Back to the Future: What We’d Change in “Social Identity Theory and the Organization” (<i>Academy of Management Review</i>, 1989, <i>14</i>, 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.