Organizational identification

Cheney and Tompkins (1987) define identification as “the appropriation of identity (1) by both an individual and the collective in question, (2) and others. Identification includes: developing and maintaining the“ identity ”or“ essence ”of an individual or group in the face of change and "External" elements. Important symbolic connections (maintained through communication.) Are of particular importance for identification, since identification is a process, and the nature of a particular identification of an individual or group with something constantly from changing (1987). Identification (in organizations or something else), this “is an active process by which individuals connect themselves with groups existing in society.” At the same time, identifications help us identifications help give meaning to the world around us, We help our thoughts make decisions. (Cheney, 1983). The identification process takes place mainly through language, when someone expresses similarities or belonging to a specific group, including organizations (Cheney and Tompkins 1987, Cheney 1983), Philip Tompkins was one of the first to use pon The concept of “organizational identification” is one of the pioneers in the study of organizational communication (Tompkins, 2005). Simon (1947) is also given credit for affirming the concept of organizational identity in theory and learning processes. The concept of organizational identity is based on a general theory of identification. After a series of studies, Cheney and Tompkins clarified the definition of a concept in relation to organizations (1987) as follows: Organizational Identification (OI) is a form of organizational management and occurs when “the decision maker identifies with the organization and wants to choose the alternative that is best will represent the interests of the organization ”(Cheney and Tompkins, 1987). Other authors have identified OI as a coincidence of individual and organizational values ​​(Pratt, 1998), as well as a perception of unity and ownership of the organization. (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). OI has been studied as an individual’s point of view and classification of an individual’s personality within organizational membership (Rousseau, 1998). The theory of social identity combined the cognitive elements of OI described above using emotional and evaluative components. For example, emotional attachment, a sense of pride, and other positive emotions that stem from organizational membership, have been incorporated into the practical implementation of OI. O'Reilly and Chetman (1986) conceptualized OI as part of emotional and motivational processes. They argued that OI arises from attraction and the desire to maintain emotional satisfaction, independently defining relationships with the organization. Perhaps the most complete definition of OI can be seen as a susceptible relationship with the organization. These relationships are established by employees through various cognitive and emotional processes that occur when employees and the organization (including all its components - colleagues, managers) interact. While the expansion of OI helps to identify additional sources and processes through which OI can be established, it also complicates the distinction between OI and other constructs, namely the so-called emotional organizational support, in psychological studies of OI.

Cheney et al developed the “classic” organizational identification questionnaire (1987) —OIQ — which formed the basis of many others. A comparative analysis (see Ricketta 2005) shows for what purposes they are more suitable:

OI (Mel and Ashworth 1992):

1. When someone praises my organization, it’s like a personal compliment.
2. When someone criticizes my organization, I feel a personal insult.
3. I am very interested in what others think of my organization.
4. When I talk about my organization, I usually say “we,” not “they.”
5. The success of my organization is also my success.
6. If the media criticize my organization, I will be ashamed.

Miller, Allen, Casey and Johnson (2000) modified the questionnaire, choosing 12 sentences from 25 previously proposed by the authors, to increase the reliability, internal consistency and richness of the measurement tool. Examples of statements (Miller, Allen, Casey and Johnson 2000): Membership:

1. I pride myself on working at “...” (Buchanan 1974).

Devotion:

1. I would describe “...” as a large “family”, most of whose members share a sense of community (Hall, Schneider, & Nygren 1970).
2. I would agree to build my career to the end in "..." (Buchanan 1974).

Similarity:

1. The image of “...” in society also characterizes me well (Cheney 1982).
2. I believe that my values ​​and “...” values ​​are very similar (Mowday et al. 1979, Porter & Smith 1970).

Edwards and Peccei (2007) proposed a three-factor model of OI, including:

1. self-categorization of I as a member of the organization;
2. integration of the goals and values ​​of the organization;
3. development of emotional commitment, a sense of ownership and membership in the organization.

Each of these factors is measured by two statements. But according to the results of empirical studies, it turned out that theoretical factors are not very different from each other and can be described by a single factor. That is, these three factors correlate with each other. For practical measurement of OI, the authors propose to aggregate three measurements into one common scale of OI:

1. My work in this organization is a large part of who I consider myself (self-categorization and shortcuts)
2. I consider myself a representative of this organization (self-categorization and labels)
3. It is important for me what values ​​this organization represents (values ​​and goals)
4. I share the goals and values ​​of this organization (values ​​and goals)
5. For me, my membership in this organization is important (a sense of ownership and membership)
6. I feel close ties to this organization (a sense of ownership and membership)

Perceived organizational support. One of the appropriations used by OI is perceived organizational support. That is, “to what extent do people believe that the organization and their employers value the contribution of their employees and care about their well-being” (Edwards & Peccei, 2010, p. 17). Edward and Peccei (2010) argued that when an organization takes care and care for the welfare of its employees, then a tendency to manifest attachment to the organization and identify itself with it begins to develop.

Organizational prestige. Exactly as perceived organizational support, organizational prestige is an appropriation in relation to OI. If the organization becomes successful, the employee will happily identify with its reputation and goals. (Bergami & Bagozzi, 2000; Mael & Ashforth, 1992) Organization stereotypes reflect its core beliefs and objectives. In addition, these stereotypes allow a person to indirectly identify with the goals of the organization. In other words, a person identifies himself with organization and the ideals of organization become his own. (Bergami & Bagozzi, 2000). As these stereotypes become more distinct from other competing organizations, the real company with which the employee identifies himself becomes more exemplary. (Mael & Ashforth, 1992).

Identity. Identity and identification are “foundational constructs in an organizational phenomenon” and underlie many of the observed organizational behaviors (Albert, Ashforth & Dutton, 2000). Identity and identification are at the core of the questions “who am I?” And “what is my role in this world?” (Albert, Ashforth & Dutton, 2000) In order to understand identification, an individual must become aware of identity (Ashforth, Harrison & Corley, 2008 ) Identity is the answer to the questions “who am I?” And “who are we?” And appears in the scientific literature in three different contexts: micro (theory of social identity, theory of self-categorization), theory of identity (structured identity or theory of managed identity) and organizational identity (central, hallmarks of the organization). Corporate identity is considered in another context in which identity is also considered. (Hatch & Schultz, 1997) Social identity is “part of an individual’s self-concept that derives from knowing one’s membership in a social group (or groups) along with the value and emotional meaning attached to that membership” (Tajfel quoted in Ashforth, Harrison & Corley, 2008). Identity theory refers to the idea that people attach different meanings and meanings to the different roles they play in “highly differentiated societies” (Ashforth, et al., 2008). This theory explores roles such as, for example, a profession or group membership (like a musician). Organizational identity is popularly defined by Albert and Wetten (1985) as the “central, distinctive, and lasting characteristic of an organization,” and consists of three main components: ideological, defining, and phenomenological (Whetten, 2006). Organizational identity is established through communicating values ​​to internal and external stakeholders (Aust, 2004). Organizations establish and communicate identities in order to “control ... how the organization is universally represented” (Cheney and Christensen, 2001). Albert, Ashworth, and Dutton (2000) believe that organizations need to know who or what they are, what they are or are not in relation to other people, and what kind of relationship between them and other organizations, so that this organization can effectively to interact with other organizations in the long term: "identity determines the organization, group and personality." In addition, the organization must have identity in order for its employees to identify themselves with the organization, or to form organizational identification. Typically, organizations determine what they are by affirming values ​​and goals, and missions and views. They then frame or structure most of their communication with employees and other people around these values ​​and goals. The more an employee can identify with these communicated values ​​and goals, the more organizational identification is present. Organizations increase the chances of organizational identification by conveying and repeating a limited set of goals and values ​​with which employees not only identify themselves, but also with which they are guided when making decisions. An organization must have identity in order for its employees to identify themselves with the organization, thereby creating the conditions for organizational identification. Some authors do not agree that identity is permanent. On the contrary, it is constantly changing and responding to the environment in a modern organization (Whetten, 2006). In one period, there was some general confusion among scientists (Whetten, 2006), but most still agree that this concept is worth discussing. Corporate identity differs from organizational identity in that it is more associated with visual (graphic identity) and more dependent on leadership (Hatch & Schultz, 1997). Organizational identity is more concerned with the internal component of the organization (employee relationship to the organization), and corporate identity deals with the external component (marketing) (Edwards & Peccei, 2010). The organization as a whole and membership in it are important factors in the creation of OI (Edwards & Peccei, 2010). In fact, van Dyck, Grozhen, Christ, and Wiisek (2006) explain that through social identities, individuals identify themselves with their organization and affirm its goals and vision as their own. Consequently, employees feel more satisfied when the goals and needs of the organization are met. In addition, a sense of justice serves as a key component in identifying an individual with an organization. In other words, if there is no fairness in the relationship between the organization and the employees, then the employee will be negative in the organization (Edwards & Peccei, 2010).

Organizational communication. If an organization has an open organizational relationship, it will serve as an effective method to provide its employees with the information needed for identification (Bartels, Peters, de Jong, Pruyn, & van der Molen, 2010). Various types of communications, such as horizontal and vertical communications, are simply necessary to provide OI. Horizontal communication is described as communication, which is carried out through conversations with peers and other departments of equal importance in the organization. Vertical connections are made from top to bottom when managers and other managers turn to their subordinates (Bartels et al., 2010). While both forms of communication are necessary for identification with your company, vertical communications are more associated with OI, while horizontal communications support identification within a department, branch, or sector of a company.

Individual differences. In addition, the psychology of individual differences explains how individual differences contribute to high OI, especially for autonomy and self-realization in an organization (Hall, Schneider, & Nygren, 1970). Hall et al. (1970) argued that individuals who experience higher intensity OI due to their work accept praise at their own expense; therefore, they are more likely to identify with those professions and organizations that represent them. In other words, people value particular organizational goals — like service, autonomy, etc., and look for companies that have goals and values ​​that are most consistent with their own. If people find a high level of congruence between personal and organizational goals and values, they are likely to quickly identify with this organization.

Positive Consequences Although O. I. is a cognitively based phenomenon, many of the consequences of O. I., which are investigated in psychology, are based on behavior. Nevertheless, O. I. leads to certain models of behavior and actions in response to the perception of unity with the organization. For example, Orilli and Chatman (1986) found that O. I. is positively associated with the intention to stay with the organization, reduce staff turnover, work experience and extra-role models of behavior, or “actions that are not directly determined by job descriptions, but actions that benefit the company "(p. 493). In addition, van Dyck, Grozhin, Christ, and Wisek (2006) found that the causal relationship between extra-role behaviors and O. I. expanded to the level of the team as well as customer ratings. Bartels, Peters, de Joni, Prine, and van der Molen (2010) also found that people with high O. I. had great satisfaction with their work and cooperative behavior.

Negative consequences Despite the fact that O. I. paves the way for extra-role behaviors, helps to reduce staff turnover and increase productivity, it can also negatively affect other aspects of working behavior. For example, Ampress, Bingham, and Mitchell (2010) have argued that people who have a high degree of O. I. can act unethically on behalf of the organization. This phenomenon has been called unethical pro-organizational behavior. Unethical behavior can occur when an employee exaggerates information, or is inactive, or when an employee is hiding information. Such unethical behavior can be caused by the fact that employees “participated in activities that are favorable to the organization, while choosing disrespectful personal moral standards” (Umphress, et al., 2010, p. 770). Since O.I. can promote unethical behavior, unethical pro-organizational behavior was observed only when employees had positive mutual beliefs in relation to the organization (that is, they believed that they were on an equal footing with the organization).

Management issues can be found in almost every activity at most levels of organizational life (Larson and Tompkins, 2005). Organizations can carry out simple control (direct, authoritative), technological control, and bureaucratic control (using rules). Наиболее мощными формами контроля в организации могут быть те формы, которые являются наименее очевидным или « те, которые являются» полностью незаметным «, что» управляют познавательные помещения, лежащие в основе действия "" (Perrow 1979 quoted in Larson and Tompkins, 2005). Баркер называет контроль, описанный выше «согласованный контроль». Он считает, что это в значительной степени является результатом самоуправления команды, которая основывает решения на выработке общих ценностей и высоком уровне координации самими членами команды (1993). Согласованный контроль, даже если работник направлен, на самом деле увеличивает общее количество контроля в организационной системе, потому что каждый работник наблюдает и поправляет других (Tompkins, 2005), что предпочтительнее, чем если бы один менеджер, наблюдал и направлял поведение многих. Одной хитрой, почти полностью ненавязчивой формой контроля является попытка организации по регулированию личности работника и идентификации. Альвессон и Уильмотт (2001) изучили, как сотрудник регулируются внутри организации, что их само изображения и представления о рабочих процессах строятся с целями и задачами управления. Регулирование идентичности является " преднамеренными последствиями социальных практик от процессов конструирования идентичности и реконструкции " (Alvesson and Willmott, 2001) . Авторы полагают, что когда организация и её правила, процедуры, в частности, в области подготовки кадров и продвижения по службе, становятся " важным источником идентификации для физических лиц " организационная идентичность, то в основе становится "(само-) идентичность работы " этого лица (Alvesson and Willmott, 2001). Пратт (2000) говорит о сильных организационных ценностях или культуре, а также о влияние сильной культуры на идентификацию и приверженность. Сильные значения могут выступать в качестве механизмов социального контроля, могут держать вместе группы работников, которые не совмещены, и могут обеспечить приверженность сотрудников в рабочей среде, где "гарантии занятости больше не служит в качестве краеугольного камня психологического контракта на рабочем месте "(Kanter quoted in Pratt, 2000). Организации могут управлять организационной идентификацией, управляя тем, как люди формируют личные ценности и идентичности, и как эти ценности заставляют их сближать отношения внутри и вне работы (Pratt, 2000). Организации могут сделать это, заставляю людей подвергнуть сомнению их «старые» значения против новых, лучших ценностей и мечты, предлагаемых компанией.

• Организационная идентичность

• Базаров, Т.Ю., Кузьмина, М.Ю. Процессы социальной идентичности в организациях // Российский психологический журнал - Т. 3. № 1. 2005 С. 30-44.
• Веснин В.Р. Практический менеджмент персонала: пособие по кадровой работе. -М.: Юристъ, 1998 С. 496.
• Липатов, С. А., Ловаков, А. В. Исследования организационной идентификации в зарубежной психологии // национальный психологический журнал № 1(3) 2010 С.70-75.
• Липатов, С.А. Идентификация и приверженность персонала организации // Современные проблемы организационной психологии: Материалы Всероссийской научно-практической конференции. Екатеринбург, 2007 -С. 122-125.
• Липатов, С.А., Жилкина О.В. Процессы социальной идентификации в организациях // Журнал практического психолога. — № 2 2005 С. 25-40.
• Павленко, В.Н. Представления о соотношении социальной и личностной идентичности в современной западной психологии // Вопросы психологии. - №1 2000 С. 135-142.
• 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 Organizational Behavior, 7, 263-295.
• Allen, NJ, & Meyer, JP (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 1-18.
• 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: An Examination of Four Fundamental Questions. Journal of Management, 34 (3), 325-374.
• Ashforth, BE, & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14, 20-39.
• Aust, P. (2004). Communicated values ​​as indicators of organizational identity: A method for organizational 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-Managing Teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 408–437
• Bartels, J., Douwes, R., de Jong, M., & Pruyn, A. (2006). Organizational identification during 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 and vertical communication as determinants of professional and organizational identification. Personnel Review, 39, 210-226.
• Bergami, M. & Bagozzi, RP (2000). Self-categorization, affective commitment and group self-esteem as distinct aspects of social identity in the organization. The British Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 555-577.
• Bhattacharya, CB, Rao, H., & Glynn, MA (1995). Understanding the bond of identification: An investigation of its correlates among art museum members. Journal of Marketing , 59 , 46-57.
• Buchanan, B. (1974). Building organizational commitment: The socialization of managers in work 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 field study of organizational identification. Communication Monographs, 50, 342-362.
• Cheney, G. & Christensen, LT (2001). Organizational Identity: Linkages Between Internal and External Communication. In FM Jablin & LL Putnam (Eds.), The New Handbook of Organizational Communication: Advances in Theory, Research, and Method. Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 231–261.
• Cheney, G. and Tompkins, P. (1987). Coming to Terms with Organizational Identification and Commitment. Central States Speech Journal, 38 (1), 1-15.
• Cheney, G. (1982). Organizational identification as process and product: A field study. Unpublished master's thesis, Purdue University.
• Edwards, MR, & Peccei, R. (2010). Perceived organizational support, organizational identification, and employee outcomes. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 9, 17-26.
• Edwards, MR, & Peccei, R. (2007). Organizational identification: development and testing of a conceptually grounded measure. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 16, 25-57.
• Hall, DT, Schneider, B., Nygren, HT (1970). Personal factors in organizational identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15, 176-190.
• Hatch, M and Schultz, M. (1997). Relations between organizational culture, identity and image. 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.
• Kreiner, GE, & Ashforth, BE (2004). Evidence toward an expanded model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 25 , 1-27.
• Larson, G. and Tompkins, P. (2005). Ambivalence and resistance: A study of management in a concertive control system. Communication Monographs, 72 (1), 1-21.
• Mael, F. & Ashforth, B. (1992) Alumni and their alma maters: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 103-123.
• Mael, FA, & Tetrick, LE (1992). Identifying organizational identification. Educational and Psychological Measurement , 52 , 813-824.
• Meyer, JP, & Allen, NJ (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 61-89.
• Miller, VD, Allen, M., Casey, M., Johnson, JR (2000). Reconsidering the organizational identification questionnaire. Management Communication Quarterly, 13, 628–658.
• Mowday, RT, Steers, RM, & Porter, LW (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224-247.
• O'Reilly, C., & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 492-499.
• Porter, LW, & Smith, FJ (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 among Amway Distributors. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 456–493.
• Pratt, MG (1998). To be or not to be: Central questions in organizational identification. In DA Whetten & PC Godfrey (Eds.), Identity in organizations (pp. 171–207). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Riketta, M. (2005). Organizational identification: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 358-384.
• Rousseau, DM (1998). Why workers still identify with organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 217-233.
• Scott, C., Corman, S. and Cheney, G. (1998). Development of a Structurational Model of Identification in the Organization. Communication Theory, 8 (3), 298–336.
• Simon, Herbert A. (1947). Administrative Behavior. The Macmillan Co .: New York.
• Smidts, A., Pruyn, ATH, & van Riel, CBM (2001). The impact of employee communication and perceived external image on organizational identification. Academy of Management Journal , 44 , 1051-1062.
• 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. 179–210.
• Umphress, EE, Bingham, JB, & Mitchell, MS (2010). Unethical behavior in the name of the 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, MW, Christ, O., & Wieseke, J. (2006). Identity and the extra mile: Relationships between organizational identification and organizational citizenship behavior. British Journal of Management, 17, 283-301.
• van Knippenberg, D., & Sleebos, E. (2006). Organizational Identification versus organizational commitment: Self-definitions, social exchange, and job attitudes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 585-605.