These identities sometimes lead to conflicting goals and practices, forcing organisations to violate the principles and actions of a particular identity, complicating legitimation. Bielebeck concludes, based on fieldwork and a variety of disciplines, that the need for self-legitimation depends on the degree of identity cohesion and identity hierarchy in organisations, and that there are three types of self-legitimation practises that have a significant impact on the organisation itself.

Sarah von Billerbeck’s subsequent analysis is based on in-depth interviews to analyse empirically how UN workers develop and evaluate their own legitimacy.[1] Actors in the international system participate not only in the external legitimacy intended to persuade those who subject to their authority of their validity, but also in the internal legitimacy intended to persuade themselves of their legitimacy. To achieve this, political actors utilize language to define, authenticate, and reaffirm their perceptions of their own identity and to defend their actions as being compatible with that identity.

Self-legitimisation, as a constitutive activity of international organisations, is an important entry point for scholars and policymakers observing and analysing international organisations, and is useful for enhancing knowledge and understanding of international organisations from the perspective of identity.

I distinguish an organisational function and an individual role for self-legitimisation in international organisations. Based on Sarah von Billerbeck’s in-depth interviews and analysis of UN peacekeeping organisations, I have split the effects collected by Sarah von Billerbeck and those found by my study and analysis into organisational orientation and individual orientation influences.

Regarding individual orientation, I classify the self-legitimisation of employees as having two good and two negative effects.

First, as demonstrated by the research of Sarah von Billerbeck, the personnel of international organisations convince themselves through self-legitimation that they and their work are superior and exceptional among the various member states. This gives workers in international organisations a sense of moral exaltation. This sense of nobility and exceptionality gives them moral “immunity”. This moral “immunity” allows them to reduce or eliminate problems when dealing with intense conflicts or endogenous contradictions in their work. And a virtuous circle is created: their effort reinforces their sense of moral superiority and exceptionality, and this self-legitimization enables them to manage the next conflict and contradiction they encounter. It should be noted that the staff’s self-justification is not without merit. It derives from the multilateralist nature of international organisations and their skill in their own disciplines. It should be noted that the staff’s self-justification is not without merit. It derives from the multilateralist nature of international organisations and their skill in their own disciplines. Second, self-legitimisation strengthens employee loyalty and prolongs the worker’s career. This advantage is founded on the same premise as the preceding one, namely the self-legitimization-generated cycle of reinforcement. It enables employees of multinational organisations to develop a greater sense of purpose and a stronger conviction in the rightness and superiority of their work. Those who have established this internal cycle are more inclined to associate their sense of self-worth with their work in an international organisation. This increases workers’ commitment to their jobs and decreases their risk of quitting. 1

First, as demonstrated by the research of Sarah von Billerbeck, the personnel of international organisations convince themselves through self-legitimation that they and their work are superior and exceptional among the various member states. This elevates the moral standing of multinational organisation employees. This sense of dignity and uniqueness provides individuals with moral “immunity.” This moral “immunity” enables individuals to minimise or eliminate issues when confronting acute conflicts or endogenous contradictions at work. And a virtuous circle is created: their effort reinforces their sense of moral superiority and exceptionality, and this self-legitimization enables them to manage the next conflict and contradiction they encounter. It should be noted that the staff’s self-justification is not without merit. It derives from the multilateralist nature of international organisations and their skill in their own disciplines. It should be noted that the staff’s self-justification is not without merit. It derives from the multilateralist nature of international organisations and their skill in their own disciplines. Second, self-legitimisation strengthens employee loyalty and prolongs the  worker’s career. This advantage is founded on the same premise as the preceding one, namely the self-legitimization-generated cycle of reinforcement. It enables employees of multinational organisations to develop a greater sense of purpose and a stronger conviction in the rightness and superiority of their work. Those who have established this internal cycle are more inclined to associate their sense of self-worth with their work in an international organisation. This increases workers’ commitment to their jobs and decreases their risk of quitting.1

In discussing the benefits of self-legitimation for individuals, I propose a virtuous circle based on knowing my legitimacy, in which feelings of superiority and exception optimise the work situation of workers in international organisations, and the optimised work reinforces their feelings of superiority and exception. The primary benefits of self-legitimisation for personnel in multinational organisations are job optimization and enhanced professional loyalty. On the other side, the main disadvantages of self-legitimisation are the inappropriateness of self-assessment of performance and the decrease in efficiency. Self-legitimization, a sense of superiority and exception to oneself and one’s work, is the main cause of the former. The essence of the latter is the reconfiguration of self-legitimation in the face of inconsistencies and challenges when undertaking complex roles in a complex international context.