Organizational identification: A conceptual and operational review

Abstract

There is a growing body of literature presenting the argument that processes of organizational identification (OI) are extremely important in helping to ensure that staff work towards the interests of the organization. There are, however, a number of problems with the way that the notion of OI has been conceptualized and operationalized in the extant literature. This paper examines how OI has been defined and measured over a number of decades. A number of problems are identified with how OI has been conceptualized by researchers, including, for example, issues about whether there is an affective element to identification and how the construct relates to organizational commitment. The paper also includes a review of previous approaches to measuring the concept of OI and raises some key problems with existing research tools. The paper concludes by arguing for a particular conceptualization of OI which helps to clarify the complex relationship between identification and organizational commitment, while at the same time accommodating previous definitions of the construct.

Examining the Relationship between Organizational Identification and Learning Organization Dimensions: A Study of a U.S. Franchise

“…Prior studies of organizational identification uncovered that an individual's identification with the organization creates a benefit for both the organization and the individual (Asforth & Mael, 1989;Barker, 1993;Barker & Tompkin, 1994;Cheney, 1983;Dukerich, et al, 2002;Dutton et al, 1994;Edwards, 2005;Pratt, 2000). Although the benefit of identification was explored previously, limited use of the theory was applied to the franchise network, which leads to an opportunity to further investigate.…”

“…Edwards (2005) defined organizational identification as "a psychological linkage between the individual and the organization whereby the individual feels a deep, self-defining affective and cognitive bond with the organization as a social entity" (p. 227). Pratt (1998) described two paths to identification as "recognition of an organization deemed similar to one's self, or through changes in one's self to become more similar to an organization" (p. 173).…”

“…In general, the arguments contend that employees who identify with the group tend to better enact organizational interests in work-related decisions, agree more with organizational goals and objectives, and possess stronger motivational ties that result in increased output (Asforth & Mael, 1989;Barker & Tompkins, 1994;Cheney, 1983;Dutton et al, 1994;Pratt, 2000). Organizational identification manifests as reduced turn-over, improved job satisfaction, increased organizational citizenship behavior, increased cooperation and participation, improved effort, aligned cognitive decision making, and possible employee control (Barker & Tompkins, 1994;Dukerich, Golden, & Shortell, 2002;Edwards, 2005;Mael & Ashforth, 1992).…”

“…Edwards (2005) provided a useful organizational identification definition in his description of "a psychological linkage between the individual and the organization whereby the individual feels a deep, self-defining affective and cognitive bond with the organization as a social entity" (p. 227). This linkage between the individual and the collective is the basis of organizational identification.…”

Organizational Identification: Perspectives of Dispersed Social Workers

“…There are advantages of organizational identification for both the organization and the employee. For the organization, organizational identification has the benefits of decreased attrition, improved job satisfaction, and increased cooperation, participation, and organizational citizenship behaviors (Barker & Tompkins, 1994;Dukerich, Golden, & Shortell, 2002;Edwards, 2005;Mael & Ashforth, 1992). For employees, organizational identification aids in the maintenance of their consistent selfconcept and collective self-esteem (Ashforth et al, 2008;Dutton, Dukerich, & Harquail, 1994).…”