Mobile Edition
Print
Get the Mag
Weekly UpdatesSocial identification is an individual's cognitive connection with a group or the perceived overlap between the individual's identity and a group's identity (Elsbach, 1999). According to social identity theory, people utilize their associations with organizations to define their self-concepts (Ashforth and Mael, 1989). Because individuals are motivated by self-enhancement needs, they tend to identify with organizations that confer positive qualities upon them (Dutton et al., 1994). Consequently, people are particularly likely to be aware of status-related issues in the organizations to which they belong (Tyler, 1999).
Pratt (1998) states that if organizations are to be successful, they must actively engage in fostering organizational identification among their employees. "From a managerial viewpoint, 'member identification' presents a less obtrusive, and potentially more effective means of organizational control than methods that rely upon 'external stimuli'" (Alvesson and Willmott, 2002: 620). That is, organizational identification effectively acts to make employees choose courses of action that are consistent with affirming their identification (i.e., act in ways that benefit the organization) (Alvesson and Willmott, 2002). Accordingly, research indicates that organizational identification is likely to foster constructive behaviors, including increased suggestions for constructive change (Fuller et al., 2006b), cooperative behavior (Olkkonen and Lipponen, 2006), and reduced turnover (Mael and Ashforth, 1995). However, changing organizational forms, increased levels of diversity, and the emergence of more nonwork identity options have all served to make identity and the identification process increasingly complex (Albert et al., 2000). For this reason, social identity theorists have suggested that new multi-faceted perspectives of social identity theory are needed. One emerging stream of research utilizing such an extended social identity theory framework (i.e., Tyler, 1999; Tyler and Blader, 2002; Tyler and Blader, 2003; Tyler et al., 1996) has focused on the extent to which different status evaluations people make about their groups shape their self-perceptions and identification with social groups such as organizations. Although it focuses upon organizations as well as groups, Tyler and Blader (2003) call their framework "the group engagement model."
According to the group engagement model (Tyler and Blader, 2003), individuals make two basic status evaluations with regard to the places in which they work--an organizational status evaluation and an evaluation of their own status within the organization. Thus, the group engagement model extends the traditional social identity theory perspective on the organizational identification process by not only including intergroup dynamics, but also intragroup dynamics. Prior research (e.g., Fuller et al., 2006b; Tyler and Blader, 2002) has shown that both of these status evaluations make unique and significant contributions to organizational identification. Research also indicates that each status evaluation has different antecedents (Fuller et al., 2006b). These findings are suggestive of the potential for the group engagement model to add general insight into how the "looking glass" self (Cooley, 1956; Mead, 1934) is created and to also add specific insight into the organizational identification process.
One way to explore the potential of Tyler and Blader's (2003) group engagement model would be to introduce individual differences in identity as a moderator variable. Given that diverse people within groups and organizations hold a variety of different social and role identities (Nkomo and Cox, 1996), it seems likely that different individuals' attachment to their group or organization may be more strongly influenced by one type of status judgment than the other. That is, organizational identification is likely to be a function of status judgments and aspects of a person's identity (Tyler, 1999). However, no research has examined the extent to which identity differences among people influence the extent to which each status evaluation is related to organization identification. This is a major shortcoming in the extant literature.
The aim of the present study is to address this shortcoming, thereby building upon the promising results reported by Tyler and colleagues (Tyler, 1999; Tyler and Blader, 2003; Tyler et al., 1996). The results of our study provide an indication of the extent to which the difference between organization status and status within the organization is a salient one to individuals, and that a multi-faceted perspective such as the group engagement model is necessary to more fully understand the social identification process. First, we discuss the two different organization-related status evaluations and their relationships with organizational identification, followed by a discussion of role identity as a potential moderator of these two relationships. Second, we present the research methodology and results of our study. Finally, we discuss the results and the need for future research given the preliminary nature of the findings.
THE GROUP ENGAGEMENT MODEL
Individuals may evaluate the status of their organization in a number of ways. For example, individuals form perceptions of the attractiveness of their organization's identity by assessing the organization's distinctive, central and enduring characteristics (Dutton et al., 1994). Tyler and his colleagues (i.e., Tyler, 1999; Tyler et al., 1996; Tyler and Blader, 2002) have largely focused upon this type of organizational status evaluation (i.e., pride). However, a more widely investigated type of organizational status evaluation is called construed external image (Dutton et al., 1994) or what we refer to as "prestige." Prestige is based upon the individual's evaluation of the extent to which organizational outsiders hold the firm in high esteem. In the research presented here, we chose to examine prestige rather than pride because, ultimately, status is conferred upon a group or organization by outsiders rather than insiders (Dukerich et al., 2002). This is consistent with Tyler's most recent version of the group engagement model (i.e., Tyler and Blader, 2003). Indeed, decades ago, March and Simon (1958) proposed that when individuals believe their organization is held in high esteem by external parties, they tend to more strongly identify with the organization. In short, to the extent that an employee believes that outsiders view the organization positively (i.e., I work for an organization that is valued by people outside the organization), he or she "basks in the reflected glory" of the firm (Cialdini et al., 1976: 366). Thus, perceived external prestige answers the question "what do outsiders think of me because I belong to this organization," or the social value of organizational membership (Dutton et al., 1994). Research has consistently found that prestige is linked to stronger identification with the organization (e.g., Dukerich et al., 2002; Smidts et al, 2001; Wan-Huggins et al., 1998). Based upon the aggregation of 16 studies, results of Riketta's (2005) recent meta-analysis indicate there is a strong positive relationship between prestige and organizational identification ([r-bar.sub.corrected] a = +.56).
The second aspect of organization-related status thought to influence an individual's organizational attachment and behavior is his or her status within the organization. That is, people not only seek to distinguish themselves by evaluating the status of their organization (i.e., prestige), but also by distinguishing themselves within the organization (Ellemers et al., 2004; Tyler, 1999). Tyler and Blader (2003) refer to this evaluation as "respect." Respect is thought to be an important factor in social identification--perhaps even more so than prestige (Seta and Seta, 1996). To the extent that perceived high status within the organization meets needs for self-enhancement, individuals are likely to identify with the organization and be good organizational citizens (Tyler, 1999; Kaufman et al., 2001). Respect has been found to be significantly related to both group and organizational identification (e.g., Tyler, 1999; Tyler and Blader, 2002).
EMPLOYEE ROLE IDENTITY
One of the potential negative consequences of diversity within organizations is the potential for low levels of organizational attachment and high levels of turnover among some groups of individuals (Milliken and Martins, 1996). For this reason, a greater understanding of different identity orientations and their respective sources of self-worth is critical if organizations are to take advantage of their diversity (Brewer and Gardner, 1996). Professionals are one group of individuals that may exhibit lower levels of attachment and cooperative behavior within employing organizations (Dukerich et al., 2002; Gouldner, 1957). This has been attributed to the fact that professionals' self-concepts are often closely tied with an external reference group--their profession.
According to Gouldner (1957), people in organizations have two different latent social role identities--cosmopolitan and local Cosmopolitans tend to be low on commitment to the employer, high on professional commitment, and externally-oriented in terms of reference groups. Gouldner (1957) referred to cosmopolitans as "experts" who seek the recognition of knowledgeable peers in their professional community such as scientists, physicians, attorneys, or academics (Flango and Brumbaugh, 1974; Keller, 1997). In contrast, locals tend to be high on commitment to the employer, low on commitment to specialized role skills, and internally-oriented. Gouldner (1957) referred to locals as "company men," or people who are committed to the company due to its distinctive values or to the town where the company is located (Gouldner, 1958). For locals, career planning focuses upon the different roles that they may play within their organization.
FEED