|
Article Excerpt
This study investigates social identity predictions in the organizational domain. The aim of the present paper is to demonstrate the multidimensionality of social identification in the existence of different foci and dimensions.
Social Identity Theory (SIT) was developed by Tajfel and Turner (1979, 1986) as an alternative to mainstream theories of that time which explained intergroup conflict as resulting from constraints in material resources (Sherif, 1966). In their minimal group studies, Tajfel and colleagues (e.g. Tajfel, Billig, Bundy, & Flament, 1971) created groups using meaningless distinctions, such as preference for certain abstract paintings. Once created, individuals were expected to evaluate members of their in-group and of the other group, the out-group. To summarize, it was demonstrated that individuals evaluated in-group members more positively, distributed more money to in-group members, and enlarged differences between in- and out-group if given the chance to, although there was no interdependence, future interaction or material self-interest for doing so. The main assumptions of SIT in explaining these effects are (1) that individuals strive for a positive serf-esteem; (2) that parts of an individual's self-concept stem from membership in certain social groups, that is, his or her 'social identity'; and (3) that a positive social identity can be maintained or enhanced through comparisons with relevant out-groups.
Recently, social psychologists have successfully attempted to translate ideas of the social identity approach into organizational contexts (e.g. Dutton, Dukerich, & Harquail, 1994; Haslam, 2001; Hogg & Terry, 2000; Kramer, 1991; Ouwerkerk, Ellemers, & de Gilder, 1999; Tyler, 1999; Tyler & Blader, 2000; van Knippenberg, 2000). Membership of work organizations are some of the most important group affiliations a person has, probably more important than any other group membership (cf. Bergami & Bagozzi, 2000; Hogg & Terry, 2000). Postmes, Tanis, and de Wit (2001, p. 228) summarize 'social identification as a principal determinant and process variable for many of the outcomes and issues that have been studied'. Therefore, a deeper knowledge of the bases, elements, and consequences of social identification in organizational contexts is of particular interest. In the present paper we focus on the examination of loci, dimensions and correlates of organizational identification.
Foci of identification
First of all, we assume that it can be useful to differentiate between different targets or foci of identification. In 1987, John Turner and colleagues presented Self-Categorization Theory (SCT: Turner, Hogg, takes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987), which adds to SIT assumptions about behaviour within the group. Individuals can categorize themselves on different levels: as unique individuals (personal level), as group members distinct from members of other groups (intermediate or group level), or as a human being in comparison to other species (superordinate level). Levels of self-categorization become salient through contextual changes, as, e.g., through comparisons between relevant comparison objects. Translated into organizational identification, an individual can identify him- or herself (1) with his or her own career (personal level), or, on a group level, with (2) different subunits within their organizations (e.g. work groups, departments), or (3) with the organization as a whole. Of course, other possibilities are also conceivable. For example, there is evidence of high predictive value of identification with the occupational group an individual belongs to (van Dick & Wagner, 2002). There is some empirical evidence demonstrating that multiple loci of identification exist. However, this research typically focuses on national or ethnic identification (e.g. Cinnirella, 1997; Huici et al. 1997; Mlicki & Ellemers, 1996), considers specific cases like identification with geographically dispersed organizations (Scott, 1997), or focuses on only the two categories work team and organization as a whole and not on identification on the personal level of identification (e.g. Reade, 2001; van Knippenberg & van Schie, 2000).
Proposition 1 (P1). Organizational identification can be differentiated into foci of identification (for example, an employee's identification with his or her career, with the work unit, with the organization as a whole, or with an occupational group).
Dimensions of identification
Our second assumption concerns the existence of different dimensions of identification.
According to Pratt (1998), identification with social groups satisfies a whole range of human needs, as, for instance, the need for safety or the need for affiliation. Pratt (1998, p. 183-184) also explicitly states that identification with organizations can satisfy the individual's holistic need, since organizations provide meaning and help the individual to find a sense in his or her life. Thus, identification can be seen as concerning the employee as a person as a whole and affecting his or her cognitions, emotions, and behaviours. This view of identification as a holistic concept was taken since the first development of social identity theory onwards. Tajfel (1978) defined social identity as 'that part of an individual's self-concept which derives from his knowledge of his or her membership of a social group (or groups) together with the value and emotional significance attached to that membership' (p. 63). Ellemers, de Gilder, and Haslam (in press) assume three intra-psychological processes underlying group-based social identity, namely: (1) social categorization, (2) social comparison, and (3) social identification. The first is the cognitive tool that helps the individual organize social information, the second provides meaning by evaluating one's own group in comparison to relevant others and thus elicits the third process, social identification, which is the person's emotional involvement with that particular group.
According to these different but related theoretical conceptualizations, three dimensions of social identity can be distinguished: (1) a cognitive component, which is the knowledge of being a member of a certain group, (2) an affective dimension, which is the emotional attachment to that group, and (3) an evaluative aspect, which describes the value connotation assigned to that group from inside and/or outside. Following this original definition, other researchers have presented multidimensional concepts and theoretical formulations of group identity (Brewer & Silver, 2000; Jackson & Smith, 1999; Johnson, Johnson, & Heimberg, 1999). Recently, Jackson (2002) presented an overview on the conceptualization of different dimensions and argues for the existence of four different dimensions. In addition to the already discussed cognitive, affective, and evaluative dimension, Jackson presented the work of Brewer and Silver (2000), Deaux (1996), Hinkle, Taylor, Fox-Cardamone, and Cook (1989), Jackson (1999) and Jackson and Smith (1999) as theoretical and empirical evidence for the existence of a fourth component that he called common fate but that also can be termed behavioural identification when looking at the concrete items used in this research (e.g. 'I support the in-group', Jackson, 1999). Further evidence for the importance of a behavioural aspect of identification stems from research on ethnic identity (cf. Phinney, 1991). Van Dick (2001), in giving an overview on social identity research in organizational contexts, conceptualized these four dimensions in the following way: the cognitive component (self-categorization) is the necessary first step of identifying with a certain category. This is not to say that emotions are of lower value in the identity building process--but if an individual does not realize that he or she is a member of a certain category, this category hardly can contribute to his or her self-definition as social identity theory assumes (see Zajonc, 1984, for a discussion of the primacy of emotion or cognition). Once an individual perceives him- or herself as a member of a social group, the other three components come into play and the individual also feels (weak or strong) affective ties towards this group, positively or negatively evaluates the group's characteristics and is susceptible for evaluation by others (in-group and out-group members), and he or she is ready to stand for the group and to behave in a way which is supportive of the group. Nothing can be said about the temporal or causal sequence in which the latter three components come into play. However, all these components are assumed to be interrelated, that is, the more one feels an affective bond towards the group the more positive he or she evaluates the group and the more he or she will act on behalf of the group. Finally, context and category salience have an impact on all four components (cf. van Dick, 2004).
Proposition 2 (P2). Organizational identification can be differentiated into four dimensions--cognitive, effective, evaluative, and behavioural.
When Propositions 1 and 2 are combined, a third proposition can be derived.
Proposition 3 (P3). Within each of the different foci the dimensions of identification can be separated.
Foci and dimensions of identification and work-related attitudes and behaviours
Because part of an individual's self-concept stems from his or her membership in social groups, the individual should be motivated to act on behalf of the groups with which the individual identifies him- or herself (van Knippenberg, 2000). Following the work of Tyler and colleagues (e.g. Tyler & Blader, 2000; Tyler & Smith, 1997) group members are motivated to contribute to the group's success because this increases feelings of pride and respect.
Proposition 4 (P4). Identification is associated with work-related attitudes and behaviours. That is,...
|
