical level and thus as discussed previously could also have

been interpreted as changeable. Instead to be defensibly credible, claims of “who

309

we enduringly are” need to be framed through ontology. To frame an OI claim in

this way, past OI claims must be shown to be a necessary explanation for current

OI, in that past OI can be demonstrated to have enabled and constrained what was

constructed in terms of OI in the here-and-now. If this can be shown to be the case,

then it can be said what is constructed in current time was reproduction of past OI.

Moreover, since what exists in the past is ontologically independent of agents, then

what is reproduced can be claimed to be “who we enduringly are”. To emphasise,

analytically separating OI into its dual nature helps to distinguish between elements

of an OI that are socially constructed and those that are ontologically independent

of agents. In effect, for current OI claims to be defended as who “we enduringly

are”, they must necessarily have historical provenance and depend on what pre-

existed in terms of past OI rather than simply appear to be enduring.

It is also likely that not all of what exists in past OI will be visibly manifested in

terms of current OI. For example, Boot’s OI as ‘nationalistic’ endured through T1

and T2 but in the absence of war this identity theme was not generated in T3 and

T4. Thus, it would appear that this theme was not enduring despite being a part of

Boot’s historically situated OI. Consequently, historical OI markers, although

enduring, could only be claimed as “who we enduringly are” if they are manifested

both in the past and the present. For example, at T4, it could not be claimed that

Boots were enduringly nationalist although nationalism was (and still is) part of

Boot’s enduring identity as a property of the archival cultural-system. A second

example was that of Boots as a ‘public service’. This theme was constructed at T1

310

and endured into T2 and to a greater extent was also manifest at T3 on grounds of

its emergence and dependence on wider social entities. Thus, up until 1977 the

company could have reliably claimed to have enduringly been a public service.

However, by T4, notions of public service were suppressed by adoption of

neoliberal values in which shareholders needs replaced those of wider social

entities, meaning the company could no longer authentically claim to be a public

service. Indeed, attempts to claim a public service identity in T4 would have had no

basis in wider social relations and been inconsistent with Boot’s emergent

economic identity. Thus, on grounds of emergent OI, professing to have been a

public service at T4 would be a constructed and rhetorical OI marker rather than an

enduring identity claim.

The additional factor of Boots storing their OI into a parallel cultural system through

creation of a company archive made the picture a little more complicated. This is

because a past OI is available to agents in the cultural domain independently of its

emergent dependence on social entities in a more structural domain. Thus, for an

organization with historical capital, a past OI can be drawn upon by organizational

agents to construct a current OI (Schultz & Hernes, 2013; Ravasi & Phillips, 2011,

Ericson, 2006). For example, Boots construction of being ‘socially responsible’ and

its sub-themes of community and environmentally oriented at T4 were constructed

by aligning with their past OI of being ‘pro-social’, and a ‘public service’. In this case,

Boots as being socially responsible appeared to be enduring when in fact it was

unlikely. This was because the reproduction of Boot’s past OI as a public service and

311

being socially responsible were inconsistent with Boot’s current emergent OI as

principally an economic shareholder valuing entity. Thus, although drawing on past

OI to offer weight and credibility to current claims to be socially responsible

(Vanhamme & Grobben, 2009), the contradictions between the past and present

only gave space for the company to operationalise its past ‘pro-social’ identity as

supportive of current OI rather than full claims to being pro-social. In effect, agents’

reproduction of Boot’s past OI was only partial, its full reproduction constrained by

fundamental differences between the past and the present. Consequently, Boots as

“enduringly being socially responsible” would be an unreliable claim.

On the reverse side, what then could be said of Boot’s identity that could be reliably

claimed as enduring? For arguments sake we could adopt the OI themes of the T4

middle period (1990s) as representing the company’s current identity. During this

time frame it was possible to identify themes of being ‘shareholder focused’ and ‘a

business’; themes consistent with Boot’s identity as emergent from neoliberal

values and ideas, and shareholders as the dominant stakeholder group. Thus,

despite being not having historical provenance, these themes were reflective of

emergent OI at the level of structural relations and thus could be defended as

ontological identity claims (although not enduring). Other themes that could be

reliably claimed by the company as having their basis in Boot’s past OI were Boot’s

claims to being ‘knowledgeable’, ‘health and pharmacy’ and ‘customer-led’. For

example, knowledgeable could only be claimed on the basis of having past

experience on which to build knowledge, Health and Pharmacy, had always been

312

related to Boots despite the silence of the 1980 period immediately prior.

Moreover, Boot’s past OI as a chemist was a guiding influence in corporate

downsizing and brand creation. Finally, Boot’s could reliably claim to be customer-

led since this had begun to develop in T2 under notions of being ‘service oriented’

which gained momentum in T3 because of the effects of the

NHS

on Boots more

public service offering. Being ‘supportive of staff’ would be more difficult to claim

however, given that notions of staff welfare had been previously predicated on

staff as stakeholders, which by T4 had been supplanted by Capital shareholders.

That caring for staff is problematic to claim as enduring despite having been

extensively the case in the past, is because linking with as opposed to reproducing

past OI makes current OI claims only a partial reproduction and thus questionable

in their authenticity. As stated before, partial reproduction occurs because full

reproduction of past OI is constrained by complementarities and contradictions

between past OI and the current organizational status quo. Thus, some

complimentary identity markers can be reproduced and reliably claimed as

enduring, while others which are contradictory can be suppressed. However, some

can be strategically made to appear as though they have been reproduced. The

latter of these strategies presented something of two-edged sword since on the

one hand, linking with the past can support organizational legitimacy (for example:

Vanhamme & Grobben, 2009; Czarniawska, 1997), while on the other hand could

reduce legitimacy if shown to actually be inconsistent with the past (Booth et al.,

2007).

313

This indicated a need for sensitivity and reflexivity in the management and use of

past OI since if “who we claim to be” is overstated in terms of “who we were in the

past”, and this contradicts a current OI as emergent from structural relations (or the

current organizational status quo), then an opportunity for critique arises. During

the course of conducting this research I witnessed first-hand one such event as I

have described, with an article appearing in the

Guardian Newspaper

(Chakrabortty, April 13

2016). In particular, the reporter drew attention to “who

Boots had been” in terms of their past OI as emergent from wider social relations

(i.e. a national & public institution) and contrasted this with the neoliberal values

and practices that are central to the organization today. This expectedly revealed

contradictions between Boot’s past and its present in terms of OI that were of

serious concern to the credibility and legitimacy of the company.

Although, the situation outlined above was engineered by an external press

journalist, it may have just as easily occurred by Boot’s leaning too heavily and un-

reflexively on past OI for marketing and advertising purposes and thereby offering

the opportunity for critique to be surfaced among the wider public. This has

happened at the organization already. For example, in my thesis it was found that

Boot’s OI as socially responsible was markedly different to notions of being pro-

social and a public service in their past. However, during T4, that the past was used

by the company to strengthen claims to having an enduring heritage in being

socially responsible meant that a contradiction between the two could be surfaced

314

threatening the legitimacy of Boots’ current CSR claims. Indeed, for me as

researcher investigating Boot’s OI, this particular contradiction was apparent. Thus,

careful and reflexive management of past OI, and organizational history is an

important suggestion that my research highlights when attempting to gain strategic

leverage from past OI (Suddaby et al., 2010). Such a recommendation does not

stand on the basis of this research alone, for this same issue and recommendation

was a finding and conclusion shared with the most recent scholarship on the

management of organizational history and identity (Zundel et al., 2016).

315

Conclusion

Theoretical Summary and Contributions

Looking backwards through taking an historical approach to developing

understanding of OI has been demonstrated to have been a worthwhile

undertaking. In particular, I conducted a longitudinal and historical case study of OI

at Walgreens Boots Alliance over a century, enacting a critical realist perspective to

explain empirical OI dynamics which were generated using thematic analysis. This

led to development of a stratified conception of OI demarcated through ontology

and temporality indicating that OI is dual as opposed to dualistic. Specifically, I have

argued that OI is both something to be explained and an explanation (

. Archer,

1996), that it reflects both structure and agency (

cf.

Reed, 1997), and temporally

represents both past and present rather than being suspended at their nexus in an

ongoing here-and now (

cf.

Schultz & Hernes, 2013). From the perspective of critical

realist ontology (Bhaskar, 1979), I have argued that OI is enduring inasmuch as it

emerges from a structural-level combination of social entities or a cultural-system

at the level of real, yet in the actual and empirical domains it appears to be socially

constructed and thus changeable and discursive. This is supplemented by

temporality, in which the former exists in the past, and in doing so becomes

ontologically independent of agents. Meanwhile the latter exists in present time, in

which agents construct and reconstruct their past as it contingently enables and

constrains what they (re)produce in terms of OI in the here-and now.

316

These theoretical propositions of OI which constituted my original contribution to

knowledge, also made a theoretical contribution to OI scholarship in three different

ways. First, they were an inclusive way to conceptualise OI, uniting divergent

understanding of OI that have been divided along an ontological fault line between

realism and social constructivism which has led to conceptual plurality and

confusion (Whetten, 2006; van Rekom et al, 2008; He & Brown, 2013). To recap, I

have offered a realist account of the independence of OI from agents’ constructions

of it without reifying an organization (

. Cornelissen, 2002; Whetten & Mackey,

2002; King et al, 2010). Yet in doing so, because I conceptualised OI as stratified and

dual, my account also accommodated social constructionist understandings of OI

(for example: Gioia et al., 2000; 2013). Finally, my account of OI mitigated issues of

power and agency that are embedded within psychological conceptualisations of OI

(

cf.

Haslam et al., 2003) and highlighted that because of temporality, the

ontological reality of OI is more than an epiphenomenon of individual-level

cognitive capabilities.

Second, my thesis addressed questions of whether or not OI is enduring and

changeable as a research question, meaning that I was also able to make a

contribution to this debate (

cf.

Ravasi & Schultz, 2006; Gioia et al., 2013). My

conceptualisation of OI suggests that OI appears both enduring and changeable at

the level of the empirical which was confirmed by my empirical data. However, at

the level of ontology, OI is contingently and/or essentially enduring as either an

emergent property of structural relations or a property of an intransitive archival

317

cultural-system. Thus, although not conclusively reconciling the debate, I offered an

alternative way to conceptualise OI that challenges the hegemonic claims of social

constructionist scholarship that organizational identity

fundamentally a

changeable phenomenon.

The final contribution that my research made was not so much of what my

theoretical conception of OI brings to the table, but what was surfaced in my

empirical data when developing my thesis. In particular, because of the temporal

and historical approach I used, I generated and observed OI across several socio-

political periods (

cf.

Alcock et al., 2013). In particular it was found that both welfare

economic policies and neoliberal values had an influence on OI which have not

notably been addressed in the OI literature. Consequently, a space for a further

work that explores the relationship between OI and socio-political context has been

opened up thereby inviting a critical stream within OI scholarship to emerge. In

doing so however, it was also noted that such a critical stance could invite further

scrutiny of how the current socio-political structure of neoliberalism may of itself

have constraining and enabling effects upon current epistemology of organizational

identity (

cf.

Plehwe et al., 2006).

Limitations

In recognising that a neoliberal context reduces emergent OI to primarily an

economic entity, then it is possible that much of what is encountered of OI as a

contemporary phenomenon is socially constructed and/or narrative rather than

318

“real”. Moreover, psychological conceptualisations of OI argue that this doesn’t

matter since what agents, managers or founders construct in terms of OI is

encountered by audiences as though it was actually real and thus has causal effects

(Haslam, et al., 2003). Consequently, this raises questions of the utility of a realist

conceptualisation of OI for empirical scholarship since it is not necessary for OI to

be independent of agents’ constructions of it to be a causal antecedent. While I

agree that this is likely to be the case and was a practical limitation, my account of

OI had value in other ways. For example, in addition to its theoretical value for

understanding OI in a more holistic way and contributing to dualistic debates, it also

had a practical value for organizational-level management of OI. Thus despite

having limited utility for operationalising realist notions of OI for research purposes,

there were still a number of ways in which my account of OI had utility.

A second limitation was that I have may imposed endurance of OI on my empirical

findings because of using thematic analysis. For example, Chreim (2005) has

demonstrated that using abstract identity labels for OI can create the appearance

of endurance in OI. Thus, because I used reductive labels to generate OI from the

archival data, I too may have imposed patterns of endurance which may then have

affected the explanations I gave. In counterargument, it must be understood that

Chreim’s research addressed manipulation of OI by managers who used such labels

as a rhetorical strategy. In my research, I had no prior knowledge of Boot’s OI or

history and generating OI themes was inductively driven by the data as it was

analysed at each time unit rather than imposed at the end to create continuity. A

319

key example of this was generating in T1 Boot’s OI as socially idealistic, in T2 and T3

as pro-social and then in T4 as socially responsible. Moreover, in this case study, I

could only explain the data that was available highlighting that further research

would be required to strengthen my claims. By extension, this reflected a third

limitation of generalisability.

Generalising from case study research can be problematic given that

generalisability often relies on repeated observations (Myers, 2000). However, such

a criterion for making generalisations is related to positivist methodology

(Flyvbjerg, 2011; Yin, 2004) and thus was mitigated by the critical realist foundation

of my research in which explanation rather than prediction is the norm (Easton,

2010; Sayer, 1992). Indeed, I did not attempt to make predictive generalisations

about what will or will not occur given a set of conditions, but rather explained

what had been empirically observed, generalising to theory rather than to

probabilistic inference. This enabled me to construct an explanatory account which

of itself can then be tested in different organizational and/or contextual settings

that may help to refine, extend or refute what I have developed. For example,

different research may give rise to observing different OI dynamics. In this way

explanatory theory must give way to a confirmation phase in which its explanatory

power can be tested under different contexts and/or by comparing with other

possible explanations (Danermark et al., 2002). Consequently, this gives rise to

possibilities for further research.

320

Further research

Since my research offered an initial explanatory based account of OI, it is then

possible that further work may be undertaken to support what I have developed

here. For example, my research has been focused on a healthcare organization that

by virtue of its social importance to public health, was perhaps more likely to have

had an identity emergent from wider-level structural relations at the level of the

real. Conversely, the OI of an alternative organization, for example a bank, may

have a primarily economic identity. However, being related to money would not

necessarily indicate that an OI would be neoliberal and shareholder focused. For

example, the Cooperative Bank which is well-known for its historically situated

ethical activities and distributed ownership, may also have an OI that reflects

emergent OI along the lines of what was seen at Boots. Consequently, while my

research represents one case, the findings could be strengthened or refined by

further development into a multiple comparative case study thereby extending the

single embedded design I used (Yin, 2004).

In keeping with the possibility that alternative theories that may also explain my

findings (Danermark et al., 2002) I reflected on my data in which there appeared to

be two groupings of themes that I did not address in my account of OI. In particular,

themes in the top half of the Table 3., expressed what seemed to be competencies,

while in the lower-half, appeared relationally focused. Research has shown that OI

can be reported on in different ways by different groups within an organization (He,

2012; Ashforth & Mael, 1996) meaning this distinction may have occurred because

321

data sources reflected specific within-organizational groups. However, I had

considered this in my research design and used multiple sources across multiple

facets of OI to avoid relying on only one source (Rojas, 2010). Thus, the division in

themes was unlikely to have been data driven. An alternative explanation may have

been that my findings tapped into an alternative construct known as organizational

orientation (Brickson, 2000; 2007).

In this construct, organizations have been conceptualised as having relational,

collective or individualistic identity orientations and in particular that organizational

orientation ‘captures how one’s relations with others are reflected in one’s identity’

(Brickson, 2005, p. 577). Thus, there was a clear overlap between orientation and OI

that was likely to explain why some OI themes were relational and others were

about competencies (or as described by Brickson – individualism, Brickson, 2005).

Indeed, even among the OI themes I generated ‘relational’ was of itself an identity

theme. Further, given that multiple OI themes coalesced around relational

orientation and individualism, then notions of orientation seemed to be a meta-

thematic framework for my data in that my themes could have been further

reduced to represent an alternative but related construct to OI.

This was reassuring since being able to group OI data into orientations supported

that I had actually captured OI relevant material thereby forming a type of

theoretical triangulation or convergent validity for my findings (Denzin, 2006)

However, the concept of organizational orientation is an empirical rather than

322

ontological theory that functioned as a way to reconceptualise OI. Indeed, within

each time frame, themes could be regrouped into orientation categories suggesting

that orientation was a way to theoretically re-describe OI at each moment in time,

rather than explain it over time. Moreover, in hindsight I also considered the

groupings were not aberrant to my work, since both my approach and

organizational orientation made relational assumptions about OI meaning that both

constructs were likely to have been simultaneously surfaced from the data.

Discussing this further was beyond the scope of my thesis, but it optimistically

pointed to my realist conceptualisation of OI as having potential for exploring other

related organizational concepts and that my data could also be utilised beyond this

study.

A final area in which my thesis may serve as a springboard for further research was

that of CSR theorising. In particular, CSR theories are interrelated with conceptions

of OI that were surfaced by my literature review. For example, social actor theory

with its basis in anthropomorphic metaphor was connected with discourse of

corporate citizenship (

cf.

Mele, 2008). Further, notions of organizations as moral

actors with more or less virtuous identities were also connected with value-laden

organizational outputs (

cf.

Moore, 2012) that could also be understood as being

related to CSR. However, my account of OI advanced a different understanding of

organizations as embedded within wider social reality (Ackroyd, 2000), and from

which alternative understandings of CSR may also emerge.

323

On this basis, for some organizations which are deeply embedded within and

dependent on a wider social context, CSR may be understandable as emergent and

part of an organization’s identity. This was suggested by my historical account of

Boot’s from T1 to T3 in which Boot’s identity was generated as being socially

valuable and even transformative. Conversely, when the possibilities for OI

emergence are narrowed to shareholders and neoliberal values, then CSR may be

better understood through a shareholder and business case for CSR (Kurucz et al.,

2008). In terms of my data, this was related to Boot’s OI post 1980 in which CSR was

adopted as a reputational activity rather than as an outcome of being embedded in

and depending on wider social relations. Exploring this further was beyond what

could be achieved here but highlights that my thesis is likely to be useful for further

theoretical development and critique of current CSR theory. On a final note, in

discussing future research possibilities as a close to my thesis orients us back to the

quotation by Kierkegaard with which my thesis began. That having gained

understanding of OI from looking backward to the past, future possibilities to

explore OI lie forward.

324

Appendix A

Example of extraction of data from a T2 document in colour coded fonts

T2_Archive_material_Doc_2

Circa 1923: A Record of Service – Archive Ref: A83/41 – Document is typically summarised

as projected identity since it is clearly written to inform others about Boots.

Planned to serve the needs of the times according to the highest standards obtainable, the

numerous branches of Boots the Chemist are perfectly equipped to meet every

requirement of the medical and nursing professions and the general public.

In practically every important town in Great Britain, Boots the Chemist have a modern

chemist’s shop, where may be obtained at reasonable prices every hygienic requisite that

science has perfected for the preservation of health and the demands of the toilet.

Whatever your individual needs go to Boots the Chemist.

Planned to serve the needs of the times according to the highest standards obtainable, the

numerous branches of Boots the Chemist are perfectly equipped to meet every

requirement of the medical and nursing professions and the general public.

In practically every important town in Great Britain, Boots the Chemist have a modern

chemist’s shop, where may be obtained at reasonable prices every hygienic requisite that

science has perfected for the preservation of health and the demands of the toilet.

Whatever your individual needs go to Boots the Chemist.

The firm of Boots the Chemist is the crystallisation of activities and organisation

(comparative to the notion of Empire).

The firm whose name has already become a household word.

For over 40 years it has been necessary to keep pace with the increasing numbers of

customers, which a constantly improving Boots’ ‘Service’ has achieved.

For over 40 years it has been necessary to keep pace with the increasing numbers of

customers, which a constantly improving Boots’ ‘Service’ has achieved. (Branding its

SERVICE)

As far as it is possible for any organisation serving the public with so many and varied kinds

of merchandise, Boots the Chemists are self-contained.

Many of the firm’s products are issued answering to tests of higher value than those

deemed sufficient merely for general public requirements.

A speciality is the manufacture of Eau de Cologne, of which Boots are the largest English

producers. For this purpose a specially designed plant of unique construction is in

operation, which has enabled the firm to excel in quality and smoothness the best German

products.

325

In medicine stamp duty alone Boots contribute to the revenue £50,000 per year, and from

alcohol used in the various processes of manufacture the revenue benefits to the extent of

a quarter of a million pounds per year, in addition to the very heavy tax borne by Saccharin.

During the war Boots had a record of remarkable and conspicuous service.

Boots produced the first box respirators used, and supplied the whole of the chemical

granules for filling the respirators used by the British and certain of the Allied Armies during

the whole period of the war. They filled and supplied upwards of 8 million completed box

respirators and, at the same time, to meet the famine in fine chemicals created by the

isolation of Germany, grappled with this problem and successfully solved it. Today there

are no fewer than 800 research chemicals on sale.... Boots became and still are the largest

producers of saccharin in the United Kingdom.

Boots are one of the very few firms [others being: Burroughs Wellcome & Co; A.B

Partnership; Evans Sons, Lescher & Webb Ltd; and Duncan Flockhart & Co – 28

Feb 1923

received permission letters] who received from the medical research council a Licence to

manufacture the wonderful new drug, Insulin, which has revolutionised the treatment of

diabetes.

Insulin is now prepared on large commercial scale, the product of the firm being

distinguished by a high degree of purity, accurately standardised potency, and great

stability. {was this why Boots was the only company not to make lower grade standard

hospital packs that were cheaper?}

Boots’ Athletic Club is acknowledged to be one of the most progressive athletic

organisations in manufacturing circles.

With reference to National Health Insurance, Boots look after their cases by having a fully

recognised Health Insurance Society, which is able to give bigger and better benefits than

the ordinary Health Insurance Society is called upon by law to give.

Every effort is made to ensure the fullest and brightest conditions necessary to the well-

being of the people who serve behind the counters.

Such is the confidence of the public in the pharmaceutical service of Boots the Chemist,

that in Health Insurance alone some two million prescriptions are dispensed each year, in

addition to the very large total of private prescriptions.

The great firm of Boots the Chemists. Its shops are acknowledged to be equipped with

everything necessary to meet the pharmaceutical requirements of the public.

The shops are familiar, and no greater proof have we of the value as a household word of

the name of Boots the Chemists than the opening of new premises everywhere.

326

Example of separating text into colour coded sub-documents for all one

facet: Excerpt from projected identity facet at T2.

The Bee staff magazine for retail department.

This is largely projected identity and the way in which the organization represents itself to

its internal staff members.

The Bee, July 1926 p. 307

T2_Prj_1: It is the purpose of the writer of this series of articles (Behind the chemist’s

counter) to show the romance that lurks always behind the chemist’s counter – the

romance of real life that is often far more intriguing than the romance of fiction

The Bee,

July 1926 p. 307

T2_Prj_2: He dropped his voice to a confidential manner, but almost instantly felt

compelled to raise it again, for this was a corner of one of the most popular Boot’s stores in

a busy seaside town, and everybody knows what “Boots” anywhere is like on a shopping

morning, when housewives of all description drop in to buy anything from talcum powder

for the baby, to shaving soap for their husbands, or an elaborate wedding present for some

dear friend.

The Bee, July 1926 p. 307

T2_Prj_3: The customer asked for Acid Sulphate of Soda... The customer suggested that

they had been supplied with a different line altogether. The article supplied was correct,

but the customer received something which was labelled by a different name....naturally

concluded that he had not been supplied with the article for which he had asked... our

sympathies are with the customer...May we suggest to everyone that, unless a convincing

explanation be given to any customer, the title under which he ordered a particular item

shall be that which is found on the label.

The Bee, July 1926 p. 307

T2_Prj_4: LEARN BEST HOW TO UNDERSTAND THOROUGHNESS.

The Bee, July 1926 p. 307

The Bee, July 1926 p. 341

T2_Prj_5: Our photograph is eloquent of the happy spirit which characterised the annual

outing of the staff of Branch 1021, Commercial Road, Portsmouth... games and sports were

indulged in and the party spent a memorable day.

The Bee, July 1926 p. 341

T2_Prj_6: Branch 315 has made thirty-four consecutive monthly increases commencing

with June, 1923. This is an interesting point and raises the question as to whether any other

branches have equalled or beaten this record.

The Bee, July 1926 p. 341

327

Example of descriptor generation from projected identity facet at T2, that

were then manually cut and grouped into themes:

Period

Facet

Intrnl

Descriptor

prj 1

Romantic

prj 2

Busy

prj 2

Everything

prj 3

Customer oriented

prj 4

Moral Character

prj 5

Happy

prj 6

Competitive

prj 7

Everything

prj 8

Moral Character

prj 10

Impressive

prj 11

Moral Character

prj 12

Competitive

prj 13

Moral agent

prj 15

Magical

prj 16

Quality

prj 17

Competitive

prj 18

Moral Character

prj 19

Family

prj 20

Happy

prj 21

Customer service

prj 22

Moral Character

prj 23

Customer care

prj 24

Moral teacher/agent

prj 25

Meritocratic

prj 26

Service

prj 26

Relational

prj 27

Service

prj 27

Honesty

prj 28

Honesty

prj 29

A public service

prj 30

Ethical

prj 30

Relational

prj 31

Confident

prj 32

Service

prj 32

Ethical

prj 33

Happy

prj 33

Honest

prj 34

Fair

prj 34

Integrity

328

Example of manually collated themes generated from sub-descriptors that

were collapsed further

T2_Theme list – PROJECTED IDENTITY

Large

British

Female

Giving service

Medical

A Service

Everything (range/variety)

Purity (products)

Hygienic (products)

Offering value

Offering quality

Expert

Research

Pioneering

Scientific

Modern

Competitive

Hard working and energetic

Excellence

Best

Trustworthy

Safe

Family

Happy

Collective

Relational

Listener

Equality

Egalitarian

Hospitable

Customer oriented

Collaborative

Public serving

Characterful/Virtuous

Caring

The Nation’s Chemist

Health and public welfare

Meritocratic

Worthy

Pro-education

Enlightened employer

Its people

Internationally minded

Ethical

Honest

Integrity & honourable

Caring

Moral character

Fair

329

Appendix B

Sample of spreadsheet data in Excel workbook ordered by theme: This Theme is “nationalistic at T2 and reflects from left to right:

referencing, text, descriptor, themes, collated theme, and final theme.

Intl_Ref

Arch

Text

Sb-theme

Theme

UP-theme

Final

Theme

T2_Prf_43

Y82/ 102

We are now in the happy position of being again a British

Controlled Company. I think it is only fair to say that, during

the time this business was controlled by American interests,

the never attempted to interfere with the management in any

way, and always welcomed any suggestion made by the

Directors which was for the good of the business as a

whole.’

Annual general meeting 8

June 1933

British (when

american

owned)

British

National

T2_Prf_210

Y83/ 60/

Doc. 111

In the present early stage of the process of welding the

American and English Companies concerned into a working

alliance, whilst retaining the distinctive national

characteristics of each, both as regards the trading lines and

the obligations towards shareholders, it is too soon to

elaborate details. It need only be said that for the present that

the English companies retain their English registration and

that their preference shareholders will find that their dividend

rights fully secured.

Doc: No 111 30

September 1920

Quarterly notes (to preference shareholders)

(British)

character

British

National

Appendix B

330

T2_Prf_213

Y83/ 65/

p.71

Liggets decides to sell ORDINARY shares on the UK stock

market: “Liggets international in the year of 1920 acquired

all the then issues Ordinary shares of the Company from Sir

Jesse Boot (bart); and are desirous, in the interests of the

giving employees and the British public an opportunity of

owning a portion of the present Ordinary Share capital, and

have therefore decided to make the present offer for sale of

25% thereof, viz., 250,000 Ordinary Shares.”

: 31

March

1922

(British)

company

British

National

T2_Prf_271

C & D

The American business, he said, had had a period of

deflation and falling markets, but had emerged stronger and

better than before. The laws of supply and demand were

gradually becoming adjusted. He had told them that he would

not try to Amercianise their business or upset British

methods and they had carried out that idea with successful

results

. C & D February 3 1923 p.143

Retaining

(British)ness

British

National

T2_Prf_275

AuBox/ 35

c.10

“Our Company has always felt that however well these drug

stores may be adapted to American conditions they are not

suited to the taste of the British Public. We have not copied

their physical characteristics in England, and do not intend to

do so here. Nor does our Company follow their policy of

week-end sales as illustrated by Mr. Dodds, or of cutting

lines below and economic price, temporarily or permanently,

to convey a fictitious atmosphere of cheapness

. Mr.

Henderson, a director of our New Zealand Company , will

confirm and amplify that statement.

No parallel can be drawn

between the drug-stores of America and our shops at home

Mr. Saul for Boots Ltd.

British (retail

style)

British

National

331

T2_Prf_63

Y82/ p.113

‘In the fine chemical department we have had to consider a

considerable extension both of factory accommodation and

plant. We have not only to meet a great and rapidly

increasing demand for special medical products...we have

also to provide for the manufacture of an extending range of

fine chemicals, for we have continually in mind the

importance of making this country independent of foreign

supplies.’

_June 12 1936: Annual Shareholders Meeting

British/National

independence

Patriotic

British

National

T2_Prf_109

Y82/ p.136

‘Our Agricultural and Horticultural sections have, right

through the war, have given to the Ministers of Agriculture

and Food all the help in their power.

: Annual Report

Chairman’s Statement, July 1945

Patriotic

British

National

T2_prf_110

Y82_

p.136

We have arranged with the cordial co-operation of the

Ministry of Agriculture a highly successful series of

meetings at which 20,000 farmers have had the opportunity

of hearing addresses by leading agricultural scientists, who

have given many talks to the Young Farmers’ Clubs. We

were also able to play a useful part in the ‘Dig for Victory’

campaign.’

Annual Report Chairman’s Statement, July 1945

Patriotic

British

National

T2_Prj_158:

458/52

The American controllers, however, did not seek to interfere

with the direction of the British Company, which was able to

benefit from the pooling of its resources and advice without

suffering from any break in the continuity of its

development. It was largely due to Mr. George M. Gales,

who joined the board as the representative of the United

Drug Company, that the change in control took place so

smoothly and expeditiously.

The story of Famous Companies

– Boots Pure Drug Co. Ltd. “Chemists to the Nation”

Reprinted from the Financial News, C1934 22

November

British (no

influence of

american

ownership)

British

Nationally

oriented

National

332

T2_Prj_209

MATGD22

Planned by British enterprise, built by all-British labour and

all-British materials to meet increased demand for Boots

pharmaceutical products

MATGD22. – CAIS76 ad5677-s

Adverts 1931-1932

British

Nationally

oriented

National

T2_Prj_210

MATGD22

All British construction, labour and materials – Boots

contribution to the trade revival

MATGD22. – CAIS76

ad5677-s Adverts 1931-1932

British

Nationally

oriented

National

T2_Prj_211

MATGD22

Ahead of its time, this new factory [D10 Beeston] sets a new

standard: Every device of craftsmanship and ingenuity has

been used to make these buildings the most up-to-date

factories in Britain for the manufacture of pure medicinal

products. In them, Boots employees will work under ideal

conditions – and the best work is better done when the

conditions are perfect.

MATGD22. – CAIS76 ad5677-s

Adverts 1931-1932

British

(Factory)

British

Nationally

oriented

National

T2_Prj_212

MATGD22

Over 50,000 British Shareholder; over 17000 British

Employees

MATGD22. – CAIS76 ad5677-s Adverts 1931-

1932

British

(stakeholders)

British

Nationally

oriented

National

T2_Prj_316

CHEMIST TO THE NATION..... Numerous Branches in

GREAT BRITAIN... OVER 17,000 BRITISH employees...

OVER 50,000 BRITISH shareholders

Scribbling Diary 1934

British (shops

& shareholders)

British

Nationally

oriented

National

T2_Prj_163

Bee

The story Boots have to tell in their advertising campaign of

1931 is of interest to all classes of people, but especially the

middle classes and working classes. Its object is to acquaint

the great shopping public with the high standard of Boots

service, and the quality of its merchandise......and to present

Boots Organization as the real vital national service it is

rather than a mere chain of chemist’s shops.

The Bee April-

May, 1931 p. 182 ‘We tell the world the facts

Vital national

service

National

chemists

Nationally

oriented

National

333

T2_Prj_173

MATGD22

Gradually, they [Boots] set up standards of purity and

exactness. Gradually, in place of the little herbalist’s shop

where Boots began, they built up a great manufacturing and

analytical laboratory, spreading the benefits of its scientific

care through more than eight hundred shops up and down the

country.

MATGD22. – CAIS76 ad8623-s: Adverts 1931-

1932

National

chemists

Nationally

oriented

National

T2_Prj_182

MATGD22

They [Boots’ pharmacists] know what this vast service

means to the health of the nation.

MATGD22. – CAIS76

ad8152-s: Adverts 1931-1932

National

chemists

Nationally

oriented

National

T2_Prj_191

MATGD22

Because of their [Boots] extraordinary standards of drug

purity, Boots have become and national institution – a sort of

national institute of scientific research.

MATGD22. –

CAIS76 Ad1665-s: Adverts 1931-1932

National

institution

National

chemists

Nationally

oriented

National

T2_Prj_198

MATGD22

...But Boots could not let it go at that. As the nation’s

chemist they must get it [anti-venom] no matter what the

cost.

MATGD22. – CAIS76 Ad1375-s (I must have anti-

venom serum) : Adverts 1931-1932

National

chemist

National

chemists

Nationally

oriented

National

T2_Prj_203

MATGD22

Always experimenting, often discovering, Boots consider no

expense too great – no task to trivial that helps turn illness

into health, to prevent as well as cure. To do so – and to go

on doing so – is their job as the nation’s chemists.

MATGD22. – CAIS76 ad 3684-s Adverts 1931-1932

Nations

chemist

National

chemists

Nationally

oriented

National

T2_Prj_277

M.B.140a-

188

We dispense 4,000,000 prescriptions during the year. That of

itself indicates the values of Boots the Chemist to the British

Public and which justifies our slogan “Chemist to the

Nation.”

Special Supplement (Pharmacy Week) Sept 26

1929 M.B.140a-188

Chemist to the

nation

National

chemists

Nationally

oriented

National

334

T2_Prj_290

M. B. 557-

604a

It was no doubt obvious to everybody that what we were

concerned about was the danger of our becoming too ‘high-

brow’ and freezing out those customers who helped to build

our great business. We need to guard against becoming like

the person who moves upwards in the social scale and

receives her old friends with a frigid politeness which

discourages further visits. Our business is to be ‘Chemists to

the Nation’ and don’t let us forget it. If we do other people

quickly will, and we have no particular fancy for being

chemists only to the upper ten, the atmosphere is too rare;

likewise are the volume and profit... Now so we cannot be

accused of going all proletarian, we will quote from Miss

Offley, one of our No7 Beauty Consultants. This is what

happened in Southend:- “one lady came in and bought

£1/12/6 worth of preparations to take back with her to

Baghdad—she said that she had used them out there for the

last three years and that nearly all the wives of British

doctors and R.A.F. Officers were quite No7 enthusiasts.”

B. 557-604a 1938

National

chemist

National

chemists

Nationally

oriented

National

T2_Prj_316

CHEMIST TO THE NATION..... Numerous Branches in

GREAT BRITAIN... OVER 17,000 BRITISH employees...

OVER 50,000 BRITISH shareholders

Scribbling Diary 1934

National

chemist

National

chemists

Nationally

oriented

National

T2_Ci_3

Bee

We may turn to saccharin, the well known sweetening

substance now used as a substitute for sugar. Messrs. Boots

are the chief English makers of this conundrum among

chemicals. In the year of largest sale, the firm contributed

over half a million sterling as duty upon their output.

The

Bee June 1926 p. 293 (By Prof. H. E. Armstrong – the

Romance of a Drug Factory)

British

Nationally

oriented

National

335

T2_Ci_64

A83/41

A speciality is the manufacture of Eau de Cologne, of which

Boots are the largest English producers. For this purpose a

specially designed plant of unique construction is in

operation, which has enabled the firm to excel in quality and

smoothness the best German products

A Record of Service

Circa 1923

British

Nationally

oriented

National

T2_Ci_65

A83/41

Boots produced the first box respirators used, and supplied

the whole of the chemical granules for filling the respirators

used by the British and certain of the Allied Armies during

the whole period of the war. They filled and supplied

upwards of 8 million completed box respirators and, at the

same time, to meet the famine in fine chemicals created by

the isolation of Germany, grappled with this problem and

successfully solved it. Today there are no fewer than 800

research chemicals on sale.... Boots became and still are the

largest producers of saccharin in the United Kingdom.

Record of Service Circa 1923

British

Nationally

oriented

National

T2_Ci_8

Bee

Take one instance; the blockade and the war generally left us

short of sugar, and saccharin, its best substitute, was mainly a

German product. Boots took it in hand, and they are now

manufacturers of about 70% of the saccharin made in this

country.

The Bee June 1926 Boots – In its developments (Rt.

Hon. T. P. Connor, M.P.)

Patriotic

Nationally

oriented

National

T2_Ci_9

Bee

In the war operations they (Boots) played a decisive part, in

such of them as were concerned in dealing with that dreadful

weapon of warfare – the poison gas. They supplied more

than 8,000,000 complete box respirators to the British and

Allied Armies in connection with the anti-Gas department of

the Government – the first effective box respirators ever

used, and they supplied also the whole of the chemicals

required for these respirators.

The Bee June 1926 Boots – In

its developments (Rt. Hon. T. P. Connor, M.P.)

Patriotic

Nationally

oriented

National

336

T2_Ci_65

A83/41

Boots produced the first box respirators used, and supplied

the whole of the chemical granules for filling the respirators

used by the British and certain of the Allied Armies during

the whole period of the war. They filled and supplied

upwards of 8 million completed box respirators and, at the

same time, to meet the famine in fine chemicals created by

the isolation of Germany, grappled with this problem and

successfully solved it. Today there are no fewer than 800

research chemicals on sale.... Boots became and still are the

largest producers of saccharin in the United Kingdom.

: A

Record of Service Circa 1923

Patriotic

Nationally

oriented

National

T2_Ci_90

334/15

By the end of the war, such important chemicals as Asprin,

Acriflavine, Chloramine T, and Saccharin, all vital to the war

effort and none of them previously manufactured in Great

Britain were being produced by the Company. Boots – A

World Famous Organisation Circa 1949

Patriotic

Nationally

oriented

National

T2_Ci_94

334/15

It was inevitable that a considerable proportion of this

factory’s [Beeston] production would be utilised by the

Ministry of Supply on behalf of the government in the

Second World War.... These are just a few examples of Boots

contribution to the war [WWII] effort.

Boots – A World

Famous Organisation Circa 1949

Patriotic

Nationally

oriented

National

337

References

Abraham, J. & Shepherd, J. (2009).

The therapeutic nightmare: The battle over the

world’s most controversial sleeping pill

. Abingdon, Oxon: (Earthscan)

Routledge.

Ackroyd, S. (2000). ‘Connecting organisations and societies: A realist analysis of

structures’. In S. Ackroyd & S. Fleetwood (Eds.).

Realist perspectives on

management and organizations

. (pp. 87-108). London, NY: Routledge.

Ackroyd, S., & Fleetwood, S. (2000).

Realist perspectives on management and

organisations

. London; NY: Routledge.

Albert, S., & Adams, E. (2002). ‘The hybrid identity of law firms’. In B. Moingeon &

G. Soenen (eds.),

Corporate and organizational Identities: Integrating

Strategy, Marketing, Communication and Organizational Perspectives

(pp 35-

50). London; NY: Routledge.

Albert, S., Ashforth, B. E., & Dutton, J. E. (2000). Organizational identity and

identification: Charting new waters and building new bridges.

Academy of

Management Review

, 13-17.

Albert, S., & Whetten, D. A. (1985). Organizational identity.

Research in

Organizational Behaviour

, 7, 263-295.

Alcock, C., Daly, G., & Griggs, E. (2014).

Introducing social policy

. London; NY:

Routledge.

338

Alvesson, M., & Willmott, H. (2002). Identity regulation as organizational control:

Producing the appropriate individual.

Journal of Management Studies

619-644.

Anteby, M., & Molnar, V. (2012). Collective memory meets organizational

identity: Remembering to forget in a firm’s rhetorical history.

Academy of

Management Journal

, 515-540.

Appleby, J. (1998). The power of history.

American Historical Review

. University of

Chicago Press.

Archer, M. (1996).

Culture and agency: The place of culture in social theory

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Archer, M. S. (1995).

Realist social theory: The morphogenetic approach

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Archive and Records Association – UK and Ireland (2016). Code of Ethics. Accessed

June 2016 from:

http://www.archives.org.uk/images/ARA_Board/ARA_Code_of_Ethics_final_2

016.pdf

Armstrong, J. (1991). An introduction to archival research in business history.

Business History, 33

, 7-28.

Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. A. (1996). Organizational identity and strategy as a

context for the individual.

Advances in Strategic Management

, 19-64.

339

Balmer, J. M. T. (1995). Corporate branding and connoisseurship.

Journal of

General Management

, 24-46.

Balmer, J. M. T. (2001). Corporate identity, corporate branding and corporate

marketing: Seeing through the fog.

European Journal of Marketing 35

, 248-

291.

Balmer, J. M., & Greyser, S. A. (2002). Managing the multiple identities of the

corporation.

California Management Review

, 72-86.

Balmer, J. M. T., & Greyser, S. A. (2006), Integrating corporate identity, corporate

branding, corporate communications, corporate image and corporate

reputation.

European Journal

of Marketing, 40

, 730-41.

Balmer, J. M., & Soenen, G. B. (1999). The ACID test of corporate identity

management™.

Journal of Marketing Management

, 69-92.

Barney, J. B., & Stewart, A. C. (2000). ‘Organizational identity as moral philosophy:

Competitive implications for diversified corporations’. In M. Schultz, M. J.

Hatch, & M. H. Larsen (Eds.),

The expressive organization: Linking identity,

reputation and the corporate brand

. (pp. 36-50) Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Bartel, C. A. (2001). Social comparisons in boundary-spanning work: Effects of

community outreach on members' organizational identity and identification.

Administrative Science Quarterly

, 379-413.

340

BBC (2013). ‘The Thatcher years in statistics’.

British Broadcasting Corporation

Accessed 10

February 2016 from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-

22070491

Bhaskar, R. [1979] (1998).

The possibility of naturalism: A philosophical critique of

the contemporary human sciences, 3

edition

. London: Routledge.

Bhaskar, R. (1986):

Scientific realism and human emancipation

. London: Verso.

Boas, T. C., & Gans-Morse, J. (2009). Neoliberalism: From new liberal philosophy

to anti-liberal slogan.

Studies in Comparative International Development

137-161.

Booth, C. (2003). Does history matter in strategy? The possibilities and problems

of counterfactual analysis.

Management Decision, 41

, 96-104.

Booth, C., Clark, P., Delahaye, A., Procter, S., & Rowlinson, M. (2007). Accounting

for the dark side of corporate history: Organizational culture perspectives and

the Bertelsmann case.

Critical Perspectives on Accounting

, 625-644.

Booth, C., & Rowlinson, M. (2006). Management and organizational history:

prospects.

Management & Organizational History

, 5-30.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology.

Qualitative

Research in Psychology

, 77-101.

Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this" We"? Levels of collective

identity and self representations.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

, 83-93.

341

Brickson, S. (2000). The impact of identity orientation on individual and

organizational outcomes in demographically diverse settings.

Academy of

Management Review

, 82-101.

Brickson, S. L. (2005). Organizational identity orientation: Forging a link between

organizational identity and organizations' relations with stakeholders.

Administrative Science Quarterly

, 576-609.

Brickson, S. L. (2007). Organizational identity orientation: The genesis of the role

of the firm and distinct forms of social value.

Academy of Management

Review

, 864-888.

Brown, A. D. (2006). A narrative approach to collective identities.

Journal of

Management Studies

, 731-753.

Brunninge, O. (2009). Using history in organizations: How managers make

purposeful reference to history in strategy processes.

Journal of

Organizational Change Management, 22

, 8-26.

Bucheli, M., & Uk Kim, J. (2014).’The State as an historical construct in

organization studies’. In M. Bucheli, & D. Wadhwani (Eds.).

Organizations in

time: History, theory and methods

. (pp. 241-263). Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Bygstad, B., & Munkvold, B. E. (2011). In search of mechanisms. Conducting a

critical realist data analysis.

International Conference in Information

Systems

. Shanghai.

342

Carney, M. (2005). Corporate governance and competitive advantage in

family‐controlled firms.

Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice

, 249-265.

Carroll, A. B. (2008). ‘A history of corporate social responsibility: Concepts and

practices’. In A Crane, A McWilliams, D. Matten, J. Moon, & D. S. Siegel (Eds.)

The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility

. (pp. 19-48) Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Carter, R. G. (2006). Of things said and unsaid: power, archival silences, and power

in silence.

Archivaria

, 215-233.

Chapman, S. (1973).

Jesse Boot of Boots the chemists: A study in business history

London: Hodder & Stoughton.

Clark, P., & Blundel, R. (2007). Penrose, critical realism and the evolution of

business knowledge: A methodological reappraisal.

Management &

Organizational History

, 45-62.

Clark, S. M., Gioia, D. A., Ketchen, D. J., & Thomas, J. B. (2010). Transitional

identity as a facilitator of organizational identity change during a merger.

Administrative Science Quarterly

, 397-438.

Clark, P., & Rowlinson, M. (2004). The treatment of history in organisation

studies: towards an ‘historic turn’?.

Business History

, 331-352.

Childs, M. D. (2002). Master-slave rituals of power at a gold mine in nineteenth-

century Brazil.

History Workshop

Journal,

53, 43–72.

343

Chreim, S. (2005). The continuity-change duality in narrative texts of

organizational identity.

Journal of Management Studies

, 576-593.

Clapp, S. (2011). ‘Boots: An overview’.

Nottinghamshire Heritage Gateway

Accessed 12

December, 2012 from:

http://www.nottsheritagegateway.org.uk/themes/boots.html

Chakrabortty, A. (2016, 13

Apr). ‘How Boots went rogue’.

The Guardian

Newspaper

. Accessed 13

April 2016 from:

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/13/how-boots-went-rogue

Collier, A. (1994).

Critical Realism: An introduction to Roy Bhaskar’s philosophy

London, NY: Verso Books.

Cooley, C. H. (1902). ‘The looking-glass self’. In M. J. Hatch & M Schultz (Eds.).

Organizational Identity: A reader

. (pp. 16-29). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Corley, K. G. (2004). Defined by our strategy or our culture? Hierarchical

differences in perceptions of organizational identity and change.

Human

Relations

, 1145-1177.

Corley, K. G., Harquail, C. V., Pratt, M. G., Glynn, M. A., Fiol, C. M., & Hatch, M. J.

(2006). Guiding organizational identity through aged adolescence.

Journal of

Management Inquiry

, 85-99.

Cornelissen, J. P. (2002). On the ‘organizational identity’ metaphor.

British Journal

of Management

, 259-268.

344

Cornelissen, J. P. (2006). Metaphor and the dynamics of knowledge in

organization theory: A case study of the organizational identity metaphor.

Journal of Management Studies

, 683-709.

Cornelissen, J. P., Haslam, S. A., & Balmer, J. M. (2007). Social identity,

organizational identity and corporate identity: Towards an integrated

understanding of processes, patternings and products.

British Journal of

Management

, S1-S16.

Cuddy, A. J., Glick, P., & Beninger, A. (2011). The dynamics of warmth and

competence judgments, and their outcomes in organizations.

Research in

Organizational Behavior

, 73-98.

Czarniawska-Joerges, B. (1994). Narratives of individual and organizational

identities.

Annals of the International Communication Association

, 193-

221.

Czarniawska-Joerges, B. (1997).

Narrating the organization

Dramas of

institutional identity

. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Czarniawska, B., & Wolff, R. (1998). Constructing new identities in established

organization fields: Young universities in old Europe.

International Studies of

Management & Organization

, 32-56.

Danermark, B., Ekstrom, M., Jakobsen, L., & Karlsson, J (2002).

Explaining Society:

An Introduction to Critical Realism in the Social Sciences

. London: Routledge.

Danielson, E. (1989). The ethics of access.

The American Archivist

, 52-62.

345

Decker, S. (2013). The silence of the archives: Business history, post-colonialism

and archival ethnography.

Management & Organizational History, 8

, 155-173.

Denzin, N. K. (1978).

Sociological methods: A sourcebook

. McGraw-Hill

Companies.

Delbridge, R., & Edwards, T. (2013). Inhabiting institutions: Critical realist

refinements to understanding institutional complexity and change.

Organization Studies

, 927-947.

Derrida, J. (1986).

Archive fever: A Freudian impression

. [Trans, E, Prenowitz].

London, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Denzin, K. N. (2006). Sociological methods: A source book (Methodological

perspectives). New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.

Dimaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional

isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields.

American

Sociological Review

, 147-160.

Dobson, P. J. (2001). Longitudinal case research: A critical realist perspective.

Systemic Practice and Action Research, 14, 283-296.

Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation:

Concepts, evidence, and implications.

Academy of Management Review

65-91.

Donnelly, M., & Norton, C. (2011).

Doing history

. London, NY: Routledge.

346

Down, S. (2001). Knowledge sharing review: The use of history in business and

management, and some implications for management learning.

Management

Learning,

32, 393–410.

Dukerich, J. M., Golden, B. R., & Shortell, S. M. (2002). Beauty is in the eye of the

beholder: The impact of organizational identification, identity, and image on

the cooperative behaviors of physicians.

Administrative Science Quarterly

507-533.

Dutton, J. E., & Dukerich, J. M. (1991). Keeping an eye on the mirror: Image and

identity in organizational adaptation.

Academy of Management Journal

517-554.

Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V. (1994). Organizational images and

member identification.

Administrative Science Quarterly

, 239-263.

Dyer, W. G., & Whetten, D. A. (2006). Family firms and social responsibility:

Preliminary evidence from the S&P 500.

Entrepreneurship Theory and

Practice

, 785-802.

Easton, G. (2010). Critical realism in case study research.

Industrial Marketing

Management

, 118-128.

Elder-vass, D. (2005). Emergence and the realist account of cause.

Journal of

Critical Realism

, 315-338.

347

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.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research.

Academy of

Management Review

, 532-550.

Ericson, M. (2006). Exploring the future exploiting the past.

Journal of

Management History, 12

, 121-136.

Fleetwood, S. (2005). Ontology in organization and management studies: A critical

realist perspective.

Organization

, 197-222.

Flyvbjerg, B. (2011). Five misunderstandings about case study research.

Qualitative Inquiry

, 12, 219-245.

Fombrun, C. J., & Rindova, V. P. (2000). ‘The road to transparency: Reputation

management at Royal Dutch Shell’. In M. Schultz, M. J. Hatch, & M. H. Larsen

(Eds.).

The expressive organization: Linking identity, reputation and the

corporate brand

. (pp. 77-96) Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Foreman, P., & Whetten, D. A. (2002). Members' identification with multiple-

identity organizations.

Organization Science

, 618-635.

Freeman, R. E. (1984).

Strategic management: A stakeholder approach

Boston:

Pitman.

348

Fridenson, P. (2008). ‘Business history and history’. In Jones G. G and Zeitlin, J.

(Eds.).

The Oxford handbook of business history

. (pp. 9-36). Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Giddens, A. (1984).

The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of

structuration

. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Gioia, D. A., & Chittipeddi, K. (1991). Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic

change initiation.

Strategic management journal

, 433-448.

Gioia, D. A., Patvardhan, S. D., Hamiltion, A. L., & Corley, K. G. (2013).

Organizational identity formation and change.

The Academy of Management

Annals, 7,

123-193.

Gioia, D. A., Price, K. N., Hamilton, A. L., & Thomas, J. B. (2010). Forging an

identity: An insider-outsider study of processes involved in the formation of

organizational identity.

Administrative Science Quarterly

, 1-46.

Gioia, D. A., Schultz, M., Corley, K. G. (2000). Organizational identity, image, and

adaptive instability.

Academy of Management Review

, 63-81.

Gioia, D. A., & Thomas, J. B. (1996). Identity, image, and issue interpretation:

Sensemaking during strategic change in academia.

Administrative Science

Quarterly

, 370-403.

Glaser, B., Strauss, A. (1967).

The Discovery of Grounded Theory

. Hawthorne, NY:

Aldine Publishing Company.

349

Glynn, M. A., & Abzug, R. (2002). Institutionalizing identity: Symbolic isomorphism

and organizational names.

Academy of Management journal

, 267-280.

Glynn, M. A. (2008). Beyond constraint: How institutions enable identities. In R.

Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, & R. Suddaby (Eds.),

The SAGE handbook of

organizational institutionalism

(pp. 413–430). London: Sage.

Goffman, E. (1959). ‘The arts of impression management’. In M. J. Hatch & M.

Schultz (Eds.).

Organizational identity: A reader

. (pp. 35-55). Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative

research.

The Qualitative Report, 8

, 597-606.

Golden-Biddle, K., & Rao, H. (1997). Breaches in the boardroom: Organizational

identity and conflicts of commitment in a nonprofit organization.

Organization Science

, 593-611.

Gordon, S. (1993).

The history and philosophy of social science

. London; NY:

Routledge.

Greenwood, J. E. (1977).

A cap for Boots: An autobiography.

London: Hutchinson

Benham.

Greenwood, A., & Bernardi, A. (2014). Understanding the rift, the (still) uneasy

bedfellows of History and Organization Studies.

Organization

, 907-932.

350

Griffiths, J. (1999). Exploring corporate culture: The potential of company

magazines for the business historian.

Business Archives: Sources and History

, 27-37.

Hannan, M. T., Baron, J. N., Hsu, G., & Koçak, Ö. (2006). Organizational identities

and the hazard of change.

Industrial and Corporate Change

, 755-784.

Hansen, P. H. (2007). Organizational culture and organizational change: The

transformation of savings banks in Denmark, 1965–1990.

Enterprise and

Society

, 920-953.

Harquail, C. V., & King, A. W. (2010). Construing organizational identity: The role

of embodied cognition.

Organization Studies

, 1619-1648.

Haslam, S. A. (2004).

Psychology in organizations

. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Haslam, S. A., Postmes, T., & Ellemers, N. (2003). More than a metaphor:

Organizational identity makes organizational life possible.

British Journal of

Management

, 357-369.

Haslam, S. A., Reicher, S. D., & Platow, M. J. (2011).

The new psychology of

leadership: Identity, influence and power

. Hove: Psychology Press.

Hatch, M., & Schultz, M. (2000). Scaling the tower of Babel: Relational differences

between identity, image and culture. In M. Schultz, M. J. Hatch, & M. H.

Larsen (Eds.).

The expressive organization: Linking identity, reputation and the

corporate brand

. (pp. 11-35) Oxford: Oxford University Press.

351

Hatch, M. J., & Schultz, M. (2002). The dynamics of organizational identity.

Human

Relations

, 989-1018.

Hatch, M. J., & Schultz, M. (2004).

Organizational identity: A Reader

. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Hays, S. (1994) Structure and agency and the sticky problem of culture.

Sociological Theory, 12

, 57-72.

He, H. (2012). Corporate identity anchors: A managerial cognition perspective.

European Journal of Marketing, 46

, 609-625.

He, H., & Baruch, Y. (2010). Organizational identity and legitimacy under major

environmental changes: Tales of two UK building societies.

British Journal of

Management,

, 44-62.

He, H., & Brown, A. D. (2013). Organizational identity and organizational

identification: A review of the literature and suggestions for future research.

Group and Organization Management

, 3-35.

He, H. W., & Mukherjee, A. (2009). Corporate identity and consumer marketing: A

process model and research agenda.

Journal of Marketing Communications

, 1-16.

Helms, W. S., & Patterson, K. D. W. (2014). Eliciting acceptance for “illicit”

organizations: The positive implications of stigma for MMA organizations.

Academy of Management

Journal, 57,

1453-1484.

352

Hewitson, M. (2014).

Germany and the causes of the First World War

. London, NY:

Bloomsbury Academic Publishing.

Hill, C. P. (1985).

British economic and social history 1700-1892

. London: Edward

Arnold.

Hirst, G., Van Dick, R., & Van Knippenberg, D. (2009). A social identity perspective

on leadership and employee creativity.

Journal of Organizational Behavior

, 963-982.

Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. I. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes

in organizational contexts.

Academy of Management Review

, 121-140.

Hollingsworth, D. F. & Wright, N. C. (1954). Sir Jack Cecil Drummond, D.Sc.,

F.R.I.C., F.R.S. (1891-1952).

British Journal of Nutrition, 8

, 319-324.

Holmwood, J., & Stewart, A. (1993).

Explanation and social theory

. London:

Macmillan Press.

Horrocks, I. (2009). Applying the morphogenetic approach: Outcomes and issues

from a case study of information systems development and organisational

change in British local government.

Journal of Critical Realism

, 35-62.

Humphreys, M., & Brown, A. D. (2002). Narratives of organizational identity and

identification: A case study of hegemony and resistance.

Organization Studies

, 421-447.

Jeffreys, D. (2005).

Asprin: The remarkable story of a wonder drug

. London:

Bloomsbury.

353

Joffe, H., & Yardley, L. (2004). ‘Content and thematic analysis’. In D. F. Marks & L.

Yardley (Eds.).

Research methods for clinical and health psychology.

(pp. 56-

68). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kahane, B., & Reitter, R. (2002). Narractive identity: navigating between

‘reality’and ‘fiction’. In B. Moingeon & G. Soenen (Eds

Corporate and

organizational identities: Integrating strategy, marketing, communication and

organizational perspectives.

(pp. 115-130). London; NY: Routledge.

Kieser, A. (1994). Why organization theory needs historical analyses—and how

this should be performed.

Organization Science

, 608-620.

Kierkegaard, S. (1938).

The journals of Søren Kierkegaard

[A. Dru, Trans.]. London:

Oxford University Press.

King, B. G., Felin, T., & Whetten, D. A. (2010). Perspective-finding the organization

in organizational theory: A meta-theory of the organization as a social actor.

Organization Science

, 290-305.

King, B. G., & Whetten, D. A. (2008). Rethinking the relationship between

reputation and legitimacy: A social actor conceptualization.

Corporate

Reputation Review

, 192-207.

Kjærgaard, A., Morsing, M., & Ravasi, D. (2011). Mediating identity: A study of

media influence on organizational identity construction in a celebrity firm.

Journal of Management Studies

, 514-543.

354

Kobrak , C., & Schneider, A. (2011). Varieties of business history: Subject and

methods for the twenty-first century.

Business History

, 401-424.

Krippendorff, K. (1980).

Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology

(Sage Commtext Series). London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Kroezen, J. J., & Heugens, P. P. M. A. R. (2012). ‘Organizational identity formation:

Processes of identity imprinting and enactment in the Dutch microbrewing

landscape’. In M. Schultz, S. Maguire, A. Langley, & H. Tsoukas (Eds.).

Constructing identity in and around organizations

. (pp. 89-127). Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Kurucz, E. C., Colbert, B. A., & Wheeler, D. (2008). ‘The business case for corporate

social responsibility’. In A Crane, A McWilliams, D. Matten, J. Moon, D. S.

Siegel (Eds.).

The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility

. (pp. 83-

112) Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lusiani, M., & Zan, L. (2011). Change and continuity in managerialism: 100 years

of administrative history at the International Museum of Ceramics in Faenza.

Management & Organizational History

, 59-80.

MacDonald, K. (1989). ‘Using documents’. In N. Gilbert (Ed).

Researching social life

edition). (pp. 194-209). London; Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

MacIntyre, A. (1985).

After Virtue

, (2nd ed.). London: Duckworth.

355

Maclean, M., Harvey, C., Sillince, J. A. A., & Golant, B. D. (2014). Living up to the

past? Ideological sensemaking in organizational transition.

Organization, 21

543-567.

Manoff, M. (2004). Theories of the archive from across the disciplines.

Libraries

and the Academy

9-25.

Martinez, E., & Garcia, A. (1997). What is neoliberalism: A brief definition for

activists.

National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights

, 1, 1-3.

McDowell, W. H. (2002).

Historical research: A guide

. Essex, Edinburgh Gate:

Pearson Education Limited.

Mead, G. H. (1934). ‘The self: The “I” and “Me”. In M. J. Hatch & M. Schultz (Eds.).

Organizational Identity: A reader

(pp. 30-34). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Megill, A. (2007).

Historical knowledge, historical error: A contemporary guide to

practice

. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Mele, D. (2008). Corporate social responsibility theories. In A Crane, A

McWilliams, D. Matten, J. Moon, D. S. Siegel (Eds.).

The Oxford Handbook of

Corporate Social Responsibility

. (pp. 47- 82) Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Mellahi, K., Morrell, K., & Wood, G. (2010).

The ethical business: Challenges and

controversies

. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

McAuley, J. (2004). ‘Hermeneutic understanding’. In C. Cassell and G. Symon

(Eds.).

Essential guide to qualitative methods in organizational research.

(pp.

192-202). London; Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

356

Mingers, J. (2004). ‘Re-establishing the real: critical realism and information

systems’. In L. P. Willcocks & J. Mingers (Eds.).

Social theory and philosophy

for information systems.

(pp. 372-406). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Mingers, J., Mutch, A., & Willcocks, L. (2013). Critical realism in information

systems research.

Mis Quarterly

, 795-802.

Moon, J., Crane, A., & Matten, D. (2005). Can corporations be citizens? Corporate

citizenship as a metaphor for business participation in society.

Business Ethics

Quarterly

, 429-453.

Moore, G. (2002). On the implications of the practice-institution distinction:

MacIntyre and the application of modern virtue ethics to business.

Business

Ethics Quarterly

, 19-32.

Moore, G. (2005). Humanizing Business: a modern virtue ethics approach.

Business Ethics Quarterly, 15

, 237-255.

Moore, G. (2012). Virtue in business: Alliance boots and an empirical exploration

of MacIntyre’s conceptual framework.

Organization Studies, 33

, 363-387.

Mordhorst, M. (2014). Arla and Danish national identity–business history as

cultural history.

Business History

, 116-133.

Morgeson, F. P., & Hofmann, D. A. (1999). The structure and function of collective

constructs: Implications for multilevel research and theory development.

Academy of Management Review

, 249-265.

357

Myers, M. (2000). Qualitative research and the generalizability question: Standing

firm with Proteus.

The Qualitative Report

, 1-9.

Nag, R., Corley, K. G., & Gioia, D. A. (2007). The intersection of organizational

identity, knowledge, and practice: Attempting strategic change via knowledge

grafting.

Academy of Management Journal

, 821-847.

National Archives.(2009). Corporate Memory: A guide to managing business

archives.

The National Archives.

Acessed 1

September 2013 from:

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/information-

management/corporate-memory.pdf

Nature (1941). ‘Therapeutic research corporation’.

Nature, 148

, 658. Wellcome

Trust Archives.

Norman, S. M., Avey, J. B., Nimnicht, J. L., & Pigeon, N. G. (2010). The interactive

effects of psychological capital and organizational identity on employee

citizenship and deviance behaviors.

Journal of Leadership & Organizational

Studies

, 380-391.

North, D. C. (1990).

Institutions, institutional change and economic performance

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Olins, W. (1995).

The new guide to identity

. London: Gower.

Omran, M. A., & Ramdhony, D. (2015). Theoretical Perspectives on Corporate

Social Responsibility Disclosure: A Critical Review.

International Journal of

Accounting and Financial Reporting

, 38-55.

358

Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Corporate social and financial

performance: A meta-analysis.

Organization Studies

, 403-441.

Pedersen, J. S., & Dobbin, F. (2006). In search of identity and legitimation,

Organizational culture and neoinstitutionalism.

American Behavioral Scientist,

, 897-907.

Peters, K., Tevichapong, P., Haslam, S. A., & Postmes, T. (2010). Making the

Organization Fly.

Journal of Personnel Psychology

, 145-148.

Pinto-Duschinsky, M. (1998, October 23). Selling the past: The dangers of outside

finance for historical research.

TLS, Times Literary

Supplement,

p. 16.

Phillips, S. (2008). ‘Chemists to the Nation’: House magazines, locality and health

at Boots The Chemists 1919–1939.

Management & Organizational History

239-255.

Plehwe, D., Walpen, B., & Neunhoffer, G. (2006).

Neoliberal hegemony: A global

critique

. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

Pollock, A. M. (2005).

NHS Plc. The privatisation of our health care

. London: Verso

Pratt, M. G., & Foreman, P. O. (2000). Classifying managerial responses to

multiple organizational identities.

Academy of Management Review

(1),

18-42.

Pratt, M. G., & Rafaeli, A. (1997). Organizational dress as a symbol of multilayered

social identities.

Academy of Management Journal

, 862-898.

359

Pratten, S. (2013). Critical realism and the process account of emergence.

Journal

for the Theory of Social Behaviour

, 251-279.

Ran, B., & Duimering, P. R. (2007). Imaging the organization: Language use in

organizational identity claims.

Journal of Business and Technical

Communication

, 155-187.

Ran, B., & Golden, T. J. (2011). Who are we? The social construction of

organizational identity through sense-exchanging.

Administration & Society,

, 417-445.

Ravasi, D., & Canato, A. (2013). How do I know who you think you are? A review

of research methods on organizational identity.

International Journal of

Management Reviews

, 185-204.

Ravasi, D., & Schultz, M. (2006). Responding to organizational identity threats:

Exploring the role of organizational culture.

Academy of Management Journal

, 433-458.

Ravasi, D., & Phillips, N. (2011). Strategies of alignment organizational identity

management and strategic change at Bang & Olufsen.

Strategic Organization

, 103-135.

Reed, M. (2005). Reflections on the ‘realist turn’ in organization and management

studies.

Journal of Management Studies, 42,

1621-1644.

Reed, M. I. (1997). In praise of duality and dualism: Rethinking agency and

structure in organizational analysis.

Organization Studies, 18

, 21-42.

360

Rojas, F. (2010). Power through institutional work: Acquiring academic authority

in the 1968 third world strike.

Academy of Management Journal

, 1263-

1280.

Rowbotham, S. [1973] (2014).

Women, resistance and revolution

. Verso

Rowlinson, M. (2004). Historical analysis of company documents. In C. Cassell & G.

Symon (Eds.).

Essential guide to qualitative methods in organizational

research. (pp. 301-311). London: Sage Publications.

Rowlinson, M., Booth, C., Clark, P., Delahaye, A., & Procter, S. (2010). Social

remembering and organizational memory.

Organization Studies, 31

, 69-87.

Rowlinson, M., & Hassard, J. (1993). The invention of corporate culture: A history

of the histories of Cadbury.

Human Relations

, 299-326.

Rowlinson, M., Hassard, J., & Decker, S. (2014). Research strategies for

organizational history: A dialogue between historical theory and organization

theory.

Academy of Management Review

, 250-274.

Saussure, F. D. (1916) 1966 (2011). [Trans. W Baskin].

Course in general linguistics

New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Sayer, A. (1992).

Method in social science: A realist approach, 2

edition

. London,

NY: Routledge.

Sayer, A. (2000).

Realism and social science

. London: Sage.

361

Schreyögg, G., Sydow, J., & Holtmann, P. (2011). How history matters in

organisations: The case of path dependence.

Management & Organizational

History

, 81-100.

Schultz, M., & Hernes, T. (2013) A temporal perspective on organizational identity.

Organization Science, 24

, 1-21.

Scott. P. (2012) The Boots company archives: An academic appraisal. Unpublished

manuscript. University of Reading Business School, UK.

Scott, S. G., & Lane, V. R. (2000). A stakeholder approach to organizational

identity.

Academy of Management Review, 25

, 43-62.

Searle, J. (1995).

The construction of social reality

. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Sillitoe, P. J. (1998). Privacy in a public place: managing public access to personal

information controlled by archives services.

Journal of the Society of

Archivists, 19,

5-15.

Simcic-Brønn, P., Engell, A., & Martinsen, H. (2006). A reflective approach to

uncovering actual identity.

European Journal of Marketing

, 886-901.

Smith, R. A., & Lux, D. S. (1993). Historical method in consumer research:

Developing causal explanations of change.

Journal of Consumer Research

595-610.

Soenen, G., & Moingeon B. (2002). The five facets of collective identities. In B.

Moingeon & G. Soenen (Eds

Corporate and organizational identities:

362

Integrating strategy, marketing, communication and organizational

perspectives.

(pp. 13-35) London, NY: Routledge.

Steinmetz, G. (1998). Critical realism and historical sociology: A review article.

Comparative Studies in Society and History

, 170-186.

Story, D., & Price, T. J. (2006). Corporate social responsibility and risk

management?

The Journal of Corporate Citizenship

, 22, 39-52.

Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional

approaches.

Academy of management review

, 571-610.

Suddaby, R., Foster, M. W., & Trank, C. Q. (2010). Rhetorical history as a source of

competitive advantage. In the Globalization of strategy research.

Advances in

Strategic Management, 27

, 147-173.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict.

The

Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations

, 74.

Trompette, P. (2011). Political exchanges in the French funeral market.

Management & Organizational History

, 13-35.

Tsoukas, H. (1991). The missing link: A transformational view of metaphors in

organizational science.

Academy of Management Review

, 566-585.

Utting, P., & Marques, J. C. (2010).

Corporate Social Responsibility and regulatory

governance

. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

363

van Oosterhout, J. (2005). Corporate citizenship: An idea whose time has not yet

come.

The Academy of Management Review

, 677-681.

van Rekom, J., Corley, K. and Ravasi, D. (2008). Extending and advancing theories

of organizational identity,

Corporate Reputation Review, 11

, 183–188.

Vanhamme, J., & Grobben, B. (2009). Too good to be true! The effectiveness of

CSR history in countering negative publicity.

Journal of Business Ethics, 85

273-283.

Walsh, J. P., & Ungson, G. R. (1991). Organizational memory.

Academy of

Management Review

, 57-91.

Walker-Smith, D. (1934).

Lord Reading and his cases

. NY: Chapman & Hall Ltd.

Weaver, G. R. (2006). Virtue in organizations: Moral identity as a foundation for

moral agency.

Organization studies

, 341-368.

Weick, K. E. (1995).

Sensemaking in organizations

(Vol. 3). Thousand Oak, CA:

Sage.

Whetten, D. A. (2006). Albert and Whetten revisited: Strengthening the concept

of organizational identity.

Journal of Management Inquiry

, 219-234.

Whetten, D. A., & Mackey, A. (2002). A social actor conception of organizational

identity and its implications for the study of organizational reputation.

Business & Society

, 393-414.

364

Yeung, H. W-C. (1997). Critical realism and realist research in human geography: A

method or a philosophy in search of a method?

Progress in Human

Geography

, 51-74.

Yin, R. K. (2004).

Case study Research: Design and methods

Edition). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Zald, M. N. (2002). Spinning disciplines: Critical management studies in the

context of the transformation of management education.

Organization

365-385.

Zellweger, T. M., Nason, R. S., Nordqvist, M., Brush, C. G. (2013). Why do family

firms strive for nonfinancial goals? An organizational identity perspective.

Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice

, 229-248.

Zundel, M., Holt, R., & Popp, A. (2016). Using history in the creation of

organizational identity.

Management & Organizational History

, 211-235.

365

366

Walgreens Case Study

Prompt to Clone This Walgreens Case Study

Apply this example's core structure, strategic pacing, and structural hierarchy directly to your own topic.

What are you generating today?