¡Descarga Understanding Organizational Identification: The Importance of Work-Group Identification - y más Apuntes en PDF de Psicología del Trabajo solo en Docsity!
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (2000), 73 , 137–147 Printed in Great Britain Ó 2000 The British Psychological Society
Foci and correlates of organizational
identi cation
Daan van Knippenberg University of Amsterdam, The Netherland s
Els C. M. van Schie Ministry of Social AVairs, The Hague, The Netherland s
Adopting the social identity perspective on organizational identi cation proposed by Ashforth and Mael (1989), the present study tested two hypotheses concerning the importance of work-group identi cation (WID) relative to organizational identi cation (OID). WID was predicted to be stronger than OID as well as more predictive of organizational attitudes and behaviour. Data about employees’ WID, OID, job satisfaction, turnover intentions, job involvement, and job motivation from two samples ( N = 76 and N = 163) supported these predictions. We conclude that our understanding of organizational attitudes and behaviour has much to gain by an open eye for the multiple foci of identi cation that are associated with organizational membership, and that managerial practice may bene t from an increased focus on the work group.
As the threats to employee loyalty embodied by organizational mergers, take-overs, and restructuring have become part of everyday organizational life, the ability to elicit a certain level of identi cation with the organization has become increasingly important to the well-being of both organizations and their members. A sense of organizational identi cation may prevent employees from becoming alienated and may be an important precondition for general feelings of job satisfaction. Moreover, members that identify with an organization may be more likely to remain with the organization and to expend eVort on behalf of the organization (Dutton, Dukerich, & Harquail, 1994). Yet, despite the fact that the importance of organizational identi cation has long been recognized (e.g. Brown, 1969; Hall & Schneider, 1972; Lee, 1971; Rotondi, 1975), to date there appears to be some controversy regarding the theoretical position of the organizational identi cation concept. In an attempt to remedy this, Ashforth and Mael (1989; Mael & Ashforth, 1992; Mael & Tetrick, 1992) propose a reconceptualization of organizational
*Requests for reprints should be addressed to Daan van Knippenberg, University of Amsterdam, Department of Psychology, Roetersstraat 15, 1018 WB Amsterdam, The Netherlands (e-mail: ao–vanKnippenberg@ macmail.psy.uva.nl).
identi cation based on social identity theory (Tajfel, 1978; Tajfel & Turner, 1986). According to this theory, social identity, ‘that part of an individual’s self-concept which derives from his [or her] knowledge of his [or her] membership of a group (or groups) together with the value and the emotional signi cance attached to the membership’ (Tajfel, 1978, p. 63), derives from social identi cation. Through identi cation, individuals de ne themselves as members of social categories and ascribe characteristics that are typical of these categories to themselves. As a result, identi cation leads individuals to perceive themselves not only in terms of idiosyncratic characteristics that diVerentiate them from other individuals, but also in terms of the characteristics they share with other members of their in-groups. This conception of the self as a group member provides a basis for the perceptual, attitudinal, and behavioural eVects of group membership. The more one conceives of oneself in terms of the membership of a group, that is, the more one identi es with the group, the more one’s attitudes and behaviour are governed by this group membership. Thus, social identi cation aVects the self-concept as well as attitudes and behaviour (see Deaux, 1996; Hogg & Abrams, 1988; for comprehensive reviews of the social identi cation literature). Ashforth and Mael propose that organizational identi cation is a speci c form of social identi cation, and that, to the extent that an individual identi es with an organization, the organization provides the individual with a sense of identity. Thus, organizational identi cation provides a basis for organizational attitudes and behaviour just as social identi cation provides a basis for attitudes and behaviour. This essentially underlies organizational identi cation’s potential bene cial eVects on organizational functioning. The more an individual identi es with an organiz- ation, the more likely he or she is to take the organization’s perspective and to act in the organization’s best interest (Dutton et al ., 1994; Mael & Ashforth, 1992). Aside from oVering an explanation of organizational identi cation’s potential bene cial eVects, Ashforth and Mael’s reconceptualization introduces a clear and conceptually distinct cognitive (i.e. self-de nitional) aspect to organizational identi cation (i.e. organizational identi cation as providing a partial answer to the question ‘who am I?’; Ashforth & Mael, 1989). This self-de nitional aspect of social identi cation with the organization distinguishes it from organizational commit- ment and from prior conceptualizations of organizational identi cation as a part of commitment (Allen & Meyer, 1990; Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979) or a basis of commitment (O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986). Theories of social identi cation suggest a number of factors that may aVect organizational identi cation. First, social identity theory proposes that, through identi cation, the group’s standing re ects on the self. As a consequence, because people desire a positive self-image (Tajfel, 1978), people tend to identify more with high status groups (Ellemers, 1993) and organizations (Mael & Ashforth, 1992). The relative size of a group is also a major determinant of identi cation. This follows from Brewer’s (1991, 1993) proposition that people aim for optimal distinctiveness, balancing the desires for membership in social categories (inclusive- ness) and individual distinctiveness (exclusiveness). Because identi cation with large-sized groups implies sameness with a large number of other people, identi - cation with relatively large groups forms a threat to individual distinctiveness.
138 Daan van Knippenberg and Els C. M. van Schie
below, despite the fact that organizational research tends to focus on attachment to the organization as a whole, a number of considerations suggest that work-group identi cation will generally be both stronger and more predictive of organizational attitudes and behaviour. Why should we expect work-group identi cation to be stronger than organiz- ational identi cation? First, work-groups should be the more likely focus of identi cation because work-groups are more or less by de nition smaller than the encompassing organization. This follows directly from Brewer’s (1991) proposition that people are more likely to identify with relatively small groups, because identi cation with large-sized groups embodies a threat to individual distinctive- ness. Secondly, individuals will generally have more in common with their work-groups than with the organization as a whole in terms of the actual work and in terms of common work-related fate and history. Even though work-group composition may greatly aVect the degree of perceived similarity between individual and group, this generally higher degree of similarity is likely to lead to higher levels of identi cation, because people are more likely to identify with a group the more similar the group is to themselves (Turner et al ., 1987). In addition, as Moreland and Levine (in press) note, the fact that people spend most of their organizational life in their work-groups renders their own work-group familiar and attractive (Moreland & Beach, 1992), which will also lead to relatively high levels of identi cation. Furthermore, the average organizational context is likely to focus employees on their subgroup membership rather than membership in the organiz- ation as a whole, because most employees are both more likely to encounter (members of) other subgroups within the organization than (members of) other organizations and more likely to be approached in terms of their subgroup membership rather than in terms of their membership in the organization as a whole (Kramer, 1991).^1 On the basis of these considerations, we may predict that identi cation will be stronger with the own work-group than with the organization as a whole (Hypothesis 1). The more strongly an individual identi es with a certain group, the more he or she is likely to think and act in terms of this group membership (cf. Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Tajfel, 1978). Thus, because it is the strength of one’s identi cation that partially mediates the eVects of group membership on attitudes and behaviour, we may predict, on the basis of the expectation that work-group identi cation is stronger than organizational identi cation, that work-group identi cation is more strongly related to organizational attitudes and behaviour than identi cation with the organization as a whole. The present study tested this prediction by assessing four variables that may be expected to be related to organizational identi cations. Speci cally identi cation should be negatively related to turnover intentions, because employees that identify strongly should value their work group and organizational membership more and hence should be less willing to leave
(^1) This is notwithstanding the fact that in other situations, i.e. outside the organization, contact with others (e.g. family and friends) may focus the individual more on membership in the organization as a whole (cf. Dutton et al ., 1994). Even so, most interactions referring to work-related identities are likely to take place within the organizational context. Hence, overall, context eVects should focus the individual primarily on within-organization subgroup membership.
140 Daan van Knippenberg and Els C. M. van Schie
the work-group and the organization (cf. Mael & Ashforth, 1995). Because identi cation instigates one to take the group’s or organization’s point of view, identi cation should also be related to the willingness to expend eVort on the work-group’s and organization’s behalf (cf. Dutton et al ., 1994). Therefore, we may expect that feelings of identi cation are positively related to employees’ job motivation and job involvement. In addition, identi cation leads individuals to ascribe group-de ning characteristics to themselves (self-stereotyping; Turner et al ., 1987). Thus, through identi cation, ‘the job’ becomes in a sense part of the self. Although this will be far from suYcient to lead to job satisfaction in itself, it may be expected to add to feelings of job satisfaction because people tend to evaluate attitude objects associated with the self positively (cf. Beggan, 1992). Thus, to summarize, since we hypothesized that work-group identi cation is stronger than identi cation with the organization as a whole, we predict that work-group identi cation is more strongly related to turnover intentions, job motivation, job involvement, and job satisfaction than identi cation with the organization as a whole (Hypothesis 2).
Method
Data relevant to the above hypotheses were collected in two surveys, the rst of a local government, the second of a university. Both surveys assessed identi cation with the organization as a whole, identi cation with own work-group, job satisfaction, and turnover intentions. The second also incorporated measures of job involvement and job motivation.^2
Sample 1
Sample 1 was derived from a mail survey of a division of a local Dutch government. Questionnaires were mailed to all 210 employees at their home address, with a follow-up 3 weeks later. A total of 76 usable questionnaires was returned. Fifty-four per cent of the respondents were male, 46% female, and 75% of respondents were between 31 and 50 years of age. Consultation of the organization’s management indicated that the sample was comparable to the overall population in these respects. The part of the survey relevant to the present purposes assessed organizational identi cation with a Dutch translation of Mael and Ashforth’s (1992) organizational identi cation scale and work-group identi cation with a modi ed version of the same scale. The Mael and Ashforth scale consists of items like ‘When someone criticizes (name of organization), it feels like a personal insult’ and ‘When I talk about this organization, I usually say ‘‘we’’ rather than ‘‘they’’ ’. The scale has been shown to be reliable (Mael & Ashforth, 1992; Mael & Tetrick, 1992) and empirically distinguishable from the most widely used organizational commitment measure (Porter, Steers, Mowday, & Boulian, 1974, OCQ; see Mael & Tetrick, 1992). Respondents lled out two versions of this scale that were only diVerent in the target of identi cation the items referred to: to assess identi cation with the organization as a whole (OID), the items referred to the organization’s name, to assess identi cation with own work-group (WID), the items referred to ‘my work-group’ (e.g. ‘When someone criticizes my work-group, it feels like a personal insult’). Job satisfaction was measured with the Bray eld and Rothe (1951) job satisfaction scale and turnover intentions were assessed by a 3-item scale adapted from Mobley (1977)
(^2) Because of space limitations—data for Sample 1 were gathered in the course of a rather extensive health survey—job motivation and job involvement could not be assessed in Sample 1.
Organizational identication 141
Table 1.
Descriptives and correlations, Samples 1 and 2
Sample 1
Sample 2
M
SD
N
1
2
3
4
M
SD
N
1
2
3
4
5
6
WID
76
(.73)
161
(.83)
OID
76
.
(.82)
159
.41***
(.83)
Job satisfaction
74
.26*
.
(.87)
158
.45***
.18*
(.92)
Turnover intention
74
.
.
.41***
(.80)
162
.24**
.
.51***
(.77)
Job involvement
162
.46***
.27**
.71***
.36***
(.72)
Job motivation
160
.30***
.
.32***
.18*
.41***
(.86)
.05; **
p<
.01; ***
p<
.001.
Note
. Scores are on 5-point scales, with higher scores indicating higher identi cation, satisfaction, etc. Coe
Y cients alpha for each scale are given in parentheses on the diagonal.
WID=identi cation with own work-group; OID=identi cation with the organization as a whole.
Organizational identication 143
supported Hypothesis 2. To put Hypothesis 2 to a more explicit test, we conducted two additional analyses. First, we conducted one-sided t tests for dependent r s (Cohen & Cohen, 1983) to determine whether WID was more strongly related to satisfaction, motivation, involvement, and turnover intentions than OID. For Sample 1, no signi cant diVerences were found, which for satisfaction might be attributable to low statistical power. For Sample 2, WID was more strongly related to job satisfaction ( t (151) = 3.39, p < .001), job involvement ( t (155) = 2.44, p < .01), and job motivation ( t (154) = 1.92, p < .05) than OID, whereas no signi cant diVerence was found for turnover intentions. Secondly, we aimed to assess whether a focus on WID has anything to add to the more conventional focus on OID in terms of predictive power. To this end, we conducted, for each sample and criterion variable, a hierarchical regression analysis in which OID was entered rst and WID second. Results of these analyses indicate that for each criterion, WID added signi cantly to a prediction based on OID alone ( R^2 change for the second step: job satisfaction, Sample 1: .07, p < .05, Sample 2: .17, p < .001; turnover intentions, Sample 1: .00, n.s., Sample 2: .04, p < .05; job involvement: .16, p < .001; job motivation: .07, p < .001). Thus, on the basis of these results, we may conclude that, in comparison with OID, WID is the more important correlate of job satisfaction, turnover intentions, job involvement, and job motivation (cf. Hypothesis 2).
Discussion
Before focusing on the conclusions that may be drawn from these ndings, we brie y discuss what should not be concluded on the basis of the present study. First, despite the fact that we adopted a data analysis strategy (regression analysis) that might suggest that WID and OID are seen as causes of satisfaction, turnover, involvement, and motivation, the present study makes no claims regarding causality. Indeed, aside from the fact that it is impossible to base conclusions concerning causality on cross-sectional studies like the one reported here, theor- etical considerations suggest that organizational identi cations and job-related variables like for instance job satisfaction mutually aVect each other. Secondly, since all variables were assessed with the same questionnaire, common method variance may have in ated relationships. Hence, some care is in order where conclusions regarding the ‘absolute’ importance of organizational identi cation are concerned (i.e. as opposed to the importance of WID relative to OID), and more de nite conclusions should await future research employing a more diverse set of data gathering methods (e.g. measuring actual turnover). Despite these limitations, some important conclusions may be based on the present ndings. Of primary importance is the fact that the present study demonstrates that other foci of identi cation may be more important in day-to-day organizational life than the organization as a whole. The nding that WID was both stronger than OID and more strongly related to organizational attitudes demon- strates that a sole focus on the organization as a whole may result in serious oversights in the study of organizational behaviour. A look at the results of the
144 Daan van Knippenberg and Els C. M. van Schie
Acknowledgements
We thank Paul Spector, Jan-Willem van Prooijen, Barbara van Knippenberg, and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions on earlier drafts of this paper.
References
Allen, N., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of aVective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 1–18. Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Acad emy of Management Review, 14, 20–39. Becker, T. E. (1992). Foci and bases of commitment: Are they distinctions worth making? Academy of Management Journal, 35, 232–244. Becker, T. E., & Billings, R. S. (1993). Pro les of commitment: An empirical test. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 177–190. Beggan, J. K. (1992). On the social nature of nonsocial perception. The mere ownership eVect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 229–237. Blau, G. (1995). In uence of group lateness on individual lateness: A cross-level examination. Acad emy of Management Journal, 38, 1483–1496. Bray eld, A. H., & Rothe, H. F. (1951). An index of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 41, 201–205. Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and diVerent at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 475–482. Brewer, M. B. (1993). The role of distinctiveness in social identity and group behavior. In M. A. Hogg, & D. Abrams (Eds.), Group motivation: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 1–16). New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Brown, M. E. (1969). Identi cation and some conditions of organizational involvement. Ad ministrative Science Quarterly, 14, 346–355. Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Deaux, K. (1996). Social identi cation. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology. Hand book of basic principles (pp. 777–798). New York: Guilford. Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V. (1994). Organizational images and member identi cation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 239–263. Ellemers, N. (1993). The in uence of socio-structural variables on identity enhancement strategies. European Review of Social Psychology, 4, 27–57. Hackman, J. R., & Lawler, E. E. (1971). Employee reactions to job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 55, 259–286. Hall, D. T., & Schneider, B. (1972). Correlates of organizational identi cation as a function of career pattern and organizational type. Ad ministrative Science Quarterly, 17, 340–350. Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1988). Social identi cations: A social psychology of intergroup relations and group processes. London: Routledge. Kramer, R. (1991). Intergroup relations and organizational dilemmas. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 13, 191–228). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Lee, S. M. (1971). An empirical analysis of organizational identi cation. Acad emy of Management Journal, 14, 213–226. Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identi cation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 103–123. Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1995). Loyal from day one: Biodata, organizational identi cation, and turnover among newcomers. Personnel Psychology, 48, 309–333. Mael, F. A., & Tetrick, L. E. (1992). Identifying organizational identi cation. Ed ucational and Psychological Measurement, 52, 813–824. Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 171–194.
146 Daan van Knippenberg and Els C. M. van Schie
Mobley, W. H. (1977). Intermediate linkages in the relationship between job satisfaction and employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 237–240. Moreland, R. L., & Beach, S. R. (1992). Exposure eVects in the classroom: The development of aYnity among students. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28, 255–276. Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (in press). Socialization in organizations and work groups. In M. Turner (Ed.), Groups at work: Ad vances in theory and research. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Morrow, P. C. (1993). The theory and measurement of work commitment. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224–247. O’Reilly, C., & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The eVects of compliance, identi cation, and internalization on prosocial behaviour. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 492–499. Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., & Boulian, P. V. (1974). Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 603–609. Reichers, A. E. (1985). A review and reconceptualization of organizational commitment. Acad emy of Management Review, 10, 465–476. Rotondi, T. (1975). Organizational identi cation: Issues and implications. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 95–109. Tajfel, H. (1978). DiVerentiation between social groups. Stud ies in the social psychology of intergroup relations. London: Academic Press. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (2nd ed., pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall. Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Red iscovering the social group. A self-categorization theory. Oxford: Blackwell. van Breukelen, J. W. M. (1991). Personeelsverloop in organisaties. Unpublished dissertation, Leiden University. Zaccaro, S. J., & Dobbins, G. H. (1989). Contrasting group and organizational commitment: Evidence for diVerences among multilevel attachments. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 10, 267–273.
Received 21 January 1998; revised version received 18 December 1998
Organizational identication 147
