Organisation Identification 1

8/12/2019 Organisation Identification 1

1/25

Organizational Identification: Definition and Relevance to Organizational Behavior

Show Timeline

Taught by

Rob Wengrzyn

Organizational Identification (OID) is a situation where the employee and the company share

the same goals and values. In this lesson we will discuss the importance of that aspect as itrelates to the business environment.

Organizational Identification

Organizations are complex organisms. They have different departments, values, desires, ideas,

and personalities that make each one of them unique. There is nothing wrong with these

differences; in fact, they are part of what makes each company different from the next. But weneed to understand that while companies are different, the individuals within a specific

company are different from each other as well. They are unique and have their own views ofthe world and business. It is the overall goal of the company to embrace that uniqueness yetstill have their employees identify with how the company views doing business.

You see, the company has values, goals, aims, and desires just like anything or anyone else,

andorganizational identification(OID) is the degree with which the company and the people

in the organization share the same values, goals, desires, and aims. As the people in thecompany share the values of the organization, the company begins to get closer and starts

working more like one big team as opposed to different departments staffed by differentindividuals.

Why Is OID Important?

Think for a moment about a football team. We have the coaches and players all workingtogether for a common goal, which is to win the game. Now, if the team is the organization and

the individual players are the employees, think what would happen if each player had their own

unique values or goals for the team. What if those goals didn't match what the coach wanted? It

would most certainly cause a problem because the players would be, for lack of a better word,

going towards one direction, while the coaches would want them to go in another. In thismodel, success does not seem likely.

This is precisely why OID is so important. Companies want their employees to identify with

the company's goals and values so they have a better chance of working as a team and winning.

When employees identify or agree with these aspects of business, they have more pride about

the jobs they do and the company they work for and will feel better about themselves in theroles they are in.

As you can imagine, this closeness in values or beliefs shows in customer service and product

quality, since the employees (the football players) and the company (the coaches) all have the

same vision and goal.

Example


2/25


3/25

promotes the perceived interests of that organization" (Cheney and Tompkins, 1987). Other

authors have defined OI as an alignment of individual and organizational values (Pratt, 1998), as

well as the perception of oneness with and belongingness to the organization (Ashforth & Mael,

1989). OI has been researched as an individuals view and classification of self in terms of

organizational membership(Rousseau, 1998). Social identity theory has combined the cognitive

elements of OI described above with affective and evaluative components. For example,

emotional attachment, feelings of pride, and other positive emotions that are derived from

organizational membership have been incorporated in the operationalization of OI.

OReilly and Chatman (1986) conceptualized OI in terms of affective and motivational

processes.They argued that OI arises from attraction and desire to maintain an emotionally

satisfying, self-defining relationship with the organization.Perhaps the most comprehensive

definition of OI would conceptualize it as a perceptual link to an organization. This link is

established by employees through various cognitive and affective processes that occur as

employees and an organization (including all its constituentsco-workers, supervisors) interact.

While the widening of OI helps to discover additional sources and processes via which OI can beestablished, it also complicates the distinction between OI and other constructsnamely,

affectiveorganizational commitmentin IO psychology research.

Why is Organizational Identification Important?[edit]

Organizational identification is an important field of research because there is a relationship

between identification and commitment to the organization (Tompkins, 2005). This creates

positive outcomes for work attitudes and behaviors including motivation, job performance and

satisfaction, individual decision making, and employee interaction and retention(Cheney, 1983;

Scott, Corman and Cheney, 1998). Employee satisfaction and retention have implications for

productivity, efficiency, effectiveness and, then, profit.

Ashforth, Harrison and Corley (2008) offer four reasons why organizational identification is

important. First, it is important to concepts of self-identity: it is one way in which people come to

define themselves, make sense of their place in the world and appropriately navigate their worlds

(334-5). Second, there is an essential human need to identify with and feel part of a larger group,

and identifying with an organization fulfills this need, as well as the need to enhance self (334-

6). Third, OI is associated with a number of important organizational outcomes, including

employee satisfaction, performance and retention. Although recent research has begun to explore

the potentially negative outcomes of OI, including reduced creativity and resistance to change

(336-7). Finally, links have been made between OI and other organizational behaviors, includingleadership, perceptions of justice and the meaning of work (338-9).

Also important is the link between company policies and rules and communicated mission,

values and strategy to organization members' attitudes and the strength of an employee's

identification with the company (Cheney, 1983). This notion opened the field of organizational

identification to studies and questions about organizational control of employees through efforts

to increase or improve organizational identification.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational_commitmenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational_commitmenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational_commitmenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Organizational_identification&action=edit&section=2http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Organizational_identification&action=edit&section=2http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Organizational_identification&action=edit&section=2http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Organizational_identification&action=edit&section=2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational_commitment


4/25

Objectives 1

Many scholars believe that the strength of an employee's identification with an organization

guides and constrains that employee's decision making. Cheney (1983) states that organizational

policies actually affect the development of identification "in terms of what is communicated to

the employee" (361). Employees can only identify with those things that they are aware of, andmany of the things they are aware of and how they understand those things are communicated to

them by the organization in a particular way. "Organizational identification guides behavior by

influencing which problems and alternatives are seen and by biasing choices that appear most

salient to organizational success" (Kassing, 1997). Organizations can choose to emphasize

particular problems and alternatives through communicated goals and values, causing employees

to identify mainly with those communicated goals and values. This then limits their choices and

constrains their decision-making in a way that is positively aligned with the organization's goals

and values.

So, leaders at many organizations believe they can control, increase or improve employee

organizational identification. This happens when organizations choose to communicate particular

values and beliefs in particular ways, as well as when and how the organization frames issues

and activities. This, in turn, can increase or improve commitment and appropriate decision-

making and reduce turnover and boost profits.

Differences and Similarities between OI and Affective Organizational Commitment[edit]

Knippenberg and Sleebos (2006) have attempted to separate OI and affective organizational

commitment by narrowing the scope of the former. According to them, identification is a

cognitive/perceptual construct reflecting self-reference, whereas commitment reflects an attitude

toward the organization and its members. In addition, identification is self-definitional and

implies psychological oneness with the organization, whereas commitment implies a relationship

in which both individual and organization are separate entities (Knippenberg & Sleebos, 2006).

Unfortunately as a whole, attempts to distinguish between OI and affective organizational

commitment have not been particularly successful because the majority of both OI and affective

organizational commitment research has been concerned with the broadening rather than the

narrowing of their respective areas of research.

Objectivce II

Meyer and Allen (1991), for example, proposed currently well accepted three component

affective, continuance, and normativemodel of organizational commitment. In this model,

affective commitment is defined as an emotional attachment to, identification with, and

involvement in the organization (Allen & Meyer, 1990, p.1). Other researchers have also

considered OI and affective organizational commitment as closely related or even

interchangeable constructs. In hismeta-analysis,Riketta (2005) examined the extent of the

overlap between OI and affective organizational commitment across 96 independent samples. He

found a significant and very strong positivecorrelationbetween OI and affective organizational

commitment (r = .78). This suggests that the average OI study had significant construct overlaps
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Organizational_identification&action=edit&section=3http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Organizational_identification&action=edit&section=3http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Organizational_identification&action=edit&section=3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-analysishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-analysishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-analysishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-analysishttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Organizational_identification&action=edit&section=3


5/25

with affective organizational commitment. Nonetheless, Riketta (2005) argued that OI and

affective organizational commitment could be distinguished because they differentially relate to

several organizational outcomes. Such differences were most pronounced in studies where OI

was measured by the Mael and Ashforths (1992) scale, which leaves out an emotional

attachment component while focusing on employee perception of oneness with and

belongingness to the organization. In such studies, OI compared to affective organizational

commitment, measured by the affective commitment scale, correlated less strongly with job

satisfaction (r = .47 vs. r =.65) and intent to leave (r = -.35 vs. r = -.56), but more strongly with

job involvement (r = .60 vs. r = .53) and extra-role performance (r = .39 vs. r = .23).

Conversely, when OI was measured by the organizational identification questionnaire (OIQ), the

correlation between OI and intent to leave was stronger than the correlation between affective

organizational commitment and intent to leave (r = -.64 vs. r = -.56). In addition, OI had a much

stronger association with age (r = .60 vs. r = .15), but there were no differences in how both OI

and affective organizational commitment correlated with job satisfaction (r = .68).

Objective III

Measures of OI[edit]

From Rikettas (2005) meta-analytic review, we can deduce that Mael and Ashworths (1992) OI

measure is narrower and more distinct from the affective organizational commitment, while the

OI questionnaire has more overlap with the affective organizational commitment. In addition,

Mael and Ashworths (1992) OI measure may be more useful than either the OIQ or affective

commitment scale when examining or predicting employee extra role behavior and job

involvement. However, the OI questionnaire is a better indicator of employee intentions to leave

the organization than either the affective commitment scale or Mael and Ashworths OI measure.Mael and Ashworths (1992) OI measure:

1. When someone praises my organization, it feels like a personal compliment.2. When someone criticizes my organization, it feels like a personal insult.3. I am very interested in what others think about my organization.4. When I talk about my organization, I usually say we rather than they. 5. My organizations successes are my successes.6. If a story in the media criticized my organization, I would feel embarrassed.

Miller, Allen, Casey, and Johnson (2000) modified the OI questionnaire by selecting 12 itemsfrom 25 in order to improve reliability, internal consistency, and meaningfulness of the measure.

According to Rikketas (2005), as well as Miller, Allen, Casey, and Johnsons (2000) analyses,

this particular measure is more reflective of affective organizational commitment, as opposed to

OI, but it can be very useful in prediction of employee turnover intentions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Organizational_identification&action=edit&section=4http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Organizational_identification&action=edit&section=4http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Organizational_identification&action=edit&section=4http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Organizational_identification&action=edit&section=4


6/25

Items from Miller, Allen, Casey, and Johnsons (2000) modified OI questionnaire with original

source references (the blanks should be replaced with the name of the specific organization of

interest to the surveyor):

Membership:

1. I am proud to be an employee of ______ (Buchanan, 1974).Loyalty:

1. I would describe ______ as a large family in which most members feel a sense ofbelonging (Hall, Schneider, & Nygren, 1970).

2. I would be willing to spend the rest of my career with ______. (Buchanan, 1974)Similarity:

1.______s image in the community represents me well (Cheney, 1982).2. I find that my values and the values of ______ are very similar (Mowday et al., 1979;

Porter & Smith, 1970).

Recently, Edwards and Peccei (2007) have developed an OI measure that taps into three separate

but closely related factors of OI. The three factors include a) the categorization of the self as an

organizational member, b) the integration of the organizations goals and values, as well as c) the

development of an emotional attachment, belongingness, and membership to the organization.

Appropriately, these three factors incorporate the main components from OI definitions

throughout OI research thus far. Because each factor was measured by two separate items,

Edwards and Peccei were able to conductconfirmatory factor analysisfor their three factor

model fit across two independent samples.

Interestingly, their results indicate the lack of discriminant validity among the three factors of OI.

And although the model with three underlying dimensions of OI fits the data slightly better, the

one factor model also yields satisfactory fit. In other words, while it may be useful to

conceptualize OI in terms of three main components, these components are strongly correlated.

Therefore for the practical purposes of OI measurement, Edwards and Peccei suggest creating a

composite or aggregate of the three dimensions and using the six-item measure as a single

overall scale of OI.

Edwards and Pecceis (2007) OI measure:

1. My employment in the organization is a big part of who I am (self-categorization andlabeling).

2. I consider myself an organization person (self-categorization and labeling).3. What the organization stands for is important to me (values and goals).4. I share the goals and values of the organization (values and goals).5. My membership of the organization is important to me (belongingness and membership).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmatory_factor_analysishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmatory_factor_analysishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmatory_factor_analysishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmatory_factor_analysis


7/25

6. I feel strong ties with the organization (belongingness and membership).Antecedents[edit]

Perceived Organizational Support[edit]

One of the antecedents to OI isperceived organizational support(POS), or the extent to which

individuals believe that their employing organization values their contribution and cares for their

well-being (Edwards & Peccei, 2010, p. 17). Edwards and Peccei (2010) argued that when

organizations show concern for their employees well being, there will be a tendency for these

individuals to develop an attachment and identify with the organization. The relationship

between OI and perceived organizational support further develops as OI mediates the

relationship between perceived organizational support and organizational involvement.

Organizational Prestige[edit]

Similarly to perceived organizational support, the organizations prestige is an antecedent to OI,

for as the organization becomes well regarded, the employee basks in reflected gloryand

gladly identifies with its reputation and goals (Bergami & Bagozzi, 2000; Mael & Ashforth,

1992). The stereotypes of the organization reflect central beliefs and missions of the

organization. Further, these stereotypes allow for an individual to indirectly identify with the

goals of the organization. In other words, the individual identifies with the organization as the

organizations ideals become his or her own (Bergami & Bagozzi, 2000). As these stereotypes

become more distinct from other competing organizations, the present company becomes a more

salient ideal which the employee identifies with (Mael & Ashforth, 1992).

Identity[edit]

Identity and identification are "root constructs in organizational phenomena" and underlie many

observable organizational behaviors (Albert, Ashforth & Dutton, 2000). Identity and

identification are central to the questions of 'who am I?' and 'what is my role in this world?'

(Albert, Ashforth & Dutton, 2000) In order to understand identification, one must understand

identity (Ashforth, Harrison & Corley, 2008). Identity is the answer to the questions of 'who am

I' and 'who are we?' and it has emerged in scholarly literature in three different contexts: micro

(social identity theory, self categorization theory), identity theory (structural identity or identity

control theory) and organizational identity (central, distinctive characteristics of an organization).

Corporate identity has been named as another context in which identity has been discussed

(Hatch & Schultz, 1997).

Social identity is "the part of the individual's self-concept which derives from his knowledge ofhis membership of a social group (or groups) together with the value and emotional significance

attached to that membership" (Tajfel quoted in Ashforth, Harrison & Corley, 2008). Identity

theory refers to the idea that people attach different meanings and significance to the various

roles that they play in "highly differentiated societies" (Ashforth, et al., 2008). This theory

explores roles, such as one's occupation, or group membership, such as musician.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Organizational_identification&action=edit&section=5http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Organizational_identification&action=edit&section=5http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Organizational_identification&action=edit&section=5http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Organizational_identification&action=edit&section=6http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Organizational_identification&action=edit&section=6http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Organizational_identification&action=edit&section=6http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perceived_organizational_supporthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perceived_organizational_supporthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perceived_organizational_supporthttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Organizational_identification&action=edit&section=7http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Organizational_identification&action=edit&section=7http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Organizational_identification&action=edit&section=7http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basking_in_reflected_gloryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basking_in_reflected_gloryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basking_in_reflected_gloryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Organizational_identification&action=edit&section=8http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Organizational_identification&action=edit&section=8http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Organizational_identification&action=edit&section=8http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Organizational_identification&action=edit&section=8http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basking_in_reflected_gloryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Organizational_identification&action=edit&section=7http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perceived_organizational_supporthttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Organizational_identification&action=edit&section=6http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Organizational_identification&action=edit&section=5


8/25

Organizational identity was famously defined by Albert and Whetten (1985) as the "central,

distinctive and enduring characteristic of an organization," and consisted of three principal

components: ideational, definitional and phenomenological (Whetten, 2006). Organizational

identity is established through communicated values to internal and external stakeholders (Aust,

2004). Organizations establish and communicate an identity in order to "control. . . how the

organization is commonly represented" (Cheney and Christensen, 2001).

Albert, Ashforth and Dutton (2000) believe that organizations must know who or what they are,

what they are or are not in relation to other entities and what the relationship is between

themselves and others in order for one organization to interact effectively with other

organizations in the long run: identities situate the organization, group and person. Further, an

organization must have an identity in order for its employees to identify with the organization, or

to form organizational identification.

Objective 1

Organizations typically define who they are through value and goal statements and missions andvisions. They then frame or structure most of their communication to employees and others

around these values and goals. The more an employee can identify with those communicated

values and goals, the more organizational identification there is. Organizations increase the

chances of organizational identification by conveying and repeating a limited set of goals and

values that employees not only identify with, but are constrained by when they make decisions.

An organization must have an identity in order for its employees to identify with the

organization, thereby creating the environment for organizational identification.

Some authors disagree that an identity is enduring, but instead is ever-changing and responsive

to its environment in modern organizations (Whetten, 2006). There has been some general

confusion among scholars around the term (Whetten, 2006), but most still agree it is a concept

worth talking about.

Corporate identity is distinct from organizational identity in that it is more concerned with the

visual (graphic identity) and is more a function of leadership (Hatch & Schultz, 1997).

Organizational identity is more concerned with the internal (employee relationships to the

organization) and corporate identity is concerned with the external (marketing) (Hatch &

Schultz, 1997).

As ones self-concept is created through group affiliations, the organization as a whole and ones

membership to it serve as important factors in creating OI (Edwards & Peccei, 2010). In fact, van

Dick, Grojean, Christ, and Wieseke (2006) explain that through social identity individualsidentify with their organization and claim its goals and vision as their own. Consequently,

employees have more overall satisfaction as their goals and needs are fulfilled. Also, the

perception of fairness serves as a key ingredient in allowing individuals to identify with their

organization. In other words, if perceived fairness is not evident in the organization-employee

relationship, there will be a negative influence of employee perception on the company (Edwards

& Peccei, 2010).


9/25

Organizational Communication[edit]

If an organization has openorganizational communication,it will serve as an effective method to

give their employees information with which to identify (Bartels, Peters, de Jong, Pruyn, & van

der Molen, 2010). Various types of communication such as horizontal and vertical

communication are imperative to ensure OI. Horizontal communication is described ascommunication that occurs through conversations with peers and other departments of equal

stature in the organization. Vertical communication describes communication through a top-

down process as executives and other managers communicate organizational goals and support

to their subordinates (Bartels et al., 2010). While both are necessary for identifying with their

company, vertical communication is more associated with OI, while horizontal communication

encourages identification within their department, branch, or sector of the company.

Individual Differences[edit]

Additionally,individual differences psychologyexplains how individual differences account for

high OI, especially the need for autonomy and self-fulfillment in an organization (Hall,

Schneider, & Nygren, 1970). Hall et al. (1970) claimed that individuals who experience OI at a

higher intensity do so because the jobs they assume compliment their personalities; therefore,

they are more apt to identify with those jobs and organizations that provide them. In other words,

individuals value particular organizational goalslike service, autonomy, etc.and seek the

companies that have goals and values most congruent with their own. If individuals find the high

level of congruency between personal and organizational goals and values, they are more likely

to identify with that organization rather quickly.

Consequences[edit]

Positive Consequences[edit]

Even though OI is a cognitively based phenomenon, many of the consequences of OI that are

investigated in psychology are behaviorally based, in that having OI causes certain behaviors and

actions in response to this perception of oneness with the organization. For example, OReilly

and Chatman (1986) found that OI is positively related to intent to remain with an organization,

decreasedturnover,length of service, and extra-role behaviors, or acts that are not directly

specified by a job description but which are of benefit to the company (p.493). In addition, van

Dick, Grojean, Christ, and Wieseke (2006) found that the causal relationship between extra-role

behaviors and OI extended to the team level as well as customer evaluations. Bartels, Peters, de

Jony, Pruyn, and van der Molen (2010) also found that people with high OI had greaterjob

satisfaction,cooperative behavior, and lower absentee rate.

Negative Consequences[edit]

Even though OI sets the stage for extra-role behaviors, decreased turnover and increased job

performance, it may also negatively influence other aspects of job behavior. For example,

Umphress, Bingham, and Mitchell (2010) argued that people who have high degrees of OI may

act unethically on behalf of the organization. This phenomenon has been named unethical pro-
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Organizational_identification&action=edit&section=9http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Organizational_identification&action=edit&section=9http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Organizational_identification&action=edit&section=9http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational_communicationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational_communicationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational_communicationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Organizational_identification&action=edit&section=10http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Organizational_identification&action=edit&section=10http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Organizational_identification&action=edit&section=10http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_differences_psychologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_differences_psychologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_differences_psychologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Organizational_identification&action=edit&section=11http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Organizational_identification&action=edit&section=11http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Organizational_identification&action=edit&section=11http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Organizational_identification&action=edit&section=12http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Organizational_identification&action=edit&section=12http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Organizational_identification&action=edit&section=12http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenuehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenuehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenuehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Job_satisfactionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Job_satisfactionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Job_satisfactionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Job_satisfactionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Organizational_identification&action=edit&section=13http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Organizational_identification&action=edit&section=13http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Organizational_identification&action=edit&section=13http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Organizational_identification&action=edit&section=13http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Job_satisfactionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Job_satisfactionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenuehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Organizational_identification&action=edit&section=12http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Organizational_identification&action=edit&section=11http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_differences_psychologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Organizational_identification&action=edit&section=10http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational_communicationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Organizational_identification&action=edit&section=9


10/25

organizational behavior. These unethical behaviors can occur through commission, where an

employee exaggerates information, or omission, where an employee conceals information. Such

unethical behaviors may be elicited as employees choose to disregard personal moral standards

and engage in acts that favor the organization (Umphress, et al., 2010, p. 770). Since OI may

provide motivation for unethical behaviors, the unethical pro-organizational behavior was only

observed when the employees had positive reciprocity beliefs towards the organization (i.e. they

believed that they were in a relationship of equal exchange with the organization).

Organization Identity and Identification and Management Control[edit]

Issues of control are found in most activities at most levels of organizational life (Larson and

Tompkins, 2005). Organizations can exercise simple control (direct, authoritative), technological

control, and bureaucratic control (through rules and rationality). The most powerful forms of

control in an organization may be those that are the least obvious or "that are 'fully unobtrusive'

that 'control the cognitive premises underlying action'" (Perrow 1979 quoted in Larson and

Tompkins, 2005).Barker calls the control described above 'concertive control,' and he believes that it largely grows

out of self-managing teams who base decisions on a set of shared values and high-level

coordination by the team members themselves (1993). Concertive control, even though

employee directed, actually increases the total amount of control in an organizational system

because each worker is watching and correcting others (Tompkins, 2005), rather than one

manager watching and directing the behavior of many.

One insidious, almost fully unobtrusive form of control is the organization's attempt to regulate

employee identity and identification. Alvesson and Willmott (2001) explore how employee

identities are regulated inside of an organization so that their self-images and work processes and

products line up with management goals and objectives. Identity regulation is the "intentional

effects of social practices upon processes of identity construction and reconstruction" (Alvesson

and Willmott, 2001). The authors suggest that when an organization and its rules and procedures,

particularly in training and promotion, become "a significant source of identification for

individuals" the organizational identity is then at the core of that individual's "(self-) identity

work" (Alvesson and Willmott, 2001). The conscious effort, either by the organization or the

individual, to align self-image with organizational goals is organizational identification, and OI

can bound an employee's decision making in a way that keeps it "compatible with affirming such

identification" (Tompkins and Cheney, 1985).

Pratt (2000) talks about strong organizational values or culture and the effect a strong culture hason identification and commitment. Strong values can act as social control mechanisms, can hold

together dispersed groups of workers (those that are not co-located) and can secure employee

commitment in a working environment where "job security no longer serves as the cornerstone

of psychological contract in the workplace" (Kanter quoted in Pratt, 2000). The strong values are

what the workers identify with or commit to.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Organizational_identification&action=edit&section=14http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Organizational_identification&action=edit&section=14http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Organizational_identification&action=edit&section=14http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Organizational_identification&action=edit&section=14


11/25

Organizations can manage organizational identification by managing how individuals form

personal values and identities, and how those values cause them to approach relationships inside

and outside of work (Pratt 2000). Organizations can do this by "creating a need for meaning via

sensebreaking" (Pratt, 2000) by causing people to question their old values against the new,

better values and dreams offered by the company.

So, controlling identity and identification benefits the company because it makes for more

satisfied employees who stay longer and work harder. Identity regulation by organizations can be

seen through efforts to manage organizational culture through communicated values in mission

and vision statements. Organizations can also create a vacuum and then a perceived need among

employees for goals and values provided by the organization through sense/dream-breaking and

dream-building (Pratt, 2000). Finally, organizations can attempt to shape the values and

identities of the workforce through self-help programs selected and instituted by the organization

in the workplace, although controlling exactly how these programs are interpreted and applied

can be difficult (Carlone and Larson, 2006).

Research areas

Future Research and Applications[edit]

In investigating OI, it becomes clear that there needs to be theoretical and operational definitions

that are universally agreed upon to ensure consistency and full understanding of OI (OReilly &

Chatman, 1996). In other words, it is important that OI researchers have a consistent definition of

the OI construct in order prevent further fragmentation of the field (Riketta, 2005, p.376).

Likewise, it is important to have consistent measures in order to compare results across studies

and draw accurate conclusions about antecedents and outcomes of OI. Another suggestion for 1.

future research is in regard to OIs relationship with decision-making, and how employees

identification with the company may influence their decisions inside and outside of the work

setting.There are various applications of OI research in the field of management. For example,

in the current state of the economy, mergers between two companies have occurred frequently,

despite the difficulties they entail when combining two possibly different cultures and fusing

them into one. Bartels, Douwes, de Jong, and Pruyn (2006) 2. argued that individuals might

sense a threat to the stability and identity of the company when a merger occurs. In addition, they

found that pre-merger identification was a strong predictor of post-merger identification. Bartels

et al. (2006) suggested open communication to ensure that everyone involved is aware of what

may happen. Such open communication would allow employees to identify with the post merger

organization, as they become more aware of how their company is now a hybrid of what it usedto be. Mael and Ashforth (19923)3. also stressed the importance for OI to be studied in a time

when organizations are constantly restructuring their psychological contract with employees to

stay afloat in the economic situation.Thus, being cognizant of their employees identification

with the company as their psychological contract continues to adapt and change is vital in

ensuring a happy and productive workforce.

Further reading[edit]
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Organizational_identification&action=edit&section=15http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Organizational_identification&action=edit&section=15http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Organizational_identification&action=edit&section=15http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Organizational_identification&action=edit&section=16http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Organizational_identification&action=edit&section=16http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Organizational_identification&action=edit&section=16http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Organizational_identification&action=edit&section=16http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Organizational_identification&action=edit&section=15


12/25

Bhattacharya, C. B., Rao, H., & Glynn, M. A. (1995). Understanding the bond ofidentification: An investigation of its correlates among art museum members.Journal of

Marketing, 59, 4657.

Kreiner, G. E., & Ashforth, B. E. (2004). Evidence toward an expanded model oforganizational identification.Journal of Organizational Behavior,25, 127.

Mael, F. A., & Tetrick, L. E. (1992). Identifying organizational identification.Educationaland Psychological Measurement, 52, 813824.

Pratt, M.G., (2000). The good, the bad, and the ambivalent: Managing identification amongAmway distributors.Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 456-493

Smidts, A., Pruyn, A. T. H., & van Riel, C. B. M. (2001). The impact of employeecommunication and perceived external image on organizational identification.Academy of

Management Journal, 44,10511062.

See also[edit]

Organizational culture Organizational Psychology Organizational StudiesReferences[edit]

Albert, S., Ashforth, B. and Dutton, J. (2000). Organizational identity and identification:Charting new waters and building new bridges.Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 13-

17.

Albert, S. and Whetten, D. (1985). Organizational Identity.Research in OrganizationalBehavior, 7, 263-295.

Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective,continuance and normative commitment to the organization.Journal of Occupational

Psychology, 63, 118.

Alvesson, M. & Willmott, H. (2001). Identity Regulation as Organizational Control:Producing the Appropriate Individual.Institute of Economic Research Working Paper Series,

1-32.

Ashforth, B., Harrison, S. and Corley, K. (2008). Identification in Organizations: AnExamination of Four Fundamental Questions.Journal of Management, 34(3), 325-374.

Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity and the organization.Academy ofManagement Review,14, 2039.

Aust, P. (2004). Communicated values as indicators of organizational identity: A method fororganizational assessment and its application in a case study. Communication Studies, 55(4),

515-534.

Barker, J. (1993). Tightening the Iron Cage: Concertive Control in Self-ManagingTeams.Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 408-437
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Organizational_Behaviorhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Organizational_Behaviorhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Organizational_Behaviorhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Organizational_identification&action=edit&section=17http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Organizational_identification&action=edit&section=17http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Organizational_identification&action=edit&section=17http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational_culturehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational_culturehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational_Psychologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational_Psychologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational_Studieshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational_Studieshttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Organizational_identification&action=edit&section=18http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Organizational_identification&action=edit&section=18http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Organizational_identification&action=edit&section=18http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Organizational_identification&action=edit&section=18http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational_Studieshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational_Psychologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational_culturehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Organizational_identification&action=edit&section=17http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Organizational_Behavior


13/25

Bartels, J., Douwes, R., de Jong, M., & Pruyn, A. (2006). Organizational identificationduring a merger: Determinants of employees expected identification with the new

organization.British Journal of Management,17, 49-67.

Bartels, J., Peters, O., de Jong, M., Pruyn, A., & van der Molen, M. (2010). Horizontal andvertical communication as determinants of professional and organizational

identification.Personnel Review, 39, 210-226.

Bergami, M. & Bagozzi, R.P. (2000). Self-categorization, affective commitment and groupself-esteem as distinct aspects of social identity in the organization. The British Journal of

Social Psychology, 39, 555-577.

Buchanan, B. (1974). Building organizational commitment: The socialization of managers inwork organizations.Administrative Science Quarterly, 19, 533-546.

Carlone, D. and Larson, G. (2006). Locating possibilities for control and resistance in a self-help program. Western Journal of Communication, 70(4), 270-291.

Cheney, G. (1983). On the various changing meanings of organization membership: A fieldstudy of organizational identification. Communication Monographs, 50, 342-362.

Cheney, G. & Christensen, L. T. (2001). Organizational Identity: Linkages Between Internaland External Communication. In F. M. Jablin & L. L. Putnam (Eds.), The New Handbook of

Organizational Communication: Advances in Theory, Research, and Method. Sage:

Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 231261.

Cheney, G. and Tompkins, P. (1987). Coming to Terms with Organizational Identificationand Commitment. Central States Speech Journal, 38(1), 1-15.

Cheney, G. (1982). Organizational identification as process and product: A field study.Unpublished masters thesis, Purdue University.

Edwards, M.R., & Peccei, R. (2010). Perceived organizational support, organizationalidentification, and employee outcomes.Journal of Personnel Psychology, 9, 17-26.

Edwards, M. R., & Peccei, R. (2007). Organizational identification: development and testingof a conceptually grounded measure.European Journal of Work and Organizational

Psychology, 16, 25-57.

Hall, D.T., Schneider, B., Nygren, H.T. (1970). Personal factors in organizationalidentification.Administrative Science Quarterly, 15, 176-190.

Hatch, M and Schultz, M. (1997). Relations between organizational culture, identity andimage.European Journal of Marketing, 5(6), 356-365.

Kassing, J. (1997). Articulating, antagonizing, and displacing: A model of employee dissent.Communication Studies, 48(4), 311-332.

Larson, G. and Tompkins, P. (2005). Ambivalence and resistance: A study of management ina concertive control system. Communication Monographs, 72(1), 1-21.

Mael, F. & Ashforth, B. (1992) Alumni and their alma maters: A partial test of thereformulated model of organizational identification.Journal of Organizational Behavior,13,

103-123.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Journal_of_Managementhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Journal_of_Managementhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Journal_of_Managementhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Organizational_Behaviorhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Organizational_Behaviorhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Organizational_Behaviorhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Organizational_Behaviorhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Journal_of_Management


14/25

Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizationalcommitment.Human Resource Management Review, 1, 61-89.

Miller, V. D., Allen, M., Casey, M., Johnson, J. R. (2000). Reconsidering the organizationalidentification questionnaire.Management Communication Quarterly,13, 628-658.

Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizationalcommitment.Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224-247.

OReilly, C., & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychologicalattachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial

behavior.Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 492-499.

Porter, L. W., & Smith, F. J. (1970). The etiology of organizational commitment.Unpublished paper, University of California at Irvine.

Pratt, M. (2000). The Good, the Bad, and the Ambivalent: Managing Identification amongAmway Distributors.Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 456-493.

Pratt, M. G. (1998). To be or not to be: Central questions in organizational identification. InD. A. Whetten & P. C. Godfrey (Eds.), Identity in organizations (pp. 171207). ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Riketta, M. (2005). Organizational identification: A meta-analysis.Journal of VocationalBehavior, 66, 358-384.

Rousseau, D. M. (1998). Why workers still identify with organizations.Journal ofOrganizational Behavior,19, 217233.

Scott, C., Corman, S. and Cheney, G. (1998). Development of a Structurational Model ofIdentification in the Organization. Communication Theory, 8(3), 298-336.

Simon, Herbert A. (1947). Administrative Behavior. The Macmillan Co.: New York. Tompkins, P. (2005). Apollo, Challenger, Columbia: The Decline of the Space Program, A

Study in Organizational Communication. Roxbury Publishing Company: Los Angeles,

California.

Tompkins, P. and Cheney, G. (1985). Communication and unobtrusive control. In McPHee,R. and Tomkins, P. (Eds.), Organizational Communication: Traditional Themes and New

Directions, Sage: Beverly Hills, CA, pp. 179210.

Umphress, E.E., Bingham, J.B., & Mitchell, M.S. (2010). Unethical behavior in the name ofthe company: The moderating effect of organizational identification and positive reciprocity

beliefs on unethical pro-organizational behavior.Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 769-

780.

van Dick, R., Grojean, M.W., Christ, O., & Wieseke, J. (2006). Identity and the extra mile:Relationships between organizational identification and organizational citizenship

behaviour.British Journal of Management,17, 283-301.

van Knippenberg, D., & Sleebos, E. (2006). Organizational Identification versusorganizational commitment: Self-definitions, social exchange, and job attitudes.Journal of

Organizational Behavior,27, 585-605.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Organizational_Behaviorhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Organizational_Behaviorhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Organizational_Behaviorhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Organizational_Behaviorhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Journal_of_Managementhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Journal_of_Managementhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Journal_of_Managementhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Organizational_Behaviorhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Organizational_Behaviorhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Organizational_Behaviorhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Organizational_Behaviorhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Organizational_Behaviorhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Organizational_Behaviorhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Journal_of_Managementhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Organizational_Behaviorhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Organizational_Behavior


15/25

Organisation Identification

Organisation Identification

Goal

The goal of the Organisation Identification activity is to identify for each requirement a global behaviourby an organisation. Each requirement is so associated to an unique organisation (see figure 1) in charge o

An organisation is defined by a set of Abstract Roles, their Interactions and a common context. The asso

is defined according to a part of the Problem Ontology, described in the previous activity. Organisation a

identification are two key activities and probably the two most difficult ones in our process, because thesare the basis of the whole methodological process and occur quite early in the workflow.

Input

Organisations are identified by studying use cases and the structure of the ontology and the association b

cases and the associated concepts in the ontology. The use of Organisational Design Pattern is also encou

favour reusability and validate enhance the quality of the obtained solution.

Output

In the first iteration, the result of this activity is thus a set of organisations, each one associated with at le

case. Each use case is associated with at most one organisation. To describe these associations, we directorganisation in forms of a package into the DRD use case diagram, this kind of diagram is called OrganiCase Diagram. In successive iterations, first level organisations can be decomposed in smaller ones in or

an organisational hierarchy. The result of this work is a set of organisations that contribute to a part of th

of previously identified (first level) organisations. This aspect is described using constraints in a class diaOrganisations are represented in use cases and class diagrams by packages stereotyped by therefore orga

identification is usually done by adding packages to a copy of the previously designed use case descriptio

system. The output of this activity also includes an informal text document describing the associations amorganisations and functional and non-functional requirements in form of a table.

Work to be done

The first task of this activity consists in identifying the parts of the systems that will be realized by usingoriented approach and putting out of scope of the current design all the parts that will be implemented by

technologies (usually this part will be represented by actors in order to model their interactions with agen

course this is just a first attempt that can be refined in successive iterations. The next task consists in idenorganisations. Organisation Identification is based on the functional and behavioural decomposition of u

Starting from a detailed diagram of the system functionalities, we group one or more use cases into stere


16/25

packages so as to form a new diagram. In so doing, each package defines the objectives that have to be fu

organisation. To help the designer in reusing well known solutions, the use of Organisational Design Pat

particularly useful during this activity. An Organisational Design Pattern (ODP) constitutes a standard soon the organisational MAS paradigm to solve a set of recurrent problems. It provides a guide that should

the particular case of a given problem. This step requires a set of refinements of the ODP to obtain a clas

organisation that is well suited to the studied problem. It contains at least :

(i) The description of the class of solved problems, and the associated set of fulfilled requirements.

(ii) A generic organisation and(iii) its meta-description : the set of capacities to which it provides an implementation and the associated

conditions.

An organisation is considered generic if the behaviour of its roles is specified without making any assum

architecture of the entities that may play them. Organisations may also be identified by adopting a behav

decomposition of another organisation during further iterations. This decomposition may stop when the d

considers that organisation identification and their relationships to functionalities have a sufficiently fine

to be implemented.

Successive decompositions can also be done by looking at the structure of the ontology in order to find esuggest some hierarchical structure (see guidelines).

This process will finally generate a complete hierarchy of organisations where the global behaviour of anO1 at level n will contribute to a part of the behaviour of a role R of an organisation O2 at level n + 1. Th

contribution is based on the relation between capacity and service, and will be detailed in the following (

sections 4.7 and 5.5); shortly it can be said that organisation O1 provides a service that implements a cap

by the role R (see figure 7).


17/25

Figure 7: Organisation Hierarchical Decomposition, Class Diagram

MAS Metamodel Elements

Define(Organisation), Quote(Functional Requirement), Quote(Non Functional Requirement), Relate(Org

Functional Requirement), Relate(Organisation, Non-Functional Requirement).

Methodological Guidelines

To identify organisations we propose to exploit the different points of view we can adopt on a system:

Structural: The structural analysis aims at identifying a structure of the system, i.e. how to decomsub-elements. This analysis and the resulting structure depends on the objective of the organisatio

the associated use case. In structural organisations identification, use cases that deal with the sam

concepts are often put together in the same organisation. This approach assumes that the same knprobably shared or managed by the different members of the organisation. The association betwe

organisational concepts like organisation and role with concepts from the ontology is very import

approach. It often provides guidelines in many activities. The structure of the ontology itself can constitute a good guideline to identify organisations and later roles. The principle consists in look

ontology in order to find elements that suggest some hierarchical structure like a composition rela

More details on this aspect are given in the following section.

Behavioural/Functional: The behavioural analysis aims at identifying a global behaviour for theintended to fulfil the use case(s). The set of future roles of the organisation and their interactions


18/25

able to generate this higher-level behaviour. In this aspect the use of Organisational Design Pat

useful to the designer. In behavioural organisations identification, use cases dealing with related p

system behaviour are grouped (for instance an use case and another related to it by an include relameans that members of the same organisation share similar goals.

These two different guidelines may also be mixed together while identifying organisations. An interestinobtaining a good organisation identification can consist in using the two previously discussed approaches

and, after that, comparing results to finally obtain a model being the compromise between a structure-ori

behaviour-oriented model.

Example

From the use cases presented in the DRD activity different approaches could be used to group use cases

organisations. The first task consists in identifying which functionalities will be designed using an agent-approach and which ones with a traditional object-oriented approach. In this example, we have decided t

functionalities of use case 2 with an OO approach (see figure 5). In this situation, we extract this use caseagent-oriented part of the system, and we represent it as a new actor, called Tuning interface. The part of

corresponding to this use case will be designed separately using a classical object-oriented software procinstance RUP [51]. Concerning the other use cases, three possible partitions can be studied, each one cor

a different point of view on the system:

Functional approach: Three main functional areas are identified, and an organisation is associatone. Firstly the global system is itself associated to an organisation Game Simulation managing u

Fig. 8). The behaviour simulation is associated to a second organisation called Team Simulation aof use cases 3 and 5. And finally strategy determination is associated to an organisation called Str

Decision grouping use cases 4,6,7 et 8. The result of the organisation identification with a such ap

described in figure 8.

Ontological approach: This partition is based on the hierarchical decomposition of the ontologyreferring to ontological concepts of the same level are grouped. At the top level of the hierarchy, organisation named Game Simulation grouping use case 1 is defined and it is related to the highe

the ontology, Match. Then use cases 3 and 4, referring to Team and Strategy are assigned to a un

organisation and at the third level the organisation Player Simulation is introduced to deal with usand 8, attached to sub-concepts of Player in the ontology. It is interesting to note that this approac

a nice hierarchy of organisations. This case is detailed in figure 9.

Multiview approach: The multiview approach consists in merging the various points of view wethe system (including the two previous ones). This approach respects the hierarchical nature of th

revealed by the ontological approach but it clearly separates use cases attached to different system

functionalities. We have leaned for the last solution where granularity of functionalities and the dof abstraction present in the system are best respected. This case is detailed in figure 10.


19/25

Figure 8: Organisation identification using the functional approach

Figure 9: Organisation identification using the ontological approach
http://set.utbm.fr/upload/gestionFichiers/Soccer_OrganizationIdentification_ontological_812.pnghttp://set.utbm.fr/upload/gestionFichiers/Soccer_OrganizationIdentification_functionnal_811.pnghttp://set.utbm.fr/upload/gestionFichiers/Soccer_OrganizationIdentification_ontological_812.pnghttp://set.utbm.fr/upload/gestionFichiers/Soccer_OrganizationIdentification_functionnal_811.png


20/25

Figure 10: Organisation identification using the multiview approach

90010 Belfort cedex - Tl : +33 (0)3 84 58 33 19 - Fax : +33 (

42 -Mentions lgales

How to Strengthen Organizational Identification
http://set.utbm.fr/index.php?pge=190http://www.utbm.fr/http://set.utbm.fr/upload/gestionFichiers/Soccer_OrganizationIdentification_810.pnghttp://www.utbm.fr/http://set.utbm.fr/upload/gestionFichiers/Soccer_OrganizationIdentification_810.pnghttp://www.utbm.fr/http://set.utbm.fr/upload/gestionFichiers/Soccer_OrganizationIdentification_810.pnghttp://www.utbm.fr/http://set.utbm.fr/upload/gestionFichiers/Soccer_OrganizationIdentification_810.pnghttp://www.utbm.fr/http://set.utbm.fr/upload/gestionFichiers/Soccer_OrganizationIdentification_810.pnghttp://www.utbm.fr/http://set.utbm.fr/upload/gestionFichiers/Soccer_OrganizationIdentification_810.pnghttp://www.utbm.fr/http://set.utbm.fr/upload/gestionFichiers/Soccer_OrganizationIdentification_810.pnghttp://www.utbm.fr/http://set.utbm.fr/upload/gestionFichiers/Soccer_OrganizationIdentification_810.pnghttp://www.utbm.fr/http://set.utbm.fr/upload/gestionFichiers/Soccer_OrganizationIdentification_810.pnghttp://www.utbm.fr/http://set.utbm.fr/upload/gestionFichiers/Soccer_OrganizationIdentification_810.pnghttp://www.utbm.fr/http://set.utbm.fr/upload/gestionFichiers/Soccer_OrganizationIdentification_810.pnghttp://set.utbm.fr/index.php?pge=190


21/25

by Mark L. Ryckman, Demand Media

Improving organizational identification can boost morale and productivity.

Related Articles

Examples of Great Employee Goals What Is the Relationship Between Organizational Functions & Organizational Structure? How to Write a Letter of Introduction For Employment 5 Conflict Management Strategies How to Clear a Previous Google Account From an Android Phone Without a Reset Six Main Functions of a Human Resource Department

Apersons sense of being part of an organization is referred to as organizational identification.

Fostering this sense of identification can be beneficial to both the organization and the employee.

Organizations benefit by having committed employees who put more effort into their work and

workers benefit by increased morale and an improved sense of satisfaction. Strengtheningorganizational identification is an important responsibility of any organizations management.

Ads by Google

Get New Customers Online

Advertise On Google. Get 2000 INR Advertising Credit When You Sign-Up
http://smallbusiness.chron.com/examples-great-employee-goals-11734.htmlhttp://smallbusiness.chron.com/relationship-between-organizational-functions-organizational-structure-18571.htmlhttp://smallbusiness.chron.com/write-letter-introduction-employment-11019.htmlhttp://smallbusiness.chron.com/5-conflict-management-strategies-16131.htmlhttp://smallbusiness.chron.com/clear-previous-google-account-android-phone-reset-31697.htmlhttp://smallbusiness.chron.com/six-main-functions-human-resource-department-60693.htmlhttps://www.google.com/url?ct=abg&q=https://www.google.com/adsense/support/bin/request.py%3Fcontact%3Dabg_afc%26url%3Dhttp://smallbusiness.chron.com/strengthen-organizational-identification-31398.html%26gl%3DIN%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dca-pub-3235755782694080%26ai0%3DClNfXLIaeU9GECtikugSsuYDQA6Kc4vVAotSx65MB-JLR4kcQASDdj5AYUKOwtpX4_____wFg5crlg7QOoAGmjZnqA8gBAagDAaoEqwFP0EywwXtVvMuxRoUTvgwSLFSJYZcN7HWdDwIgCyC-WNIWUeHCMrkqRXnQ3BbM6oADtJE00yf3zT5TqksX42fr0-hhE5jllWy7xTwZbPzBrHVw186vl8yF9uPs3yUJpqjVvO_c059cR36daTmTCHngH7RST9U1U26kYBljXLS3Bcq8dr9UjuBWzWiA45smAHd9b-NFFLDt0ExM0h6dVqB0KZwf7OQZ_A8FpUyIBgGAB8Ly5hU&usg=AFQjCNGTR66VOXMDdClomis-eNVSPxkeCghttp://www.googleadservices.com/pagead/aclk?sa=L&ai=ClNfXLIaeU9GECtikugSsuYDQA6Kc4vVAotSx65MB-JLR4kcQASDdj5AYUKOwtpX4_____wFg5crlg7QOoAGmjZnqA8gBAagDAaoEqwFP0EywwXtVvMuxRoUTvgwSLFSJYZcN7HWdDwIgCyC-WNIWUeHCMrkqRXnQ3BbM6oADtJE00yf3zT5TqksX42fr0-hhE5jllWy7xTwZbPzBrHVw186vl8yF9uPs3yUJpqjVvO_c059cR36daTmTCHngH7RST9U1U26kYBljXLS3Bcq8dr9UjuBWzWiA45smAHd9b-NFFLDt0ExM0h6dVqB0KZwf7OQZ_A8FpUyIBgGAB8Ly5hU&num=1&cid=5GgZYM89te2kIuc6AoUCGTIB&sig=AOD64_0zxuV0fMi4CinzwsNAnzX7ZNGJ4Q&client=ca-pub-3235755782694080&adurl=https://ad-apac.doubleclick.net/clk%3B278399969%3B105598611%3Bhhttp://www.googleadservices.com/pagead/aclk?sa=L&ai=ClNfXLIaeU9GECtikugSsuYDQA6Kc4vVAotSx65MB-JLR4kcQASDdj5AYUKOwtpX4_____wFg5crlg7QOoAGmjZnqA8gBAagDAaoEqwFP0EywwXtVvMuxRoUTvgwSLFSJYZcN7HWdDwIgCyC-WNIWUeHCMrkqRXnQ3BbM6oADtJE00yf3zT5TqksX42fr0-hhE5jllWy7xTwZbPzBrHVw186vl8yF9uPs3yUJpqjVvO_c059cR36daTmTCHngH7RST9U1U26kYBljXLS3Bcq8dr9UjuBWzWiA45smAHd9b-NFFLDt0ExM0h6dVqB0KZwf7OQZ_A8FpUyIBgGAB8Ly5hU&num=1&cid=5GgZYM89te2kIuc6AoUCGTIB&sig=AOD64_0zxuV0fMi4CinzwsNAnzX7ZNGJ4Q&client=ca-pub-3235755782694080&adurl=https://ad-apac.doubleclick.net/clk%3B278399969%3B105598611%3Bhhttp://www.googleadservices.com/pagead/aclk?sa=L&ai=ClNfXLIaeU9GECtikugSsuYDQA6Kc4vVAotSx65MB-JLR4kcQASDdj5AYUKOwtpX4_____wFg5crlg7QOoAGmjZnqA8gBAagDAaoEqwFP0EywwXtVvMuxRoUTvgwSLFSJYZcN7HWdDwIgCyC-WNIWUeHCMrkqRXnQ3BbM6oADtJE00yf3zT5TqksX42fr0-hhE5jllWy7xTwZbPzBrHVw186vl8yF9uPs3yUJpqjVvO_c059cR36daTmTCHngH7RST9U1U26kYBljXLS3Bcq8dr9UjuBWzWiA45smAHd9b-NFFLDt0ExM0h6dVqB0KZwf7OQZ_A8FpUyIBgGAB8Ly5hU&num=1&cid=5GgZYM89te2kIuc6AoUCGTIB&sig=AOD64_0zxuV0fMi4CinzwsNAnzX7ZNGJ4Q&client=ca-pub-3235755782694080&adurl=https://ad-apac.doubleclick.net/clk%3B278399969%3B105598611%3Bhhttps://www.google.com/url?ct=abg&q=https://www.google.com/adsense/support/bin/request.py%3Fcontact%3Dabg_afc%26url%3Dhttp://smallbusiness.chron.com/strengthen-organizational-identification-31398.html%26gl%3DIN%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dca-pub-3235755782694080%26ai0%3DClNfXLIaeU9GECtikugSsuYDQA6Kc4vVAotSx65MB-JLR4kcQASDdj5AYUKOwtpX4_____wFg5crlg7QOoAGmjZnqA8gBAagDAaoEqwFP0EywwXtVvMuxRoUTvgwSLFSJYZcN7HWdDwIgCyC-WNIWUeHCMrkqRXnQ3BbM6oADtJE00yf3zT5TqksX42fr0-hhE5jllWy7xTwZbPzBrHVw186vl8yF9uPs3yUJpqjVvO_c059cR36daTmTCHngH7RST9U1U26kYBljXLS3Bcq8dr9UjuBWzWiA45smAHd9b-NFFLDt0ExM0h6dVqB0KZwf7OQZ_A8FpUyIBgGAB8Ly5hU&usg=AFQjCNGTR66VOXMDdClomis-eNVSPxkeCghttp://smallbusiness.chron.com/six-main-functions-human-resource-department-60693.htmlhttp://smallbusiness.chron.com/clear-previous-google-account-android-phone-reset-31697.htmlhttp://smallbusiness.chron.com/5-conflict-management-strategies-16131.htmlhttp://smallbusiness.chron.com/write-letter-introduction-employment-11019.htmlhttp://smallbusiness.chron.com/relationship-between-organizational-functions-organizational-structure-18571.htmlhttp://smallbusiness.chron.com/examples-great-employee-goals-11734.html


22/25

www.google.com/AdWords

Start EarlyWhen employees are hired, they need to be assimilated into the organizational culture, which

includes becoming familiar with their roles and co-workers' roles. This is a critical time inemployees' tenure with the organization and it provides an opportunity for management to build

organizational identification among these new workers.

Adopt a Participative Leadership StyleParticipative leaders allow employees to have input into the organization's decision-makingprocesses. This doesn't mean that leaders have to consult with every employee on every decision,

but leaders set parameters when input will be welcomed and the process for soliciting others'

ideas. This type of leadership style can increase organizational identification because employees

feel their views are valued. In addition, they might see how their own identity is linked to theoverall organization through the acceptance of their opinions.

Related Reading:Do Organizational Theory & Organizational Structure Work Together?

Promote Fairness and EthicsOne of the most common complaints in any organization is the perception that decisions are

unfair. Employees want to work in an environment where decision-making is fair and the

organization values honesty. Managers who cultivate a culture of fairness, honesty and soundethics will have employees who are more likely to identify with the organization, even when an

unpopular decision is made. The perception that decisions are fair and ethical can often times

offset the bad news itself.

Prepare Employees for PromotionOne of the best ways to improve employees' organizational identification is to prepare them for

promotion. Employees want to know what opportunities exist for their career advancement and

they have a fair chance at reaching their potential. Investing in employee development andsuccession planning will lead to improved employee motivation, engagement and retention.

Design Competitive Compensation SystemsEmployees want to be rewarded for their efforts. Designing compensation that pays at leastmarket rates and rewards initiative will help build loyalty. This is a significant factor in the

organization's culture. Employees will readily see through systems that give token appreciation

for their performance. A fair compensation system with substantive salary increases and othermonetary rewards is critical to encouraging organizational identification among employees.

About the AuthorMark L. Ryckman has more than 20 years of senior management and leadership experience. He

provides a wide variety of consulting services through MLR Management, LLC. Ryckman holdsa Bachelor of Arts in public management and a Master of Public Administration, both from the

University of Maine.

Bosses and bonding: Relationships prove key to employees organizational identification

June 27, 2013
http://www.googleadservices.com/pagead/aclk?sa=L&ai=ClNfXLIaeU9GECtikugSsuYDQA6Kc4vVAotSx65MB-JLR4kcQASDdj5AYUKOwtpX4_____wFg5crlg7QOoAGmjZnqA8gBAagDAaoEqwFP0EywwXtVvMuxRoUTvgwSLFSJYZcN7HWdDwIgCyC-WNIWUeHCMrkqRXnQ3BbM6oADtJE00yf3zT5TqksX42fr0-hhE5jllWy7xTwZbPzBrHVw186vl8yF9uPs3yUJpqjVvO_c059cR36daTmTCHngH7RST9U1U26kYBljXLS3Bcq8dr9UjuBWzWiA45smAHd9b-NFFLDt0ExM0h6dVqB0KZwf7OQZ_A8FpUyIBgGAB8Ly5hU&num=1&cid=5GgZYM89te2kIuc6AoUCGTIB&sig=AOD64_0zxuV0fMi4CinzwsNAnzX7ZNGJ4Q&client=ca-pub-3235755782694080&adurl=https://ad-apac.doubleclick.net/clk%3B278399969%3B105598611%3Bhhttp://www.googleadservices.com/pagead/aclk?sa=L&ai=ClNfXLIaeU9GECtikugSsuYDQA6Kc4vVAotSx65MB-JLR4kcQASDdj5AYUKOwtpX4_____wFg5crlg7QOoAGmjZnqA8gBAagDAaoEqwFP0EywwXtVvMuxRoUTvgwSLFSJYZcN7HWdDwIgCyC-WNIWUeHCMrkqRXnQ3BbM6oADtJE00yf3zT5TqksX42fr0-hhE5jllWy7xTwZbPzBrHVw186vl8yF9uPs3yUJpqjVvO_c059cR36daTmTCHngH7RST9U1U26kYBljXLS3Bcq8dr9UjuBWzWiA45smAHd9b-NFFLDt0ExM0h6dVqB0KZwf7OQZ_A8FpUyIBgGAB8Ly5hU&num=1&cid=5GgZYM89te2kIuc6AoUCGTIB&sig=AOD64_0zxuV0fMi4CinzwsNAnzX7ZNGJ4Q&client=ca-pub-3235755782694080&adurl=https://ad-apac.doubleclick.net/clk%3B278399969%3B105598611%3Bhhttp://smallbusiness.chron.com/organizational-theory-organizational-structure-work-together-67824.htmlhttp://smallbusiness.chron.com/organizational-theory-organizational-structure-work-together-67824.htmlhttp://smallbusiness.chron.com/organizational-theory-organizational-structure-work-together-67824.htmlhttp://knowwpcarey.com/article.cfm?aid=1421http://knowwpcarey.com/article.cfm?aid=1421http://knowwpcarey.com/article.cfm?aid=1421http://smallbusiness.chron.com/organizational-theory-organizational-structure-work-together-67824.htmlhttp://www.googleadservices.com/pagead/aclk?sa=L&ai=ClNfXLIaeU9GECtikugSsuYDQA6Kc4vVAotSx65MB-JLR4kcQASDdj5AYUKOwtpX4_____wFg5crlg7QOoAGmjZnqA8gBAagDAaoEqwFP0EywwXtVvMuxRoUTvgwSLFSJYZcN7HWdDwIgCyC-WNIWUeHCMrkqRXnQ3BbM6oADtJE00yf3zT5TqksX42fr0-hhE5jllWy7xTwZbPzBrHVw186vl8yF9uPs3yUJpqjVvO_c059cR36daTmTCHngH7RST9U1U26kYBljXLS3Bcq8dr9UjuBWzWiA45smAHd9b-NFFLDt0ExM0h6dVqB0KZwf7OQZ_A8FpUyIBgGAB8Ly5hU&num=1&cid=5GgZYM89te2kIuc6AoUCGTIB&sig=AOD64_0zxuV0fMi4CinzwsNAnzX7ZNGJ4Q&client=ca-pub-3235755782694080&adurl=https://ad-apac.doubleclick.net/clk%3B278399969%3B105598611%3Bh


23/25

Isnt it fun to hear about lousy bosses provided the horror story happens to someone else?

There was a boss who called his employee at the hospital and interrupted her labor pains to see if

she was coming to work the next day. Another manager told employees to take the rest of theday off when the power went out, but that didnt stop this uncharitable overseer from writing

people up for leaving early.

Those are the kinds of anecdotes that win the prizes in the annual Bad Boss competition run by

Working America, a nonprofit organization aimed at influencing policy to protect folks on the

job.

Such stories prompt groans and grins but, if theyre coming out of your organization, you should

know that bad bosses do more than supply good cocktail-party tales. An employees immediate

supervisor is quite possibly the single biggest factor in an employees willingness toidentify

with an organization, saysBlake Ashforth,a professor of management at the W. P. CareySchool of Business.

Ashforthsrecent research examined the impact of behavioral and emotional factors on howlikely young newcomers were to identify with the organizations that employ them. He found

getting employees bonded to the organization may be more closely tied to employee/boss

relationships than researchers have previously thought.

Powerful connections

Why should organizations care if employees have strong organizational identification? Becauseorganizational identification plugs into pretty much everything good in organizations, Ashforth

says.

He defines organizational identification as the extent to which people define themselves throughtheir employer. Yet it goes beyond saying, Im an ASU professor or Im an IBMer, he adds.

Its how much you let the organization into your heart and allow the organization to becomepart of who you are, he explains. Its a strong personal attachment. So, if the organization is

highly regarded and you have strong identification, you consider the organizations

accomplishment part of your own.

Such organizational identification is correlated with many positive behaviors that boostorganizational effectiveness and strength. With high organizational identification, Ashforth says

firms get more committed employees. They work harder, take the organizations interests to

heart and are much better corporate citizens. That means they do things that dont show up on

performance appraisals but actually grease the wheels of the entire organization.

Those wheel-greasing activities might be things like volunteering to help a colleague, talking upthe company when out in the community or representing the organization at some kind of charity

eventon your own time and, perhaps, dime. People with high organizational identification are

not clock-punchers, Ashforth says. They are exemplars of what the organization can be at itsvery best.
http://wpcarey.asu.edu/directory/people/profile.cfm?person=1039541http://wpcarey.asu.edu/directory/people/profile.cfm?person=1039541http://wpcarey.asu.edu/directory/people/profile.cfm?person=1039541http://wpcarey.asu.edu/directory/people/profile.cfm?person=1039541


24/25

Along with delivering benefits, high organizational identification cuts problems, such as

absenteeism, turnover, rule-breaking and incivility.

Not surprisingly, organizational identificationand how it can be nurturedis a topic widely

studied by management scholars. However, researchers have traditionally looked at how

organizational identification is built through organization-wide structures, such as orientationprograms and on-the-job training.

Ashforth says his research indicates there are multiple avenues to organizational attachment, and

the ones that he finds particularly compelling have little to do with first-day orientations or other

formal programs.

Where the heart is

The three avenues to attachment that Ashforth has been examining are affect, behavior and

cognition, with cognition being the factor most often studied by other scholars. Cognitive

mechanisms, such as formal orientation sessions, impact what employees think about theiremployer, and cognition supports organizational identification when employees believe they

have a good bargain. According to Ashforth, employees may be thinking, They pay me well, Ilike the city, the work is good for my career.

These are the things an employee might be thinking before deciding tostay for a while. The

employee believes it makes sense to identify with the organization, he explains.

Affect is the emotion an employee feels toward the organization and colleagues, while behavior

means internalizing and making sense of the activity inherent in a job. That is, the more a person

does an activity, the more natural it feels. A newcomer to the business world might not feel like

an engineer right out of school, but the more that newcomer succeeds on the job, the more self-identification she is likely to feel toward the job and her engineers role in it.

Still, affect is where Ashforths research indicates that companies miss the boat if theyre not

paying attention to it. It matters greatly, he says. If you have a very positive atmosphere,people treat you well, they smile, and its a supportive, upbeat place, people are more likely to

identify with the office because its a pleasant place to be. Conversely, if you have a negative

climate, people are sour and carping, it really wears on morale.

The effect shows up in Ashforths recent study, too. To conduct it, he and his coauthors (David

Sluss, Georgia Tech; Robert Ployhart, University of South Carolina; and Glenn Cobb, U.S. Army

Research Institute) surveyed newcomersyoung, new-to-the-workforce workerson multipleoccasions at two organizations: a telemarketing company and the U.S. Army. As it turns out,

survey responses confirmed what Ashforth had suspected when they started this set of studies.A lot of what happens to create a strong link between the organization and the individual

happens at the tribal level, the daily life you live, he says.

When you walk into work each day, you see your coworkers, your boss, maybe you see some

clients. What you dont see are the CEO, the executives, other divisions: Those things are kind of


25/25

nebulous, abstract and out there somewhere, Ashforth explains. You may understand the

organization in an abstract sense, but its lived viscerally and dailythrough interactions with

the people around you. That very local attachment to your specific job, your co-workers and yourmanagers are the reality of what you do day in and day out. That has tremendous impact on how

you see the organization more broadly.

Ashforths research showed that peoples attitude toward their immediate supervisors spilled

over into how they felt about the organization as a whole. The study also revealed that when

newcomers perceive supervisors to be prototypical of company values, the strong relationship

the newcomer feels with this supervisor translates into strong organizational identification.

Ashforth notes that this finding reveals how important it is for senior managers to understand

what their values are and how subordinates live those values out. We tend to think that

managersbecause theyre hired to be managers naturally exemplify what the organizationstands for, that theyre good representatives of what the organization is supposed to be all

about, he says.

Its not a given, he continues. Even in the U.S. Army, where stereotypically you would think

that all drill sergeants would live Army values, we found thats not the case. Thats a potential

problem, as employees look to their immediate supervisors to get a sense of what the

organization is all about, he adds.

Cognitive and behavioral forces matter, but Ashforth maintains that managers may be the

primary factor determining whether employees will want to identify with their organization.

Managers are a hugely important window into what makes the organization tick, he says.

Their behavior is a predictor into whether employees will care about the organization or

not.

Bottom line:

Organizational identification, the degree to which employees define themselves throughtheir employer, contributes to positive outcomes like commitment and reduces negative

outcomes like absenteeism and turnover.

Traditionally, researchers have studied cognitive approaches to building organizationalidentification, such as orientation programs that help employees understand their new

employer.

While orientations and other programs provide context, employees actually live theirwork lives in relation to daily tasks and interactions, including interactions withimmediate supervisors.

New research shows supervisors may be the biggest contributor or detractor to anemployees organizational identification.

182 1 0 3

Stay Connected

Organisation Identification 1

Documents

Transcript of Organisation Identification 1