The Authenticity of Organizational-Level Visual Identity in the Context of Strategic Communication

ABSTRACT

With the purpose of addressing authenticity as a central concept for organizational-level visual identity, the paper contributes to growing scholarly interest in the role of symbols and images in the context of strategic communication. The paper theoretically and empirically explores conceptualizations and assumptions related to visual identity authenticity. Theoretically, it demonstrates how the dominant approach to authenticity rests on three interrelated assumptions: that a real organizational identity essence exists; that it can and should be aligned with a corresponding visual identity; and that such visual identity can transmit the essence as part of strategic communication. However, additional approaches to authenticity challenge and nuance the essentialist approach by operating with alternative, processual assumptions related to the nature of organizational identity, visual identity, and strategic communication. Empirically, the paper develops the identified theoretical approaches though practitioner insights. In particular, the empirical work consists of interviews with ten agency strategists focused on how they understand visual identity authenticity. Combined, the theoretical and empirical work offer a complex perspective on organizational-level visual identity authenticity, which goes beyond the essentialist approach by adding dynamic, aspirational, and consumer-driven approaches. These different approaches, in turn, have distinctive implications for visual strategic communication.

Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to address authenticity as a central concept for organizational-level visual identity in the context of strategic communication. Hallahan et al. (2007) note in their seminal article that strategic communication also involves organizational symbols and images. In concurrence, strategic communication scholarship, fuelled by the growing use of images on digital media and platforms, has increasingly recognized the relevance and significance of visuals in light of what has been labelled the visual turn (Bell et al., 2014; Boxenbaum et al., 2018; Crăcuin, 2019; Goransson & Fagerholm, 2018). Following the visual turn, scholars have taken an interest in “the organisation’s visual strategies, such as symbols, identities and visual elements that are part of the strategic communication with the intent to support the organisation’s goals” (Goransson & Fagerholm, 2018, p. 57). The visual focus has led to the birth of the term visual strategic communication referring to “all kinds of visual communication of strategic significance” (Wiesenberg & Verčič, 2021, p. 235). This translates into visual elements, activities, and resources of substantial relevance for the organization including its visual identity defined as the way in which an organization presents itself visually as a collective entity (e.g., van den Bosch et al., 2006).

While being a relatively new focus area for strategic communication, organizational-level visual identity has previously been extensively explored within corporate branding and corporate identity (cf. Gregersen, 2019). Two themes dominate existing explorations (Gregersen & Johansen, 2022). The first, consistency, relates to the alignment of visual expressions across elements and platforms as well as across time; and the second, authenticity, relates to how visual expressions are aligned with organizational reality. In the present paper, focus is placed on visual authenticity. Thereby, the paper takes a visual perspective to the notion of authenticity which has as previously been initially addressed within strategic communication (e.g., Edwards & Henderson, 2010; Molleda, 2010).

Managing organizational-level visual identity is linked to improved differentiation (Bresciani & Del Ponte, 2017; Kim & Lim, 2019), stronger image and reputation (Alkibay et al., 2007), and increased employee identification (Bolhuis et al., 2015). To reap these external and internal benefits, organizations are suggested to develop and manage visual identities that accurately and truthfully, i.e. authentically, “express the essence of the organization” (Simões et al., 2005, p. 158). Accordingly, an essentialist identity understanding supports authenticity as an ideal for managing and communicating the visual identity of the organization (Gregersen & Johansen, 2022). However, some visual identity scholars have suggested that the essentialist understanding of a stable organizational core can be replaced by a processual identity understanding (e.g., Martins et al., 2019). The processual identity understanding has been addressed within e.g., organizational identity scholarship (e.g., Gioia et al., 2013; Schultz, 2016; Schultz & Hernes, 2013), and communication studies (e.g., Christensen & Cheney, 2015; Christensen et al., 2008, 2021). However, organizational-level visual identity research has yet to fully embrace identity as process.

In light of the above, the aim of the article is to theoretically and empirically explore, challenge, and nuance the essentialist understanding of authenticity within organizational-level visual identity in light of processual understandings. Thus, the article contributes to recent scholarly discussions on visual strategic communication by zooming in on organizational-level visual identity. In particular, the contribution consists in adding both conceptual and empirical knowledge on visual identity authenticity to visual strategic communication. Accordingly, the research questions guiding the explorations are: how is organizational-level visual identity authenticity currently conceptualized? How can empirical explorations help develop conceptualizations of authenticity? And what are the implications of authenticity conceptualizations for visual strategic communication?

The article follows an abductive research approach whereby empirical explorations are used to equally unfold existing theoretical debates and contribute to them (cf. Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2018). Consequently, it is structured as follows: First, a theoretical framework is developed in order to identify existing approaches to authenticity, based on essentialist and processual conceptualizations of organizational-level visual identity. Second, the methodological framework and research design are presented. The empirical work consists of interviews with agency strategists designed to explore how they conceptualize authenticity. Third, with the aid of template analysis, findings explicate the differences raised in the theoretical framework when it comes to conceptualizing authenticity within existing approaches as well as help to identify additional approaches. Fourth, the discussion addresses the implications of these different authenticity approaches for visual strategic communication. And finally, conclusions and suggestions for future research are offered.

Theoretical framework

To answer the first research question, the theoretical framework has the dual purpose of unfolding the dominant, essentialist conceptualization of organizational-level visual identity and its understanding of authenticity, and challenging this understanding by introducing alternative, processual conceptualizations which have begun to emerge within the research area. We begin by addressing authenticity within strategic communication. Second, organizational-level visual identity is outlined in order to provide an initial definition and overview. Third, the essentialist conceptualization of authenticity is unfolded. And fourth, this understanding is supplemented by alternative, processual conceptualizations of authenticity. The framework is concluded with a brief summary of main points.

Authenticity within the context of strategic communication

Authenticity is widely used within academia as well as in everyday conversations where it might be intuitively understood, yet difficult to define in exact terms (Thurnell-Read et al., 2022). The illusive concept is frequently understood as something being e.g., “real”, “original”, or “genuine”, and “in opposition to whatever is fake, unreal, or false” (Enli, 2015, p. 2). Although difficult to pin down, it is used to “describe individuals, objects, communication products and events, and organizations of all kinds” (Molleda, 2009, p. 87). Given its wide range of applications, the concept is discussed within multiple fields including branding, marketing, and consumption studies (e.g., Gannon & Prothero, 2022; Gilmore & Pine, 2007; Södergren, 2021); media studies (e.g., Enli, 2015); strategic communication and communication management studies (e.g., Edwards & Henderson, 2010; Molleda, 2010); and organizational identity studies (e.g., Bolhuis et al., 2015; van den Bosch et al., 2005).

Authenticity is not explicitly discussed in most extant strategic communication literature with the notable exception of the work of Molleda (2009, 2010) and Molleda and Jain (2013). According to Molleda and Jain (2013), authenticity arises from organizational identity. Moreover, they argue that “to be perceived as authentic, organizations must be consistent between what they say and what they are and, most importantly, what they do” (Molleda & Jain, 2013, p. 437). Thus, authenticity is a result of aligning communication with organizational traits and actions, and is said to be associated with organizational transparency, clarity, and responsibility (Molleda, 2009).

Although authenticity is not discussed as a central topic within strategic communication per se, numerous other related fields are attempting to develop understandings of the concept, cf. Thurnell-Read et al. (2022) for an overview. Gilmore and Pine (2007), for instance, approach the discussion on authenticity from a branding perspective arguing that consumers prefer authenticity, and that brand owners’ key task is to manage consumer perceptions of the real by conforming offerings to the consumer’s self-image. In other words: “What is […] authentic in a particular context will always be socially influenced, if not determined” (Gannon & Prothero, 2022, p. 84). That authenticity arises from perception resonates with Edwards and Henderson (2010) focus on authenticity within communication management where it is suggested that organizations are able to communicate or perform an authentic identity by tapping into the particular “Geist” of audiences. Audience perception is also highlighted by Enli’s (2015) notion of mediated authenticity. In a media studies perspective, Enli (2015) argues that authenticity, as a mediated phenomenon, is a construction which nevertheless holds potential legitimacy as representing reality. The social construction is upheld by way of a contract in which producers of mediated content and audiences agree on a set of conventions and techniques characteristic of authenticity. Central to the views presented above is thus an interest in authenticity as something subjective that is negotiated among producers of communication (organizations) and audiences (consumers and other stakeholders). However, authenticity holds different meanings within different academic disciplines (e.g., Enli, 2015, Gannon & Prothero, 2022; Molleda, 2010). Accordingly, we will address authenticity as conceptualized within organizational-level visual identity research before exploring how it is constructed among practitioners or producers of visual identity expressions, i.e. agency strategists. However, first we introduce the notion of organizational-level visual identity to establish the study’s disciplinary context.

Organizational-level visual identity

The terminology of visuals at the organizational level was early on described as “loose and indiscriminate” (Henrion & Parkin, 1967, p. 7), or “loose and sloppy” (Olins, 1978, p. 212). A multitude of terms still exist which are frequently used interchangeably (Gregersen & Johansen, 2022), including corporate visual identity (Balmer, 2008; van den Bosch et al., 2005), visual brand identity (Phillips et al., 2014), visual identity (Bravo et al., 2013), corporate visual identity system (Melewar et al., 2001), marketing aesthetics (Schmitt & Simonson, 1997), and academic visual identity (Masiki, 2011). Most frequently used is corporate visual identity, defined as “the visual common thread that runs through the way an organisation expresses itself” (van den Bosch et al., 2006, p. 871). However, visual identity is often used generically to cover visuals and symbols referencing organizations (Bravo et al., 2013), corporations (Baker et al., 1997), and/or brands (Hankinson & Rochester, 2005). The different terms cover similar elements including: Name, logo, typography, colour, slogan as well as additional graphic design elements (e.g., Bolhuis et al., 2015), and similar platforms including print materials, clothes, buildings, websites, etc (e.g., Bartholmé & Melewar, 2014). The theoretical framework is based mainly on literature focusing on organizational-level visual identity and uses the term visual identity (VI) to refer to the way in which an organization, collectively, visualizes itself across elements and platforms. In addition, the framework refers to organizational identity and communication scholarship in instances where the VI literature explicitly draws on the literature or where it helps elaborate on the points raised in the VI literature.

Essentialist conceptualization of VI authenticity

VI scholarship is dominated by the understanding that alignment of the organization’s essence and its visual expression is what makes a VI authentic. That is, organizations are assumed to have an innate essence or ‘real’ self that can and should be accurately reflected and transmitted in its VI (e.g., Hussain & Ferdous, 2014; Khan et al., 2016). Aside from the widely used term ‘essence’, other terms and phrases include: “the organisation’s nature” (Bravo et al., 2012, p. 676), “organisational characteristics” (Foroudi et al., 2017, p. 161), “the private self of an organization” (Schmitt & Simonson, 1997, p. 118), and “the true nature of the organization” (Topalian, 1984, p. 57). Frequently, the organizational essence is explicated with reference to Albert and Whetten’s (1985) seminal definition of organizational identity. Bartholmé and Melewar (2011) thus suggest that VI “plays an important role in transmitting the central, distinctive and enduring characteristics of a company (Albert & Whetten, 1985) to internal and external stakeholders” (p. 93).

That the organizational essence should be transmitted in an authentic manner through alignment with its visual expressions is summed up early on by Pilditch (1970): “Impressions conveyed verbally must marry those conveyed visually. And both must equal reality” (p.12). That is, the organization’s essence, or “reality”, should be visualized truthfully or accurately. Consequently, visual strategic communicators need to understand the organization – including its essence, culture, and history – as a prerequisite for developing “distinctive, authentic visual identities” (van den Bosch et al., 2005, p. 112). VI is seen as a visual translation or operationalization of the organization’s identity (Tourky et al., 2020), and should reflect this identity through a process of transmission where alignment and coordination of all visual elements and symbols are key concerns for strategic communication managers and practitioners (e.g., Christensen et al., 2008). In order to secure alignment and coordination, it is frequently suggested to develop visual identity manuals or guides to manage all visual elements and their various applications (Masiki, 2011).

In short, the essentialist conceptualization of authenticity rests on three interrelated assumptions: That a true or real organizational identity or essence exists; that it can and should be aligned with a corresponding visual identity; and that such visual identity can transmit or reflect reality.

Processual conceptualizations of VI authenticity

Whereas essentialism dominates conceptualizations of VI authenticity, VI scholars have also tentatively introduced potentially diverging understandings. Moreover, within organization identity scholarship in general, researchers have problematized the essentialist identity understanding inherent to a majority of VI authenticity literature and introduced alternative, processual understandings (e.g., Gioia et al., 2013; Hatch et al., 1997; Schultz & Hernes, 2013). The process perspective frames organizational identity as being constantly in the making through “constructing, negotiating, performing, reconstructing, legitimating, etc” (Gioia & Hamilton, 2016, p. 29). The theoretical framework now turns to two processual understandings: the dynamic and the aspirational approach.

The main argument behind the dynamic approach to VI authenticity is that an organization’s visual expressions should continuously adapt to the changing nature of the organizational identity if it is to remain authentic. That is, mirroring the essentialist approach, the dynamic approach upholds the ideal of alignment between VI and organizational identity, albeit in the form of adaptable or flexible alignment. In other words, “corporations themselves change continually: and these changes should be expressed visually” (Henrion & Parkin, 1967, p. 13). This sentiment is mirrored by Choi’s and Choi’s (2016) contention that “the form would be updated as changes occurred to the organization” (p. 5). The identity of an organization is not seen as stable and enduring (Albert & Whetten, 1985), but as processual and changing (Gioia et al., 2013; Schultz, 2016). Consequently, a VI needs to adapt to organizational identity changes to remain authentic in a recursive process (Kim & Lim, 2019).

Similar to the essentialist and dynamic approaches, the aspirational approach upholds the ideal of alignment between visual expressions and organizational identity. However, the aspirational approach suggests that stable alignment (prescribed by the essentialist approach) and flexible alignment (suggested by the dynamic approach) should be replaced by aspirational alignment. The aspirational approach has been developed by Christensen et al. (2013) and Christensen et al. (2021) and is rooted in a performative approach to communication. In short, it suggests applying the idea of aspirational talk, developed based on Austin’s (1962) speech act theory, to signify “organizational self-descriptions to which current practices cannot yet live up” (Christensen et al., 2021, p. 412). In the context of VI, an aspirational approach suggests decoupling VI from current organizational traits in favour of potential or future traits towards which the organization is aiming. In the words of Topalian (2003), “it is increasingly necessary to aim some way ahead of reality to hit the target” (p. 1123). Operating with the same processual understanding as the dynamic approach, the aspirational approach suggests that a VI should, inspired by organizational strategy, visualize an aspirational organizational identity. Thus, the goal is for the VI to align with the organizational identity in the future. This approach is supported by Oberg et al. (2017), who explicitly reference the processual perspective articulated by Gioia et al. (2000), and suggest that a VI can express “the agenda of the organization-to-be, or the narrative for ‘who we want to be’” (p. 84). Some VI scholars seemingly combine aspirational and essentialist understandings. Melewar et al. (2005) stress that it is important that VIs “accurately reflect” the aspirational organizational identity suggesting that VIs should still reflect something real or true (p. 383). Similarly, Topalian (2003) warns that it “is a risky strategy when gaps between perceived reality and promises are too large” (p. 1123). In other words, to stay authentic, the aspirational VI must not become too detached from the current organizational identity.

Another articulation of the aspirational approach is presented by Bolhuis et al. (2015): “Ideally, a CVI [corporate visual identity] reflects a balance between what an organization actually is and what it tries to be” (p. 3). Explicitly drawing on the processual understanding presented by Hatch et al. (1997), it is argued that VI and organizational identity does not have a one-directional relationship in which VI authentically reflects organizational identity. Instead, the relationship is seen as a process of mutual influence in which “the visual identity both represents and affects an organization’s identity” (Bolhuis et al., 2015, p. 2). From this perspective, it is visible how VI not only has representational power, but also constitutive (Rosson & Brooks, 2004) or performative (Christensen et al., 2021) power. Thereby, the ideal of alignment (be it stable, flexible, or aspirational) is challenged. By granting VI constitutive power, alignment between visual expressions and organizational reality is an ongoing, mutually influential process of continuous development. As suggested by Cornelissen et al. (2012), a constitutive view challenges the linear, conduit model of communication as transmission embedded in the essentialist view pointing to communication as co-creating processes involving an organization and its stakeholders. Accordingly, VI is “characterised by variability, context-relatedness, processuality, performativity, and non-linearity”, and visuals are seen as “living organisms” (Martins et al., 2019, p. 6) which are constantly in the making.

The theoretical framework in brief

Resonating with discussions on the complex nature of authenticity within other disciplines (e.g., Thurnell-Read et al., 2022), research on VI holds different understandings. In sum, two main conceptualizations can be identified: essentialist and processual. The essentialist conceptualization of VI authenticity assumes the existence of an organizational essence which should be reflected in the organization’s visual expressions. Accordingly, it is aligned with existing discussions within strategic communication where authenticity is linked to an organization’s ability to express its inherent traits (Molleda, 2010). As such, it articulates what Enli (2015) labels “authenticity as inwardness” said to be rooted in modernist existentialism (p. 11).

The processual conceptualizations view organizational identity as an unstable, changeable construct and suggest alternative views on how VI authenticity is defined, created, and maintained. Within processual conceptualizations, it is possible to identify two approaches that each holds slightly differing views on identity as process and on the notion of authenticity. Within the dynamic approach, an organization’s identity is in a state of flux. Similar to the essentialist conceptualization, however, authenticity is achieved by aligning visual expressions with underlying identity traits. As these traits are perceived to be constantly changing, VI needs to change accordingly to ensure continued alignment. In the aspirational approach, authenticity is not created by aligning visual expression with identity traits but by aligning it with possible, imagined future traits. Moreover, in one understanding, aspirational thinking potentially suggests that VI is performative with the potential to bring about changes in organizational traits. Given that VI is viewed as a living entity (not as an image of reality), authenticity is not contingent upon alignment but on negotiation. This approach mirrors views from Enli (2015) and Gannon and Prothero (2022) and places focus on the production and consumption of visual expressions.

In line with the abductive research approach (Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2018), the subsequent sections explore how VI authenticity is conceptualized and approached among producers of visual expressions by investigating how agency strategists describe and understand VI in order to empirically unfold, nuance, and develop the diverging theoretical approaches present in extant VI scholarship.

Methodological framework and research design

In order to answer the second research question related to how empirical explorations can develop theoretical understandings, VI authenticity is explored through the perspective of a particular kind of practitioners, i.e. agency strategists. An agency strategist is someone working for a communication, branding and/or marketing agency. The strategist functions as an intermediary between the client organization in need of a new, or a redesigned VI, and the designer responsible for the creative development of the VI (Gregersen, 2019). The study is part of a larger study designed to explore understandings of visual identity among agencies carried out by one of the authors (Gregersen, 2019).

Given the open-ended research aim and following the abductive research approach (cf. Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2018), the study is based on an explorative research design which is well-suited for studies into phenomena where little or no empirical knowledge exists (O. O. Thomas & Lawal, 2020). Given its explorative nature, a qualitative research strategy is chosen (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). Hence, the study is based on semi-structured interviews (Brinkmann & Kvale, 2015) with agency strategists specialised in VI. The choice of agency strategists rests on the important role assigned to agencies within strategic communication (e.g., Hackley, 2002; Jones et al., 2016). Agency strategists, as a particular group of strategic communication practitioners, are considered to be a relevant point of departure for studies on VI authenticity as they function as intermediaries between organizations looking to work on their VIs and the agency creatives who design the visual elements of organizational-level identity. Moreover, as strategists work with many different organizational clients, they have extensive experience stretching across multiple VI development projects.

Interviews are conducted with strategists from ten Danish agencies. In locating strategists for the interviews, the initial step involves identifying agencies relevant for the study. In order to identify agencies working with organizational-level VI, their trade union¹ and industry journalists² are contacted for recommendations. Based on the obtained suggestions, the agency websites are explored in order to access their level of experience with working with VI. Solid experience with VI development is the only criterion for locating agencies for the study. Subsequently, the agencies are contacted with a view to their potential inclusion in the study. Aside from their shared experience with VI, the ten agencies included in the study are diverse in terms of number of employees (between 20 and 300), agency type (e.g., digital agency, design agency, [full service] advertising agency, branding and marketing agency), and location (the agencies are located in three major Danish cities). The interviewees all hold similar roles in their respective agencies and have several years of experience in their role as VI strategist. The interviewees consist of an almost equal number of women and men, represent varied educational and professional backgrounds, and hold different titles (e.g., strategic planner, senior account manager, strategic director, and managing director). All agencies and strategists participating in the study are guaranteed anonymity.

The number of interviews is based on the principle of empirical saturation whereby the researcher concludes the data collection process when the interviews stop yielding new ideas and insights (Saunders et al., 2018). This strategy mirrors the flexible approach to data collection associated with an explorative research design (Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2018). In accordance with saturation as a question of “degree, rather than as something either attained or unattained” (Saunders et al., 2018, p. 1904), the interviews stop as the ninth and tenth interviews do not yield substantially new views on the subject matter compared to the previous eight interviews.

To balance flexibility and structure, a semi-structured interview guide is developed (Brinkmann & Kvale, 2015). The interview guide is structured in a standardized and an individualized section. The standardized section makes use of open-ended theoretically guided questions centred on concepts associated with organizational-level VI e.g., organizational identity, visual identity, visual consistency, and visual authenticity. In order to explore these concepts, the interview guide has five main themes: 1) how the strategists define and understand VI; 2) how they approach the VI development process; 3) how they define and understand organizational identity; 4) how they understand the interplay between organizational identity and VI; and finally, 5) how they conceptualize the management of VI. Questions are formulated in a manner that invites the strategists to reflect on their own perceptions by asking e.g., “could you please tell me about … ”; “what is your opinion of … ” or “could you describe … ”. For instance, in connection with the first theme, strategists are asked: “could you please tell me about your understanding of VI?”. Multiple follow-up questions are used during each of the interviews including asking the strategists to provide examples to illustrate their answers or asking for elaboration on statements and viewpoints. Moreover, the wording of the questions takes into consideration the responses already given during the interviews. In addition, the interviews do not necessarily address the themes in the order listed above. The strategists are encouraged to talk about their views and experiences, and the themes are used to ensure that the topics are addressed. Throughout the data collection process, the questions used in the standardized section of the interview guide are continuously updated and revised in accordance with the insights gained in the previous interviews, although upholding the same main themes.

The individualized questions are adapted to each strategist. Prior to each interview, the agency’s website is reviewed in order to locate potential quotes related to authenticity. If found, these quotes are included in the interview guide and used as a starting point for discussing the strategist’s understanding e.g., asking the strategist to explain the quotes and to elaborate on how their meaning is understood by the strategist. One agency describes itself as a “knowledge-based agency”. Therefore, the strategist is asked to explain what that means to the agency and how it influences the way that the agency approaches a VI development process. Another agency suggests that “all organizations have unique identities – something essential”, so the strategist is invited to elaborate on the agency’s understanding of organizational identity and reflect on how such an essential identity is located or identified in the context of developing a VI. In addition to the individualized questions, the interview guides allow for ‘detours’ in order to follow-up on potentially relevant remarks made during each interview reflecting the explorative nature of the study. The interviews are conducted in person and last between 42 and 79 minutes. Subsequently, the audio recordings are transcribed. All agencies and strategists have been anonymised. Below the strategists are referred to as S1 to S10, and all potentially identifying remarks have been removed to avoid potential identification of the strategists and/or the agencies for whom they work.

The study is approached from an epistemological social constructionist perspective which holds that it is our descriptions of phenomena that are discursively constructed in social settings rather than the phenomena themselves (Edley, 2001). Consequently, the physical elements of VI (colour, size, etc.) are seen as phenomena that can be objectively described, whereas the non-physical qualities of VI (meaning, purpose, etc.) are socially constructed perceptions which resist objectification. In order to capture the perceptions of the strategists, the interviews are analysed using template analysis (Brooks et al., 2015). Template analysis is a form of qualitative thematic analysis combining structure and flexibility which enables the identification of central themes in the empirical material (Brooks et al., 2015; King, 2012). The themes are not regarded as objective truths inherent to the material but as socially constructed in the interplay between researchers and material (G. Thomas, 2011).

The overall purpose of template analysis is to structure the material according to evolving themes with a point of the departure in theoretical constructed a priori themes. The initial use of a priori themes ensures a structured start to the analysis and frames the analytic focus within the research area of interest. The structured elements of template analysis emerging from the use of a priori themes are combined with flexible and iterative elements in analytic phases which are iterative, overlapping, and mutually influential (King, 2012; King & Brooks, 2016). Accordingly, the process from a priori themes to final thematic structure presented in the analysis below consists in continuously reinterpreting, restructuring, rereading, and relabelling themes. The process is carried out partly by hand (highlighting and marking interview passages) and partly by using NVivo software (labelling, structuring, and coding the highlighted passages).

Analysis and findings

The template analysis of VI authenticity as perceived by the strategist produces a thematic structure which develops iteratively from a priori themes to initial coding, to initial template, to final thematic structure (cf. Figure 1). Three a priori themes are constructed based on the theoretical framework: essentialist VI authenticity, dynamic VI authenticity, and aspirational VI authenticity. However, as the a priori themes fail to cover all nuances in the interviews, a bottom-up coding process is initiated to develop additional possible authenticity themes connected to VI (visual identity) and OI (organizational identity). Having coded the interview transcripts, the developed themes are clustered, reorganized, discarded, collapsed, and organized into an initial template.

Figure 1. Developing the final thematic structure.

The initial template includes the three a priori themes corresponding to the three approaches of the theoretical framework as well as one new theme (Consumers first) corresponding to a fourth approach articulated by the strategists. The fourth approach emerges from the interviews as strategists refer to consumers or users (rather than organizations) as those driving IV design processes. This is visible in statements such as “instead of being driven by them [the clients], it is driven by their users” (S3) and “a way of testing and creating an impression and getting a reaction not only from the client, but also from the client’s clients; that is, the consumers” (S9). Moreover, the initial template includes an integrative theme (visual translation). An integrative theme is a theme that influences or runs across several other themes (King & Brooks, 2016). The integrative theme of visual translation is identified as the strategists address the idea of how to translate an organizational identity into a VI meaning the process of going from a description of what the organization is to developing a visual representation of the description. S2 addresses how the VI process is a way of communicating visually what has been written with words: “If my output is […] textual, VI is what the designers do. They can express the same visually”. Another expression of visual translation is visible in how some of the strategists reference the design manual which they hand over to their clients following the VI design process e.g., “there needs to be some clear guidelines […] so that they [the client] can implement it quickly and avoid it becoming a mishmash” (S1).

Having re-coded the transcripts based on the initial template, however, it is decided to make further adjustments to the template to capture additional nuances in strategists’ perceptions. This is reflected in the additional integrative theme (Employees) seen in the final thematic structure. The second integrative theme is added to reflect the strategists’ emphasis on the importance of the employees. S1 expresses how employees have to continuously live with the VI in their daily work: “It is every day. So it is clear that being proud of the VI, being satisfied, feeling that you have some kind of ownership of it and that it fits provide a sense of pride.” S1 continues to stress how employees are also important as they are the ones who have to implement the VI every day. This sentiment is mirrored among other strategists e.g., S7 who stresses that employees need to be able to communicate on their own in order for organizations to be responsive: “It requires that the individual employee has a mandate; but […] also is able to understand how to act on behalf of the organization”. Furthermore, the labelling of the four approaches is streamlined to better incorporate ‘Consumers first’.

The final thematic structure consists of four horizontal themes and two vertical, or integrative, themes that span the four horizontal themes. Essentialist visual authenticity covers the essentialist approach to visual authenticity; Dynamic visual authenticity focuses on the dynamic approach and is, based on conflicting ontological assumptions of organizational identity, divided into two subthemes; Aspirational visual authenticity covers the aspirational approach to visual authenticity and is, rooted in conflicting assumptions about the nature of VI communication, divided into two subgroups; and, the fourth approach, Consumer-driven visual authenticity, highlights consumers and the platforms they make use of as the focal point of reference, rather than the organization. The first of the integrative themes, Visual translation, focuses on how the horizontal themes deal with translating organizational identity into VI; and the second, Employees, highlights the role that each of the horizontal themes ascribe to employees. Subsequently, the final template is used to re-code the interview transcripts.

The six themes are unfolded below using interview statements from the strategists. It should initially be noted that the strategists do not position themselves clearly within one approach to VI authenticity. Rather, they express multiple, overlapping, and conflicting views throughout the interviews suggesting that authenticity is a complex socially constructed phenomenon.

Essentialist visual authenticity

Echoing the essentialist approach to VI authenticity, several strategists mention the importance of aligning the VI with who the organization is. S1 holds that organizations should “radiate, in their visual identity, who they are”, S4 suggests that “[o]ne can easily create something pretty, but preferably, it should also have something, how to put it […] true in it”, and S7 states that the degree of alignment between the visual identity and who the organization is should “of course be 100%”. Thus, the strategists, in part, mirror the dominant theoretical conceptualization that VI should reflect a stable, real organizational identity. The need for VI to visualize reality is also stressed by S3: “If the brand and the design is just visual, then I turn my back to it”. That is, if a VI is not attached to something else, it is potentially inauthentic and not worth working with. Moreover, it is suggested that “clients can feel” if a VI “is not in accordance with what they are” (S1). In addition, VIs create expectations in the mind of the consumers and these expectations must be met when consumers interact with the organization: “it is important that what you expect to get somewhat aligns with what you actually get” (S1) or what “the truth is” (S5).

Dynamic visual authenticity

The two sub-approaches to dynamic visual authenticity agree that VI must be dynamic to stay authentic, and thus uphold authenticity as an ideal of VI management. However, the first sees organizational identity as processual, whereas the second sees it as stable. The first sub-approach to dynamic visual authenticity mirrors the second a priori theme developed from theory. The overall argument is that VIs must continuously change to authentically align with and reflect the changing organizational identity. S4 states, for example, that a VI “should be a dynamic format. Also because of the fact that the corporation continuously, how to put it … , recuperates and changes focus and enters new markets”. Likewise, S7 gives an example of a municipality whose “logo continuously change[s]” in accordance with the harsh weather of its region in an attempt to align the VI with the processual nature of what it visualizes.

The second sub-approach regards organizational identity as stable, however suggesting that VI should continually be adapted to mean the same. That is, because the same VI will be interpreted differently over time, a VI should change and develop to authentically align continuously with the same stable organizational identity. In the words of S2, VI “must be reinterpreted to mean the same” and S9 suggests: “You must change to preserve. Yes. And I believe that this also applies to visual identities”.

Aspirational visual authenticity

According to some of the strategists, a VI should incorporate an element of aspiration, which echoes the third a priori theme. That is, a VI should visualize a “new direction” (S5) or something to “steer for” (S5). In the words of S2, “[t]here should also be some aspiration” in a VI, it should “point towards the future”, and in time, the organization “can grow into the visual identity”. Two sub-approaches are identified. In the first sub-approach, where VI is viewed as representational, a VI should authentically represent and align with the ambition or strategy of the organization or who the organization aspires to be. According to S2, a VI should therefore be “an extension of the business strategy”. This line of reasoning is supported by S5, who suggests that a VI should “reflect what you want” as an organization. Stressing the importance of alignment between the VI and the organization to be, S7 states that the best VIs are the ones where the business strategy and the VI “perfectly align with each other”. While supporting this aspirational sub-approach to visual authenticity, some strategists warn that the aspiration should not be unrealistic or directly in contrast to the current state of affairs, which would misalign the visual and the organizational identity too much. In the words of S8, VI “cannot just visualize anything”. In sum, aspirations are encouraged; however, there are restrains to the degree of aspiration if it is not to be inauthentic. When asked how much aspiration or misalignment is recommendable, S5 answers with a laugh: “7 centimetres”. Put differently, for some of the strategists, the fine line between authentic and inauthentic is hard to define: on the one hand, it is acknowledged that aspirations can be central for authenticity (i.e., developing an VI that point to desired aims and traits), but on the other hand, there is an undefinable limit to such aspirations (i.e., the desired aims and traits should not be too different from current aims and traits).

In the second sub-approach, VI is seen as constitutive. That is, not only can the VI represent the organizational identity; it can also help create it. As an example, S4 states that she “sees design as a means to an end, not as an end in itself” and S9 explains that a VI “should influence the company”. That is, design, including VI, is perceived as a means to change who the organization is. In the words of S10, a VI should “elevate the company into a new era or a new market position”. Another way in which a new VI can influence the organizational identity is, arguably, by creating pride among the employees. As an example, redesigning the VI often “gives pride and a boost” to the employees (S7), or “gives a lot of confidence and energy” in the organization (S2). Highlighting the constitutive abilities of VI, S10 suggests that, for some clients, getting a new VI influences the organization’s self-perception, more than the external perception of it. Given its potentially constitutive powers, some strategists describe VI as a preferred strategical tool for driving organizational change. As an example, S10 states that a new VI is “a managerial tool” that can be used “to signal that now something is going to happen”. Likewise, S7 describes a new VI as “a really, really exciting tool to create a new feeling, feel, point of departure, a new direction”.

Consumer-driven visual authenticity

This approach to visual authenticity does not originate from one of the a priori themes. It is radically different from the three previous approaches as the initial point of focus is the consumer, not the organization. As S4 explains, agency clients should understand that the business strategy and the branding process are not “driven by them but are instead driven by their users”. Following this rationale, the first task for an organization is to explore who or what their consumers would like them to be – a form of consumer-driven aspirational identity. This can be determined via various forms of consumer tests (interviews, focus groups, surveys, online panels, eye tracking etc.) in which consumers are exposed to various aspirational organizational identities for the organization to work towards. However, much like the representational aspirational approach, there are restrictions on what to aspire for. As S6 stresses, a VI should never visualize a “mirage”. That is, the aspiration must be within reach in order not to be unrealistic, false, and inauthentic.

Having settled on what to aspire for, the organization should work towards this new organizational identity. In relation to the VI, the overall goal is to develop a VI that the consumers believe accurately aligns with the organizational identity to be. In this process, the consumer tests are used to find the ‘right’ VI meaning the VI that most consumers prefer and associate with the organizational identity to be. In regard to the aesthetic goals of a VI, S3 states: “In principle, I don’t give a s*** about the colour. I don’t give a s*** about the typography.” That is, the overall goal of a VI, in this approach, is that consumers like the VI and that they can associate it with the organizational identity as being authentic, leaving the aesthetics irrelevant.

Furthermore, the VI must be designed to meet the requirements of the platforms most often used by consumers. This frequently refers to digital platforms. As S8 explains, working with VI in social media is “difficult and different” in the sense that if the organizational content is “heavily branded, then people just walk away from it”. In other words, on social media, organizations are forced to adjust and tone down their VI. If not, no user will use, share, and like their content. Additionally, the move towards smaller digital formats like smartphones mandate that VIs are small and iconic in their design. As stated by S8: “Therefore, the design of a CVI is also influenced by practical matters”. In short, a VI should visualize what the consumers prefer and what the platforms allows for. In order to stay authentic, it should accurately align with what the consumers would like for the organization to be meaning that the organization should work towards this consumer-driven and aspirational organizational identity.

Employees

The first integrative theme explores the role assigned to employees. According to the strategists, employees must deliver, or work towards delivering, the organizational identity expressed in the VI, thus aligning the two identities. As S5 explains: “That is the ultimate, right? that the employees live it [what the VI expresses]”. If the employees are not able or willing to ‘live’ what the VI expresses, “then it just don’t really matter” (S4). In other words, according to the strategists, “organizational buy-in and employee ownership” (S3) is regarded as “immensely important” (S5, S6, and S7) when it comes to authenticating VI. To ensure and facilitate the important employee buy-in and the possible change in employee behaviour, managerial actions are, according to the strategists, needed. In general, top management is advised to “invest heavily to ensure that it (the VI) is thoroughly anchored within the organization via various initiatives” (S2). Some of the initiatives mentioned include town hall meetings, games, exercises, power point presentations, and corporate movies. Moreover, the strategists advise managers to “involve the employees in the development process” (S7), “explain to the employees why this is important” (S8), and to “listen to the employees and educate them a little” (S9). Finally, S10 states that introducing a new VI can necessitate that some employees are laid off, simply because they do “not match where you (as an organization) would like to go”. In sum, the degree to which employees ‘live’ the visualized identity or not, is crucial in determining the degree of authenticity; that is, the degree to which the VI aligns with the organizational identity.

Visual translation

The second integrative theme relates to how alignment of the visual and the organizational identity is central to all four approaches although they view translation differently. In the essentialist, dynamic, and aspirational approaches to VI authenticity, the ideal is that the VI aligns with an existing or aspirational organizational identity (with the exception of the constitutive sub-approach to aspirational visual authenticity). According to the strategists, turning an organizational identity into a VI is process of translation (S2) or interpretation (S7). However, the exact nature of this process seemingly remains somewhat a mystery to the strategists. According to S6, it is “a creative process, which is hard for me to explain”.

Although acknowledging that this translation is “not rocket science” (S7), that it “can’t be measured quantitatively” (S4), and that the same organizational identity can be interpreted “in 1000 different ways” (S4), the rationale behind the idea of translation is still highlighted as important. As S8 stresses, explaining to the organization and all its employees why the VI looks the way it does, helps “to create ownership and loyalty to the decisions made along the way”. That is, explaining how the existing or aspirational organizational identity can be seen in the VI is a way to engage the employees and help them ‘live’ the visualized identity, thus authenticating it by matching visual expression with other forms of communication. Visual translation is thus connected to the role of the employees highlighted above. The emphasis on the employees can also be linked to the attention given to design manuals which are seen as central translation devices. As highlighted above, S1 states that “there needs to be some clear guidelines” for the employees to follow when it comes to using the VI. Consistency is considered to be key in the translation process. However, a few of the strategists suggest that they have moved away from rigid templates arguing that they can also be problematic e.g., S2: “The problem is that it sometimes become somewhat of a straitjacket”. Instead, S2 suggests that some variation is desirable echoing the contention from S9 that strict manuals are “foolish”. Similarly, S10 states that it is not about delivering “a 300-page design manual, but some practical examples of how the [visual] identity is used.” The implication being that if you have skilled employees, they do not need a manual to do their jobs.

Supporters of the consumer-driven approach argue that consumers should be the primary focus, not the organization. That is, if consumers are unable to see the connection between the organizational identity and its visual expression, authenticity is lacking. As an example, S3 holds that if no one can see that the VI is designed using the colours of a Krøyer [19th century Danish-Norwegian artist] painting to visualize “something old and Danish”, then “it makes absolutely no sense”. The consumer-driven approach proposes using tests in the translation process to assess what consumers like and what they associate with various VIs. Running a sufficient number of tests is assumed to result in the ‘right’ or ‘correct’ VI. That is, the VI that most consumers like and perceive to align with the relevant organizational identity. As S3 puts it: “When we in the end have a solution, there is nothing else to say than: Yes. It has to be like that”. In short, test results are used in relation to the client to validate and argue for the authenticity and usefulness of the chosen VI design.

Discussion

In alignment with the third research question, the aim with the discussion is to address implications of reconceptualizing organizational-level visual identity authenticity in the context of strategic communication. In order to structure the discussion, the four approaches to visual authenticity that emerged from the analysis (cf. Figure 1) have been outlined in Table 1. The outline provides an overview of each approach’s underlying assumptions and practical implications. The discussion addresses how various ontological assumptions of organizational identity influence conceptualizations of VI authenticity; how various assumptions of visual communication and visual translation influence the conceptualization of VI authenticity; how VI authenticity is discussed in relation to employees; and finally, what the implications are for visual strategic communication practice and research.

Table 1. The four approaches to authenticity and their implications for strategic visual communication.

	Essentialist approach	Dynamic approach		Aspirational approach		Consumer-driven approach
		Dynamic OI	Stable OI	Representational VI	Constitutive VI
Organizational identity	Stable	Process	Stable	Process	Process	Process
Visual communication	Representation	Representation	Representation	Representation	Constitution	Representation
Visual translation	Interpretation	Interpretation	Interpretation	Interpretation	Co-creation	Testing
Employees	Keep living the OI	Living the OI as it unfolds	Keep living the OI	Work towards living the OI	Co-constitute the OI	Work towards moulding the OI
Strategic visual communication practice	Keep the OI and VI aligned by ensuring VI consistency	Adapt the VI according to the ongoing OI process	Adapt the VI over time to mean the same	Work towards VI consistency and be ready to re-aspire	Acknowledge the constitutive and co-constitutive abilities of VI	Work towards VI consistency and be ready to adjust to consumers and platforms

Several of the identified approaches to visual authenticity assume organizational identity to be a dynamic process rather than a stable essence contradicting the dominant, essentialist approach to VI authenticity identified in extant literature. Whereas a non-essentialist organizational identity understanding is at odds with the dominant conceptualization of VI authenticity, it correlates with developments elsewhere within VI literature (e.g., Martins et al., 2019) as well as within organizational identity literature where organizational identity “is increasingly conceived as a never ending ‘work-in-progress’” (Pratt et al., 2016, p. 11). Consequently, the ongoing discussions on the nature of identity in an organizational context (e.g., Hatch et al., 1997) are mirrored or reproduced when it comes to VI.

The approaches in general see visual communication as representational echoing an essentialist understanding where it is assumed that visuals, images, and symbols have the capacity to transmit underlying organizational characteristics (e.g., Hussain & Ferdous, 2014; Khan et al., 2016). However, one of the aspirational sub-approaches assigns constitutive power to VI. This sub-approach thus aligns with aspirational VI literature (e.g., Bolhuis et al., 2015) and resonates with the visual turn, according to which “visual manifestations not only express or represent reality, but also assist in constructing it” (Meyer et al., 2013, p. 494). The constitutive power of VI is supported by some of the strategists, according to whom a new VI can help drive strategic change. Furthermore, the idea of a constitutive VI mirrors the process perspective of organizational identity. Schultz and Hernes (2013) state that artifacts like VIs “may be conceived as carriers of future identity, thus enabling a common visionary project to be developed” (p. 6). Likewise Christensen et al. (2013) suggest that communication can be both aspirational and constitutive making it a managerial tool for driving strategic change. According to some of the strategists, the same applies to visual communication. Building on e.g. Schultz and Hernes (2013) and Christensen et al. (2013), aspirational VI is an inspirational vision for the future, rather than an inaccurate translation of an existing or pre-planned reality.

The interviews also identified a consumer-driven approach highlighting how strategists potentially recognized the importance of consumers or audiences in negotiating authenticity. Accordingly, their understanding runs parallel to what Gilmore and Pine (2007) have labelled perceived authenticity. Apart from the constitutive sub-approach, which suggests a potential reciprocal relationship between organizational identity and VI, and the consumer-driven approach, which suggests that the ‘right’ VI can be found via tests, the remaining approaches view the process of turning an organizational identity into a VI as a translation process.

As part of the translation process, employees are said to play a crucial role in authenticating the VI. That is, employees must live, or at least work towards living, the VI to secure its alignment with the organizational identity. In the essentialist approach to authenticity, the VI is developed to truthfully reflect, i.e., align with, a stable organizational identity. Thus, it is expected that employees are able to deliver what the VI visualizes and thus aid the translation of identity characteristics into identity symbols (e.g., Kim & Lim, 2019). In the dynamic approach, the VI is either continuously adapted in accordance with the changing nature of the organizational identity or adapted in order to be reinterpreted as the existing organizational identity. In both cases, VI is formed to align with the organizational identity, assuming that the employees can authentically ‘live’ the organizational identity translated or transmitted in the VI. However, in the aspirational and consumer-driven approaches, organizational identity is expected to align with the VI, not the other way round. In other words, the employees should work towards ‘moulding’ the organizational identity to fit the shape of the VI. Especially, within the constitutive aspirational sub-approach the role of the employees in shaping or constituting the identity of the organization becomes pronounced.

The approaches to VI authenticity hold different implications, challenges, and possibilities for strategic communication practitioners. Only the essentialist approach urges practitioners to continuously uphold a consistent VI across elements and platforms as otherwise typically recommended in the VI literature (Gregersen & Johansen, 2018). The dynamic approach suggests that practitioners should continuously adapt visual identity expressions to accommodate an ever evolving organizational identity, whereas the aspirational approach suggests a form of punctuated equilibrium (cf. Schultz, 2016) of adaptation in which the VI is stable for long periods of time and then changed occasionally to stay aspirational. The punctuated change of VI also applies to the consumer-driven approach, in which the VI should be changed from time to time to follow consumer perceptions and platform requirements. This follows Gilmore and Pine’s (2007) idea of authenticity upheld via adaption. Apart from upholding visual consistency or managing visual change, depending on the approach taken, practitioners striving for authentic visual communication are also encouraged to maintain their focus on organizational identity. Following the rationale of the approach taken, practitioners are either recommended to uphold the status quo of the organizational identity through rigid alignment, or to actively work towards changing the organizational identity through visual creativity and development.

Wiesenberg and Verčič (2021) have previously argued that strategic communication practitioners are making use of visuals as part of purposeful attempts to fulfil an organization’s goals. The theoretical framework and empirical explorations of the present study serve to add nuances to how such attempts are approached when it comes to organizational-level visual identity. Indeed, the empirical work suggests that multiple approaches to VI authenticity exist among strategists. Furthermore, these various approaches rest on different underlying assumptions about organizational identity and visual communication which are, to some extent, replicated in VI scholarship. These different approaches present practitioners with several, and in various ways conflicting, avenues for pursuing visual authenticity pointing to the complex nature of VI work.

In terms of research implications, the study points to the potentially need for conceptualizing organizational-level VI authenticity as a multi-faceted and complex construct. As suggested by Thurnell-Read et al. (2022) and Molleda (2009, 2010), authenticity is not easily defined. That authenticity has multiple understandings is already visible within extant VI scholarship where the predominantly essentialist identity approach and the appertaining focus on alignment of visuals and stable organizational traits to secure authenticity is accompanied by processual approaches which emphasis the flowing nature of organizational identity. This multiplicity is also present among the agency strategists who draw on various underlying assumptions as part of their understandings. In so doing, they open up potentially interesting opportunities for reflection on the roles and functions of symbols and images within strategic communication. Thus, they offer an elaboration on what Goransson & Fagerholm (2018) have labelled the visual strategy perspective which calls for an emphasis on how strategic visual communication is addressed within organizations.

Conclusion and future research

The article has shed light on the complex nature of organizational-level visual identity authenticity in theory and amongst practitioners. Various theoretical approaches to VI authenticity have been identified offering more nuanced perspectives than the dominant, essentialist approach’s focus on a stable alignment of the visual and the organizational identity as the key to authenticity by introducing dynamic and aspirational approaches. The theoretical approaches have, moreover, been developed via empirical explorations which led to an additional consumer-driven approach which potentially mirror an emphasis on authenticity as matter of audience perception. The joint theoretical and empirical work has challenged and nuanced the essentialist approach of the extant VI literature. That is, the paper has contributed with a diversified approach to authenticity as a complex, multifaceted concept that holds a range of potential diverging implications for visual strategic communication.

Current VI literature is dominated by an essentialist approach to visual authenticity. Rooted in the assumption of a stable organizational identity that can be aligned with its visual expression, the approach recommends strategic communication practitioners to uphold the status quo in terms of a stable organizational identity and a corresponding VI to be transmitted across all elements and platforms. The dynamic, aspirational, and consumer-driven approaches operate on various, diverging assumptions about visual communication and organizational identity work and thus, depending on the approach, recommend strategic communication practitioners to work towards changing the organizational identity and/or the VI when pursuing VI authenticity. This suggests visual identity work to be ongoing processes.

The most radically different perspective to the essentialist approach is the constitutive view on aspirational VI authenticity. The constitutive view operates on the assumptions that organizational identity is an ongoing process (Schultz & Hernes, 2013); that VI communication has constitutive power (Meyer et al., 2013), and that aspirational VI is motivational, not inauthentic (Christensen et al., 2013). Following these assumptions, practitioners are advised to work with VI in order to visualize the aspiration of the organization using it as a tool that can help define organizational goals. When realized, the VI should be changed to set a new direction. For aspirational VI to be authentic, strategic communication practitioners, and managers in general, must work to facilitate the employees’ work towards ‘living’ or ‘realizing’ the organizational identity visualized in the VI. Moreover, the constitutive perspective recognizes that employees and other stakeholders have constitutive or co-creative roles to play in articulating and visualizing organizations. Accordingly, authenticity is a fluid phenomenon which is constantly negotiated in communicative processes (cf. Edwards & Henderson, 2010). Therefore, strategic communication practitioners need to reflect on how all internal and external stakeholders participate in the formation of visual identities through interpretation and negotiation of visual symbols and images (cf. Cornelissen et al., 2012).

Having explored, challenged, and nuanced the concept of VI authenticity based on interviews with selected agency strategists, the paper also raises additional questions to be addressed in future research. A crucial component of VI authenticity is the process of authentically visualizing organizational identity, be it real, perceived, or aspirational. However, neither the strategists nor the current VI literature explain the process in depth. As Phillips et al. (2014) state “how verbal directives get translated into visual solutions, has not yet been addressed” (p. 319). To better understand and explain the process of translating an organizational identity into a VI, future research might potentially seek inspiration within disciplines attuned to the development of images and symbols such as visual semantics (Barnhurst et al., 2004) and semiotics (Meyer et al., 2013) or through extensive testing as advocated by the consumer-driven approach. Taking inspiration from dynamic and aspirational approaches and hence moving away from the ideal of aligning the VI with the organizational identity, future research could focus on how VI and the organizational identity influence one another. This would help to better understand the potential constitutive power of VI. In order to explore the intricate interplay between VI and organizational identity, ethnographic methods could be useful in order to take a practice perspective by observing actual practices of visual strategic communication work. Apart from contributing to the theoretical development of VI authenticity, such explorations could potentially also contribute to current theorization of organizational identity as process or flow. In the words of Gioia and Hamilton (2016): “If identity is flow, it is likely to be a non-random flow, thus prompting us to wonder what bounds and shapes it” (p. 34). Future research could explore if, and potentially how, VI binds and shapes organizational identity through mutually constitutive processes.

Another potential research avenue is to expand the research scope from an interest in the perceptions of how producers working with designing VIs approach the concept to also including the perceptions of additional producers as well as audiences. As identified in the present study, both employees within the organization as well as external audiences in the form of consumers are recognized as vital in terms of creating and maintaining an authentic VI. In terms of exploring employees as producers of VI, the practice perspective mentioned above would potentially be useful. This would allow for investigations into how VI considerations are part of (or not part of) everyday work activities among organizational members.

When it comes to generating insights into the perceptions of consumers and other audiences, it could be relevant to explore e.g. reactions to VI through observations of responses to VI changes or through interviews. Such investigation could potentially also include studies on how audiences themselves take on the role as producers by manipulating organizational logos and other visual elements (Enli, 2015). Moreover, it could be relevant to explore what Enli (2015) has labelled the illusions of authenticity which are created and maintained through an interplay between audience expectations and preconceptions about what makes a VI seem real or genuine, on the one hand, and the ability of agency strategists and other producers to deliver visual clues and elements that correspond to these preconceptions. Such insights could also potentially add new understandings to the ways in which strategists are currently integrating consumer perceptions into their work.

Finally, the idea of authenticity as alignment could be discarded. In its place, strategic ambiguity, as developed by Eisenberg (1984), could be used to explain how VI is interpreted and used for strategic purposes. Rooted in relativist views on meaning construction, the notion of strategic ambiguity allows for different audiences to apply different interpretations to organizational messages and symbols thus promoting unified diversity (Eisenberg, 1984). Rather than seeking to craft a uniform, coherent VI that accurately aligns with a perceived organizational essence, strategic communication practitioners should seek to craft a VI that is ambiguous in order to visualize whatever strategy the organization may have or may develop in the future. An ambiguous VI holds potential as it both allows for the existence of multiple interpretations of the same goals and addresses the multiple, potentially conflicting, goals in organizations (Eisenberg, 1984). Ambiguity is a potential way of designing VIs which accommodate multiple internal and external views and expectations. Consequently, it represents an alternative to managing VIs by way of lengthy guidelines or extensive manuals. By combining ambiguity with the constitutive, transformative power of visual communication, a VI can become a central part of visual strategic communication which can help the organization navigate multiple audiences and make the most of their co-creative capabilities by allowing for visual polyphony and diversity.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

¹ Kreativitet & Kommunikation [Creativity & Communication]

² Bureau and Bureaubiz.