The Three-Level Identity Model: A Structural Framework for Understanding Employee Alignment and Organizational Stability
The full version on SelfFusion: https://www.selffusion.com/education/three-levels-of-conceptualizing-identity-to-understand-employee-stability-in-the-workplace
Abstract:
Across high-performing corporate environments, persistent misalignments between employee identity and organizational value structures often lead to chronic disengagement and turnover. This article proposes a rigorously conceptualized three-level identity model—dispositional, behavioral, and axiological—as a framework to better assess, support, and align individual identity with organizational values. Drawing on psychology, philosophy, and moral theory, the model illustrates how identity is not merely constructed but structurally anchored in behavior, moral hierarchy, and relational embedding—particularly within the nuclear family as the natural boundary of shared identity.
I. Introduction: Beyond Performative Identity
In many HR strategies and workplace wellness initiatives, identity is mistakenly treated as either descriptive or performative—a matter of personal narrative or linguistic assertion. However, this reductionist view fails to capture identity’s developmental complexity and its structural embedding in long-term behavior and values.
To address this, we propose a model that views identity as a three-level construct:
Verbal Identity — declarative statements of self (“I am confident”), often used in CBT or coaching.
Behavioral Identity — retrospectively derived from one's own patterns of action and decision-making.
Axiological Identity — emerging from alignment with a structured moral framework and shared relational context.
Each level offers a progressively deeper insight into individual coherence, resilience, and alignment with organizational values.
II. Level One: The Illusion of Verbal Selfhood
Verbal identity relies on affirmations or statements of intention, yet lacks behavioral traction. The gap between linguistic self-perception and neurobehavioral reality renders this approach motivationally fragile and structurally superficial. The assumption that linguistic reframing alone alters dispositional patterns is both philosophically untenable and empirically unsupported.
III. Level Two: Identity as Behavioral Deduction
At this level, identity is derived through retrospective synthesis of behavior, aligning with self-perception theory (Bem, 1972) and Aristotelian virtue ethics. While more accurate and stabilizing than verbal assertion, it remains self-referential and lacks normative transcendence. It answers the question “Who am I?” but not “To what do I belong?”
IV. Level Three: Identity Through Normative Alignment and Shared Relational Being
The most robust form of identity integrates behavioral pattern, internalized value hierarchy, and shared human alignment. Rooted in Viktor Frankl’s logotherapy and expanded through Structured Internal Value Hierarchies (SIVHs), this level produces action as an emergent byproduct of meaning, not effortful striving.
This identity form is stabilized by:
Behavioral automation through internalization of moral values (Gollwitzer, 1999; Bargh & Chartrand, 1999).
Submission to a transcendent, non-self-authored normative framework, which guards against relativistic self-narration (Boyd & Richerson, 2005; Haidt, 2012).
Relational embedding, as described by Heidegger’s Mitsein, Lacan’s mirror stage, and Kant’s categorical imperative.
V. Drawing the Limit: Identity’s Boundary in the Nuclear Family
When considering the scope of shared identity, a question arises: where is the boundary between self and other? The answer proposed here is the nuclear family. Unlike larger ideological or institutional systems, the nuclear family offers ontological clarity, epistemological coherence, and temporal durability. It metabolizes ideological content into functional alignment, absorbing Marxist, liberal, or conservative traits without ideological rigidity.
As a result, the family unit becomes uniquely immune to ideological possession. Its members form a resilient, intersubjective structure in which third-level identity can naturally and sustainably emerge.
VI. Caveats: The Fragility of Modern Spiritual Identity Models
Many contemporary frameworks—neo-Taoist, mystic, or postmodern—approximate the third-level identity but collapse under pressure due to normative fluidity. Without stable ontological definitions, transmissible epistemology, and temporal consistency, such constructs fail to produce lasting coherence. Identity remains under permanent revision and thus, structurally unanchored.
VII. Conclusion: Identity as Structure, Not Performance
True identity is neither aspirational language nor an improvisational role—it is a layered structure integrating disposition, value, and intersubjective coherence. Its most sustainable form arises when lived behavior aligns with a fixed normative structure and is mirrored by others within a defined relational unit.
For organizations, this means moving beyond superficial assessments of “culture fit” and toward models that identify and support third-level alignment between personal identity and institutional purpose. Where identity is unstable, burnout and disengagement follow. Where it is anchored—structurally, morally, and relationally—resilience and purpose can thrive.
References (selected):
Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Prentice Hall.
Bargh, J. A., & Chartrand, T. L. (1999). The unbearable automaticity of being. American Psychologist, 54(7), 462–479.
Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 6.
Boyd, R., & Richerson, P. J. (2005). The Origin and Evolution of Cultures. Oxford University Press.
Frankl, V. E. (1984). Man’s Search for Meaning. Washington Square Press.
Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation intentions. American Psychologist, 54(7), 493–503.
Haidt, J. (2012). The Righteous Mind. Pantheon.
Heidegger, M. (1927). Being and Time. Harper & Row.
Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. Cambridge University Press.
Lacan, J. (1954–1955). The Seminar, Book II. W. W. Norton.
Parvet, W. (2025). The Three-Dimensional Orientation Model. williamparvet.com.
