Brian Chesky is in the midst of redefining what Airbnb stands for. It is no longer just a travel platform. He’s positioning it as an “everything app,” a broader ecosystem that goes well beyond short-term stays. While this may just seem like a brand going through a “midlife crisis“, the shift reflects something far more fundamental: organisational identities are not static. They are shaped, reshaped, and redefined over time. Every organisation, from a global scale-up with two billion users to a neighbourhood café with a small but loyal customer base, eventually confronts the question of who it really is and what it wants, or needs, to become. The triggers might differ. The scale might vary. But the core mechanics of identity change remain surprisingly consistent.
As organisations evolve, the stakes only grow. What starts as a subtle pivot can, at scale, impact brand equity, culture, internal alignment, and external trust. Identity becomes not just a mirror of who the organisation has been, but a map for where it is heading.
Defining Your Identity: Cause-Based and Relationship-Based Anchors
Before examining how identities shift, it is important to understand where they begin. Most organisations anchor themselves around one of two identity types.
A cause-based company centres its identity on a single mission. It operates according to a clear purpose that guides decisions over time. Think of a social-enterprise coffee roaster whose entire model supports direct-trade sourcing. Every detail, from bean selection to packaging, ties back to that mission. Patagonia is a more prominent example. It has built its entire corporate ethos around environmental stewardship rather than simply making gear for outdoor enthusiasts. This kind of clarity offers consistency, but it can also create rigidity. When markets shift, a firm rooted in a singular cause may find it harder to adapt.
A relationship-based company, on the other hand, shapes its identity around the evolving needs of its stakeholders. These are often the firms you interact with across contexts – a consultancy adapting services to match client priorities, or a digital platform evolving with user expectations. This model encourages responsiveness and agility. But it also introduces a new risk: mission drift. As the company stretches to accommodate new demands, it may lose touch with what originally made it distinctive.
Most organisations sit somewhere between these poles. What matters is not labelling the company as one or the other, but recognising which orientation currently dominates. That understanding frames how leadership evaluates new opportunities and how far the organisation is willing to stretch in response.
Understanding Your Position in the Market: Central and Peripheral Dynamics
Once identity orientation is clear, the next consideration is market position. Organisations function within a larger ecosystem. Their behaviour, and their capacity to change, is often influenced by where they sit within that system.
Central actors operate at the leading edge. They develop new products, introduce novel business models, and frequently set the pace for the sector. Their actions shape what others consider possible. Peripheral actors, by contrast, operate more cautiously. They observe market shifts and adopt new approaches only after dominant patterns become clear.
This central-peripheral distinction plays out across three environments. The first is the core market, where customer needs are familiar and long-established. The second is the adjacent space – areas just beyond the core, where capabilities can be extended. The third involves emerging or nascent domains, where uncertainty is high and knowledge often spills in from other industries. A central actor in an emerging field may lead breakthroughs that redefine the category. A peripheral one will wait for the dust to settle before making a move.
Recognising where you sit across these environments is vital. It affects not only how you compete, but also how you navigate change without compromising identity.
Why Organisations Change: The Master–Apprentice Analogy
To understand how firms respond to the need for identity change, consider the difference between a master chef and her apprentice. The master experiments not because others are doing it, but because she wants to set the next standard. This is what motivates central organisations. They innovate not to keep up, but to move the whole field forward.
Apprentices, however, learn by emulating. They adopt proven recipes to build legitimacy and reduce risk. This dynamic mirrors what organisational theorists call mimetic isomorphism. Companies imitate others, not out of laziness or lack of ambition, but because conformity can protect against failure. In uncertain times, following those who’ve already taken the risk can seem like the safest way to evolve.
Neither approach is inherently superior. What matters is alignment. Central actors who hesitate risk falling behind. Peripheral actors who innovate prematurely may lose credibility or overextend. The key is knowing what kind of organisation you are and adjusting your change strategy accordingly.
The Internal Challenge of Reinvention
Identity change is not just strategic. It is also emotional, political, and often messy. Teams form around shared beliefs and rituals. Shifting identity can challenge those bonds. The marketing team that built a brand around a single mission may resist broadening its messaging. Engineers who joined to work on a particular product may hesitate to pivot to a new one.
Reinvention, then, requires more than insight. It requires buy-in. Leaders must create clarity around why the shift is necessary and where it is headed. They also need to be honest about what is being left behind. Without that, even the smartest strategy risks being undermined by internal friction.
Navigating Identity Change with Purpose
A successful reinvention doesn’t come from a single decision. It is the result of consistent answers to a few key questions.
- Have you understood where your organisation is anchored – by cause, by relationship, or by a combination of both?
- Are you clear on whether your position in the market allows you to lead change or requires you to follow it?
- Is your chosen pace of change aligned with your identity and the expectations of those around you?
- And most importantly, are you maintaining enough coherence that your evolution strengthens who you are, rather than erasing it?
These questions are not academic. They shape the choices organisations make every day – from which initiatives to pursue to how they communicate their value to the world.
Conclusion
Organisational identity is not fixed. It shifts as companies grow, respond to market pressures, and reimagine their role in the world. Those who navigate these shifts thoughtfully – starting with a clear sense of who they are and where they sit – stand a better chance of making change that lasts. Reinvention, done well, is not about abandoning the past. It is about carrying the best of it forward, into something new.