Back to the Future: What We’d Change in “Social Identity Theory and the Organization” (Academy of Management Review, 1989, 14, 20–39)

We are both surprised by and proud of the impact our article has had on the study of organizational identification. But if we had the opportunity of a do-over—with the benefit of 35 years’ hindsight—we would focus proportionately: (a) less on how identification occurs and more on why it matters (because “why” helps explain the process of organizing along with key drivers and outcomes); (b) less on cognition and more on affect and internalization (because they are also central to the experience of identification); (c) less on the organization and more on other targets of identification (because they often matter even more); and (d) less on Social Identity Theory and more on other identity perspectives (because they would expand our tools for understanding identification). We also reflect on how a so-called “classic” article can both enable and constrain scholarly inquiry and on the promise of revisiting history.