17
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (2013), 86, 50–66 © 2012 The British Psychological Society www.wileyonlinelibrary.com Who are we made to think we are? Contextual variation in organizational, workgroup and career foci of identification Lynne J. Millward 1 and S. Alexander Haslam 2 * 1 Department of Psychology, University of Surrey, UK 2 School of Psychology, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia An online survey-based study (N = 314) combining experimental and quasi-experimental elements was conducted to examine variation in employees’ group identification in organizational contexts. The study measured three foci of identification (organization, workgroup, career) under three conditions of identity fit (organizational, workgroup, career) in two healthcare organizations (one public sector, one private sector) that had distinct organizational cultures (collectivist, individualist, respectively). Whilst work- group identification was generally higher than organizational identification, this difference was moderated both by sector and by the interaction between sector and identity fit. This meant (1) that when the fit manipulation made workgroup identity salient, workgroup identification was only higher than organizational and career identification in the public- sector organization and (2) that when the fit manipulation made career identity salient, career identification was only higher than organizational and workgroup identification in the private-sector organization. These findings are consistent with hypotheses derived from self-categorization theory, which suggests that the salience of organizational identities defined at different levels of abstraction varies as a function of their accessibility and fit and hence is determined by their localized meaning. They are also inconsistent with assumptions that workgroup identity will always be preferred to more inclusive categorizations. Implications for theory and practice are discussed. Practitioner Points Employees’ organizational, workgroup and career identities are determined both by organizational cultural values (which affect identity accessibility) and by the way that these identities are locally framed (which affects identity fit). Sadly, in the process of revising this manuscript for publication, Lynne Millward was diagnosed with oesophageal cancer. Her health declined rapidly and she died on March 6th 2012 at the age of 49. Lynne was renowned for her passionate and tireless teaching, her meticulous and consummate scholarship, and her unstinting commitment to people and causes she held dear — one of which was Occupational and Organizational Psychology. She will be very sadly missed, but her legacy will endure. *Correspondence should be addressed to S. Alexander Haslam, School of Psychology, University of Queensland, St Lucia 4083, Queensland, Australia (e-mail: [email protected]). DOI:10.1111/j.2044-8325.2012.02065.x 50

Who are we made to think we are? Contextual variation in organizational, workgroup and career foci of identification

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (2013), 86, 50–66

© 2012 The British Psychological Society

www.wileyonlinelibrary.com

Who are we made to think we are? Contextualvariation in organizational, workgroup and careerfoci of identification

Lynne J. Millward1 and S. Alexander Haslam2*1Department of Psychology, University of Surrey, UK2School of Psychology, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia

An online survey-based study (N = 314) combining experimental and quasi-experimental

elements was conducted to examine variation in employees’ group identification in

organizational contexts. The study measured three foci of identification (organization,

workgroup, career) under three conditions of identity fit (organizational, workgroup,

career) in two healthcare organizations (one public sector, one private sector) that had

distinct organizational cultures (collectivist, individualist, respectively). Whilst work-

group identification was generally higher than organizational identification, this difference

wasmoderated both by sector and by the interaction between sector and identity fit. This

meant (1) that when the fit manipulation made workgroup identity salient, workgroup

identification was only higher than organizational and career identification in the public-

sector organization and (2) that when the fit manipulation made career identity salient,

career identification was only higher than organizational and workgroup identification in

the private-sector organization. These findings are consistent with hypotheses derived

from self-categorization theory, which suggests that the salience of organizational

identities defined at different levels of abstraction varies as a function of their accessibility

and fit and hence is determined by their localizedmeaning. They are also inconsistent with

assumptions that workgroup identity will always be preferred to more inclusive

categorizations. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.

Practitioner Points

� Employees’ organizational, workgroup and career identities are determined both by

organizational cultural values (which affect identity accessibility) and by the way that

these identities are locally framed (which affects identity fit).

Sadly, in the process of revising this manuscript for publication, Lynne Millward was diagnosed with oesophageal cancer. Herhealth declined rapidly and she died on March 6th 2012 at the age of 49. Lynne was renowned for her passionate and tirelessteaching, hermeticulous and consummate scholarship, and her unstinting commitment to people and causes she held dear—oneof which was Occupational and Organizational Psychology. She will be very sadly missed, but her legacy will endure.*Correspondence should be addressed to S. Alexander Haslam, School of Psychology, University of Queensland, St Lucia 4083,Queensland, Australia (e-mail: [email protected]).

DOI:10.1111/j.2044-8325.2012.02065.x

50

� The fact that employee identification is affected by organizational culture and context

suggests that this can be shaped through processes of leadership.

� Organizational researchers need to be aware of the language they use in research rubric

when seeking to understand employee perceptions and reactions and be sensitive toways in which this can affect the salience of different identities.

The process and consequences of organizational identification are becoming

increasingly central to debates and analyses in organizational science (e.g., see

Cornelissen, Haslam & Balmer, 2007). This is largely a consequence of a burgeoning

empirical literature which shows that the extent to which a person’s sense of self is

defined in terms of their membership of a particular organizational group (i.e.,

organizational identification) is a powerful predictor of a range of key organizationalbehaviours – from communication and compliance to leadership and loyalty (for recent

reviews see, for example, Akerlof & Kranton, 2009; Ellemers, de Gilder & Haslam,

2004). There is also mounting field evidence of the material benefits that can accrue for

organizations as a result of employees’ organizational identification (van Dick,

Stellmacher, Wagner, Lemmer & Tissington, 2009; Millward & Postmes, 2010; Wieseke,

Ahearne, Lam & van Dick, 2009).

However, as van Knippenberg and van Schie (2000) first demonstrated, there are

other foci for work-related identification beyond the unitary organization. Inparticular, these include employees’ workgroup- or team-based identities, and the

potential for these to provide another focus for identification has prompted

researchers to try to understand more about the conditions under which employees

are likely to think and act in these terms (rather than in terms of the organization as a

whole; Ashforth & Johnson, 2001; Haslam, 2001). Not least, this is because research

has shown that the particular level at which employees identify with an organization

has distinct implications for organizational functioning (van Dick, 2001, 2004; van

Dick, Wagner, Stellmacher & Christ, 2004, 2005; Haslam & Ellemers, 2005; Millward &Postmes, 2010). Yet due largely to researchers’ inability to control extraneous

variables in field contexts (where a range of different outcomes have been observed),

the factors that determine the relative importance of different organizational identities

are far from clear (Cornelissen et al., 2007).

Following van Dick et al. (2005), this paper aims to explore variation in the

salience of identities that are defined at different levels of abstraction in applied

organizational contexts. More particularly, it tests hypotheses derived from self-

categorization theory (SCT; Turner, 1985; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher & Wetherell,1987; Turner, Oakes, Haslam & McGarty, 1994) concerning factors that predict this

variation and which can make certain identities more important for self-definition and

behaviour than others.

Self-categorization theory and the salience of organizational identities

Self-categorization theory suggests that the strength of different foci of identification (as

organizational self-categorizations) will vary as a function of salience mechanisms, in

accordance with principles of fit and accessibility (after Bruner, 1957; Oakes, 1987; see

also Oakes, Haslam & Turner, 1994; noting that the latter authors also refer to

accessibility as perceiver readiness). Fit refers to the degree to which a particular self-categorization matches subjectively relevant features of reality – so that the categori-

zation in question appears to be a sensible way of organizing and making sense of the

Foci of identification 51

world (i.e., oneself and other people). It has two components: comparative and

normative.

Comparative fit is defined by the principle of meta-contrast (Turner, 1985) which

proposes that people will define themselves in terms of a particular self-category to theextent that the differences between members of that category (on a given dimension of

judgment) are perceived to be smaller than the differences between members of that

category and others in a particular context. For example, finance employees are more

likely to define themselves at an organizational level when consciously competing with

other companies for business (e.g., securing clients) because in this context, the relative

salience of intergroup differences will reduce the salience of intra-group differences

(e.g., in employees’ lower-level team identities such as procurement, accounts or claims;

Haslam, Oakes, Turner & McGarty, 1995; Turner, 1985).As well as being determined by social comparison, fit also has a normative dimension.

Thismeansthatemployeesaremorelikelytodefinethemselvesasmembersofagivengroup

whenthere isperceivedtobeamatchbetweenthemeaningof thatcategoryandfeaturesof

thecurrentsituation(Oakes,Turner&Haslam,1991).Thus,evenifthedifferencesbetween

procurementandaccountsemployeesappear tobe larger thanthedifferenceswithin those

groups (i.e., comparative fit), procurement employees will only identify themselves as

‘procurement’ employees if this identity accordswith expectations (e.g., so thatmembers

of theprocurement teamengage inprocurement rather thanaccounts-relatedactivities). Inthisway, thenormativefitof a given self-categorywill behigh to the extent that thecontent

of people’s behaviour aligns with normative category prescriptions.

Importantly though, identification also depends fundamentally on prior expectations,

goals and values (Oakes et al., 1994; Turner et al., 1994). Many of these predispositions

may derive from shared beliefs and group influences that lend stability, predictability and

continuity to experience (Barreto, Ellemers & Palacios, 2004; Fiol & O’Connor, 2005;

Haslam & Ellemers, 2005; Peteraf & Shanley, 1997; Riketta, van Dick, & Rousseau, 1998;

Rousseau, 1998). In thisway, the accessibility hypothesis assumes that people are inclinedto organize and construe the world in ways that partly reflect their previous experiences

with particular social categories.

To study howaccessibilityworks in organizational contexts, the present paper focuses

on the potential influence of different organizational cultures on individuals’ identities

(Hatch & Schultz, 2002; Prati, McMillan-Capehart & Karriker, 2009; Ravasi & Schultz,

2006). In this regard, it has long been recognized that organizational culture and identity

are closely coupled (e.g., Dutton & Dukerich, 1991; Hatch, 1993; Fiol, Hatch & Golden-

Biddle, 1998; Schein, 1985), but it is only recently that efforts have been made toconceptualize (Hatch & Schultz, 2002; Prati et al., 2009) and investigate (e.g., Ravasi &

Schultz, 2006) their precise inter-relation. Whether through tacit values, espoused beliefs

or normative practices and prescriptions, it is generally agreed that organizational culture

helps employees make sense of themselves in relation to the organization, and as such

provides the ‘ideational ground’ within which certain organizational identities become

accessible and meaningful (Cornelissen et al., 2007; Millward, 1995). For example, it

might be argued that cultures that promulgate collective values are more likely to uphold

norms of teamwork and relational coordination (Prati et al., 2009) and in so doing,potentially increase the relative accessibility of team-level over organization-level

identities. In contrast, cultures that promulgate individualistic values and practices could

encourage career-focused identification (van Dick et al., 2005).

In short, then, according to SCT, the nature and formof the social identity that is a basis

for self-definition (and/or the definition of others) will be a product both of social context

52 Lynne J. Millward and S. Alexander Haslam

(which determines the comparative and normative fit of particular identities) and social

history (which determines their accessibility). In this way, organizational identity is

neither pre-determined (e.g., on demographic or taxonomic grounds) nor unconstrained

and free-floating. Rather, its form depends on the interaction between past and presentfactors that combine to provide an individual with a sense of social identity that is

meaningful, distinctive and enduring (Albert & Whetten, 1985; Ashforth & Johnson,

2001; Cornelissen et al., 2007; Dutton, Dukerich & Harquail, 1994).

Although few studies have investigated theworkings of accessibility and fit in complex

organizational contexts, those that have looked at different foci of identification have

found that employees typically identify more with workgroups or teams than with the

organizationas awhole (meta-analysis reveals amediumeffect size,d = 0.37;Riketta&van

Dick, 2005; see also van Dick et al., 2009). This finding has been interpreted as reflectingemployees’ motivated preference to identify with groups that offer distinctiveness from

others – for example, with workgroups or teams that are more exclusive than the

organizations inwhich they operate (Brewer, 1991; van Knippenberg & van Schie, 2000).

However, data from at least three other studies (e.g., van Dick et al., 2005; Johnson,

Morgeson, Ilgen, Meyer & Lloyd, 2006; Millward, Haslam & Postmes, 2007) suggest that,

given variation in accessibility and/or fit, organizational identification can be higher than

workgroup identification irrespective of opportunities formore exclusive lower-level self-

categorization. For instance, Johnson et al. (2006) found this to be the case amongveterinarians who had a financial stake (i.e., as owners/partners) in profession-relevant

organizationscomparedwithveterinarianswithoutanysuchfinancial stake. Johnsonet al.

(2006) deduced that organizational identification mattered more for the self-esteem of

owner/partnerveterinarians than it did for thosewithout any suchfinancial orprofessional

stake in their organization. In accordance with the accessibility principle, this provides

support for the influence of pre-disposing values and investments on identity salience.

Similarly, Millward et al. (2007) found that employees who hot-desk (i.e., who work

without assigned desks or designated office territory) are more highly identified with theorganizationthanwiththeteambutthattheoppositewasthecaseforfixed-deskemployees.

These researchers argued that this was because everyday social imperatives led hot-desk

employees to bemore engagedwith the ‘organization’ thanwith the ‘team’, and hence for

theseworkers, organizational identitywasmore accessible (i.e., historically speaking) and

fitting (i.e., comparatively speaking) than team identity. By contrast, fixed-desk employees

weremoreengagedat theco-located team level. Importantly, thesefindingswereobtained

despite the fact that all employees (whether hot-desk or fixed-desk) were members of

designated teams. This supports claims that contextual factors are important determinantsof the level of abstraction at which employees’ identities are defined.

Finally, van Dick et al. (2005) showed how even aminimal manipulation of identity fit

in the form of the explanatory frame used to introduce research could alter the relative

strength of identities among 464 teachers from two different types of school (elementary,

high). Specifically, making respondents think that the researchers were interested in

teachers’ school or occupation altered the relative strength of corresponding foci of

identification relative to a control group (who were given no explanatory frame).

Amongst other things, this meant that the fit of ‘school’ identity was heightened byfocusing teachers on ‘differences between elementary and secondary school teachers’,

and the fit of ‘occupational’ identity was heightened by focusing teachers on ‘differences

between schoolteachers and kindergarten educators’ (van Dick et al., 2005, p. 279).

Together, findings from these three studies support principles derived from SCT in

suggesting that the strength of workgroup and organizational identification varies

Foci of identification 53

systematically as a function of the relative accessibility of these identities (e.g., reflecting

an employee’s enduring membership in a particular workgroup or team) and/or their fit

(e.g., so that identity salience is affected by the context of specific work activity) rather

than the product of a general drive for optimal distinctiveness (Brewer, 1991). In short,field studies to date indicate that which focus of identification has the greatest

psychological impact for employees is a function of particular contextual imperatives

bearing upon organizational members at a given point in time.

Nevertheless, the nature of these contextual factors remains to be carefully isolated

and pinned down, and this has been identified as a key issue for researchers in this area

(e.g., Ashforth, Harrison & Corley, 2008; Ashforth & Johnson, 2001). With this goal in

mind, the present study seeks to advance understanding of the way in which accessibility

and fit can moderate employees’ organizational identification (assessed in relation todifferent foci: organizational, workgroup and career). Consistent with van Dick et al.

(2005), we also examine the extent to which career identities (Ouwerkerk, Ellemers &

de Gilder, 1999) may compete for salience in the business world (e.g., Herriot & Scott-

Jackson, 2002; Sparrow, 2000). Notwithstanding the strongly organizational and/or

institutional (e.g., profession) context of careers (Johnson et al., 2006), we suggest that

career identification is likely to be associated more closely with uniquely personal goals

than other foci of identification in organizational contexts.

The present study

Weused amixedMANOVAdesign to investigatewithin-subject variation in the strength of

three different foci of identification (organizational, workgroup and career) across

employees exposed to one of three manipulated levels of identity fit (organizational,

workgroup, career)within two organizations (public sector, private sector –pertaining toa culture-based comparison of different conditions of identity accessibility). Only the

finance employees in comparable jobs (i.e., administrative and clerical) were targeted forinclusion in the study. They were matched for age, organizational tenure and gender.

The public-sector organization was selected because of its collectivistic cultural

orientation –most notably because it explicitly valued interdependence (e.g., decentral-

ized management, strong workgroup identities) and actively promoted the development

of collegial relationships (e.g., on-the-job mentoring, coaching and peer training). In

contrast, the private-sector organization was selected for its individualistic cultural

orientation exhibited through an emphasis on personal development over group values.

Differentials in value orientations in corporate rhetoric were confirmed statistically usingrelevant psychometric analysis (see below; as also observed by Markovits, Davis & van

Dick, 2007). Although sector differences on this particular dimension can sometimes be

overstated (e.g., Boyne, 2002; Rainey & Bozeman, 2000), these public-/private-sector

cultural differences align with patterns previously observed by researchers in the field

(e.g., Lyons, Duxbury & Higgins, 2006). Whilst there are also many other ‘approaches to

employment’ (e.g., differential commitment, satisfaction, growth needs, work ethic’;

Markovits et al., 2007, p. 84) in terms of which public and private sectors might be

compared, for current theoretical purposes, we focus on the collectivist/individualistdimension, which is most clearly linked to potential variations in the accessibility of

identities defined at different levels of abstraction (Jetten, Postmes & McAuliffe, 2002).

Importantly too, we do not claim that this dimension is in any sense equivalent to

organizational culture – only that it is a theoretically relevant aspect of culture (Millward,

2005). Specifically, whilst a collectivist value orientation may pre-dispose employees to

54 Lynne J. Millward and S. Alexander Haslam

identify more highly with their workgroup than with their organization (i.e., because it

values interdependence), in a cultural environmentwhichpromotes individualistic values

(i.e., those valuing self-reliance), career identification may be a more accessible form of

identification.According to the accessibility principle, we hypothesized that

H1: Workgroup identification would be higher than organizational and career foci of

identification in the public-sector (collectivist) organization but not in the private-

sector (individualist) organization (H1a), whilst career identification would be

higher than organizational and workgroup foci of identification in the private-sector

organization but not in the public-sector organization (H1b).

According to the fit principle, we hypothesized that

H2: Workgroup identification would be higher than organizational and career

identification when the fit manipulation made workgroup identity salient (H2a),

that organizational identification would be higher than workgroup and career

identification when the fit manipulation made organizational identity salient

(H2b) and that career identification would be higher than organizational and

workgroup identification when the fit manipulation made career identity salient

(H2c).

Finally, despitemaking no strong predictions about the extent towhich social context(i.e., fit) manipulations interact with pre-existing values (i.e., accessibility), we were

nevertheless interested in the extent and nature of their interaction (as in Oakes et al.,

1991) and this is something that the present study also explores.

Method

Design and research context

The study had a mixed three-factor MANOVA design. There were two between-subject

factors (organization type: public sector, private sector; identity fit: organization,

workgroup, career) and a within-subjects factor (focus of identification: organization,

workgroup, career).

The study involved distributing a questionnaire to employees of large healthcare

enterprises in the UK each with around 30,000 employees. Workgroup arrangementswere comparable in their purpose and function across both organizations: all were co-

located, all employees had assigned desks, and members were not goal-interdependent.

Moreover, despite some tendency to have more small workgroups in the private-sector

organization, there was no systematic variation in the size of workgroups (small = 2–5,medium = 6–10, large = 11+) across public (small = 67, medium = 67, large = 14) and

private-sector organizations (small = 95, medium = 58, large = 15), v2 = 4.27, p = .118,

g2p = .090. Organizational comparability on size of workgroup is essential to rule out size

differentials as an explanation for variations in strength of identification1 (Lipponen,Helkama, Olkkonen & Juslin, 2005).

1 The fact that there were more small workgroups in the public-sector organization might lead one to expect that workgroupidentification would be higher amongst these employees. However, as discussed in the Results section below, there was noevidence that this was the case. Moreover, our key hypotheses related to interaction effects that would be unaffected by baselinedifferences of this form.

Foci of identification 55

Nevertheless, on a priori theoretical grounds, we did expect there to be macro-level

differentials across organizations in value orientation. This was confirmed at an individual

level using Dorfman and Howell’s (1988) six-item sub-scale of collectivism/individualism

adapted fromHofstede (2003)work on national cultures (see also Triandis, 1995). Typicalitems include ‘group welfare is more important than individual rewards’ and ‘individuals

may be expected to give up their goals to benefit group success’. Respondents indicated

the extent of their agreement with each of the six items on a seven-point Likert scale and

the scale as a whole had good reliability (a = .75). Findings confirmed the validity of the

distinction between samples that had been made on a priori theoretical grounds as the

private-sector employeeswere significantlymore individualist (less collectivist;M = 5.30,

SD = 2.9) than the public-sector employees (M = 4.43, SD = 2.8), t(272) = 2.53,

p = .012.

Participants and procedure

Three hundred and twenty administrative and clerical employees from the finance

divisions in each organization were targeted for inclusion. A total of 166 usable

surveys (response rate of 52%) were returned from finance employees in the private-

sector organization (59, 57 and 50 completing the career, organizational and

workgroup manipulations, respectively). In all, 146 usable surveys were returnedfrom finance employees in the public-sector organization (response rate of 46%; 53,

47 and 47, completing the corresponding manipulations). Analysis indicated that

response rate did not vary as a function of organization type or manipulated fit

(v2 = 1.063, p = .29).

The public-sector sample was slightly but not significantly older on average than the

private-sector sample, Ms = 38.09, 36.53, respectively, t (311) = �1.12, p = .264.

Average job tenure was 7.75 (SD = 7.80) years for public and 7.99 (SD = 8.78) years

for private-sector organizations, t (311) = .250, p = .802. Finally, whilst there wereproportionatelymoremen thanwomen in the sample overall, the gender distributionwas

similar in the two organizations (public sector: 105 men, 63 women; private sector: 89

men, 59 women; v2 = 1.86, p = .729, g2p = .02).

Both surveys were distributed by e-mail by the first author accompanied with an

endorsed request for participation from an Executive Officer in the organization and a

guarantee of anonymity and confidentiality. The results of completed questionnaireswere

automatically returned to a designated inbox before a predetermined date.

Fit manipulation and measures

To manipulate identity fit, the rubric of the questionnaire was varied so as to focus

participants’ attention on either organizational, workgroup or career identification.

Specifically, along the lines of the widely used ‘three things’ method (Haslam, Oakes,

Reynolds & Turner, 1999), this between-subject manipulation involved asking each

participant to list things about their organization/workgroup/career that (1) made them

proud, (2) had a good reputation and (3) were highlights. In encouraging respondents toreflect on positive aspects of the personal or social self (Tajfel, 1978), this particular

manipulation speaks most clearly to the evaluative dimension of identity (as opposed to

other dimensions; for example, as identified by Cameron, 2004; Jackson & Smith, 1999;

Leach, van Zomeren, Zebel, Vliek &Ouwerkerk, 2008) and hence to normative aspects of

fit (see Haslam, 2001).

56 Lynne J. Millward and S. Alexander Haslam

The questionnaire then asked employees to complete six tasks, but the only measures

that were relevant to the present study were three-four-item scales used to assess

organizational, workgroup and career identification.2 These contained items from other

widely used scales (e.g., Haslam et al., 1999; Mael & Ashforth, 1992; as discussed byHaslam, 2001) whose wording could be modified straightforwardly so as to apply to all

three foci of identification. Specifically, the items were ‘I am proud of my career/work-

group/organization’, ‘My career/workgroup/organization is important to me’; ‘When

someone praises my career/work-group/organization it feels like a personal compliment’

and ‘I am very interested inwhat others think aboutmy career/work-group/organization’.

Responses weremade on seven-point Likert scales, where a higher score indicates higher

identification with the career/workgroup/organization.

Results

Analysis starts with the presentation of descriptive statistics and correlations. Mixed

two-wayMultivariate Analyses of Variance (MANOVAs) are then used to test hypotheses 1

and 2. Finally, a mixed MANOVA is used to investigate interactions between accessibility

and fit factors3. All analyses were checked separately for covariance with age,organizational tenure and gender, but none of these potential covariates were significant

and controlling for them did not change the overall pattern of results.

Descriptive statistics and correlations

Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, coefficient alphas for all measures and

correlations across primary dependent variables. Table 2 provides means and standard

deviations as a function of organizational sector (public, private – a proxy foraccessibility), manipulated fit (organization, workgroup, career) and focus of identifica-

tion (organization, workgroup, career). The pattern of means suggests some systematic

variation as a function of both independent variables. In particular, whilst workgroup

identification is higher overall, it is not consistently higher than either organizational or

career identification.

Tests of hypotheses

Organizational (accessibility) differences in foci of identification

To investigate the accessibility principle, H1 predicted that workgroup identification

would be higher than organizational and career foci of identification in the public-sectorbut not the private-sector organization (H1a), whilst career identificationwould be higher

than organizational andworkgroup foci of identification in the private-sector organization

but not the public-sector organization (H1b). This hypothesis was tested using a mixed

MANOVA examining within-subject differences in strength of identification as a function

of participants’ organization (private sector, public sector). The overall between-subject

main effect for organization (public sector:M = 5.46 SD = 1.06; private sector:M = 5.52

2 The other four tasks were of pragmatic relevance to the organization and unrelated to the present research questions.3 It is possible that there was some interdependence within the data arising from the fact that participants belonged to the sameworkgroup.We did not collect the data that would allow us to test for this (and assess any impact it might have had), but note thatin other studies that have examined such effects, they have been of minimal consequence (e.g., Haslam et al., 2006).

Foci of identification 57

SD = 1.01; Tukey = ns) was not significant, F(1, 312) = 0.437, p = .509, but there was a

significant within-subject main effect for focus of identification (organization: M = 5.47

SD = 1.03, workgroup: M = 5.87 SD = 1.09, career: M = 5.14 SD = 1.19, Tu-

key’s = ps < .001), F(1,312) = 24.94 p < .001, g2p = .074 (a moderate effect size).

Nevertheless, it is the two-way interaction between organization and foci of

identification that is most pertinent to H1, and this interaction was significant, F

(1,312) = 55.41 p � .001, g2p = .15, (a large effect size). Whilst participants generally

had higher levels of workgroup identification than organizational identification and

higher levels of organizational identification than career identification (see Table 1), as

predicted by H1a, workgroup identification was significantly higher than both organi-

zational identification (d = 0.7) and career identification (d = 1.6) in the public-sector

organization but not in the private-sector organization (d = 0.2 and d = �.04, respec-

tively; all Tukey’s = ps < .001; [F(1,312) = 19.06 p < .001 Table 2]. Moreover, as

predicted by H1b, career identification was significantly higher than organizationalidentification in the private-sector organization but not in the public-sector organization

[ds = 1.6, �0.9; Fs(147) = 166.17, 61.18, respectively, both ps < .001].

To summarize, whilst workgroup identification was higher than organizational

identification overall, as predicted by H1a, there was a moderating effect of sector (as a

proxy for accessibility) such this difference was significantly larger in the public-sector

organization than in the private-sector organization. By contrast, in the private-sector

organization, career identification was significantly higher than organizational

Table 1. Sample descriptive statistics together with correlations and coefficient alphas for key scales

Variable M SD a 2 3 4

1. Workgroup identification 5.87 1.09 .91 .39** .08 .30**

2. Organizational identification 5.45 1.05 .91 .24** �.09

3. Career identification 5.14 1.19 .78 .02

4. Cultural beliefs 4.43 3.08 .82

5. Age 37.26 10.65

6. Job tenure (years) 7.88 8.34

7. Gender† 1.29 .46

Note. **p < .01.†1 = male, 2 = female.

Table 2. Mean identification (and standard errors) as a function of organizational sector, fit, and focus of

identification

SectorPublic Private

Fit Organization Workgroup Career Organization Workgroup Career

Focus of identification

Organization 5.61 (.15) 5.42 (.15) 5.53 (.14) 5.77 (.14) 5.22 (.14) 5.24 (.13)

Workgroup 6.12 (.15) 6.38 (.15) 6.18 (.14) 5.59 (.14) 5.38 (.15) 5.65 (.14)

Career 4.87 (.16) 4.72 (.16) 4.36 (.15) 5.52 (.14) 5.44 (.15) 5.78 (.14)

Note. Means in bold relate to cells in which there is a high degree of fit;

Means in bold and italicized relate to cells in which there is high fit and accessibility.

58 Lynne J. Millward and S. Alexander Haslam

identification, but not workgroup identification, thus providing partial support for H1b.

Considered together, and consistent with H1, these findings reveal a moderating impact

of organization (as a proxy for accessibility) on the strength of different foci of

identification.

Fit manipulation and focus of identification

H2 predicted that workgroup identification would be higher than other forms of

identification (organizational and career) when the fit manipulation made respondents’

workgroup salient (H2a); that organizational identification would be higher than other

forms of identification (workgroup and career) when the fit manipulation maderespondents’ organization salient (H2b); and that career identification would be higher

than other forms of identification (organizational and workgroup) when the fit

manipulation made respondents’ career salient (H2c). To test these hypotheses, a mixed

MANOVA was used to investigate systematic differences in relative strength of

identification across the three different foci as a function of the fit manipulation. There

was no main effect for the fit manipulation (career, workgroup, organization), F

(1,311) = 1.23, p = .29, and neither was there an interaction between the fit manipu-

lation and relative strength of the three different foci of identification, F(1,311) = 1.99,p = .38. Accordingly, H2 was not supported.

Accessibility, fit and focus of identification

A mixed MANOVA was used to explore the interaction between fit and accessibility

factors. This revealed a significant interaction, F(2,308) = 6.91, p < .001, g2p = .043 (a

modest effect size). When the fit manipulation made workgroup identity salient,

workgroup identificationwas higher than both organizational and career identification in

the public-sector organization (Ms = 6.38, 6.12, 6.11, respectively), but not in the private-

sector organization (Ms = 5.22, 5.59, 5.61, respectively; see Table 2, Row2).When the fit

manipulation made career identity salient, career identification was higher than both

organizational and workgroup identification in the private-sector organization(Ms = 5.78, 5.52, 5.44, respectively) but not in the public-sector organization (Ms = 4.36,

4.87, 4.17, respectively; see Table 2, Row 3). In short, findings point to the interactive

impact of both accessibility and fit in accounting for the relative strength of different

(organizational, workgroup, career) foci of identification.

Discussion

In this study, we looked closely at variations in the relative strength of organizational,

workgroup and career foci of identification as a function of (1) organizational differences

(as a proxy for ‘accessibility’) and (2) manipulated differences in the fit of the identity in

question.Whilst the impact of each factor independentlywas not strong and, in the case of

the fit manipulation non-significant, in combination they appeared to have a strong

moderating impact on the relative strength of different forms of identification. In manyrespects, this fits with the theoretical logic that informed the study, because self-

categorization theorists have previously argued that ‘salience is a continuous variable and

depends largely on the interaction between accessibility and fit within a given situation’

(van Dick et al., 2005, p. 5; see also Oakes et al., 1991; Turner, 1999). In this regard, the

critical finding here is that workgroup identification was highest when the fit

Foci of identification 59

manipulation made workgroup identity salient in the public-sector organization (i.e., in

which collectivist values were predicted to make workgroup identity more meaningful),

whilst career identification was highest when the fit manipulation made career identity

salient in the private-sector organization (i.e., inwhich individualist valueswere predictedto make career identity more meaningful). These findings thus point to systematic

variation in the relative strength of different foci of organizational identification broadly in

accord with the tenets of SCT on which they were based (i.e., after Turner et al., 1987,

1994).

It follows from these points that whilst at face value we find, like previous researchers

(van Knippenberg & van Schie, 2000; Riketta & van Dick, 2005), that workgroup

identification is highest overall, it is clear that contextual variations can and do also

moderate the relative strength of identification related to different foci. Most noteworthyin this respect is the finding that workgroup identification was no higher than career

identification for private-sector employees (who have a relatively individualistic orien-

tation) and that for public-sector employees, workgroup identification is only higher than

career identificationwhen the formerwasmade salient bymanipulating identity fit. It thus

appears that – like all other forms of organizational identity – the salience of employees’

workgroup identity reflects a combination of (1) cultural factors that pertain to identity

accessibility and (2) contextual factors that pertain to identity fit (as argued by van Dick

et al., 2005; Oakes et al., 1991, 1994; Turner, 1999).Evidence that contextual variations canmoderate the relative strength of identification

also undermines the argument that people will necessarily always strive to reconcile

simultaneous needs to be both similar and different by identifying more highly with

smaller more exclusive membership categories. On the contrary, our findings are

consistent with the argument that workgroup identification is only higher than other foci

of identification because it tends to be more salient in the specific contexts where

identification is assessed. This can be attributed to the fact that (1) those who regularly

work in group or team contexts are likely to see this group or team as a highly meaningful(and hence accessible) social identity (e.g., Millward et al., 2007), and (2) for these

employees, this form of identificationwill thus naturally align more strongly (i.e., fit) with

their daily task and social imperatives.

Our findings nevertheless do not entirely rule out the potential for principles of

optimal distinctiveness to explainwhyworkgroup identification is commonly higher than

other forms of organizational identification. As the most exclusive category in organiza-

tional contexts, theworkgroupmay also be an example ofwhat Rosch (1973, 1978) refers

to as a ‘basic-level’ categorization. Rosch (1978) maintains that people have an inherentpreference for ‘basic-level’ (as opposed to subordinate or superordinate) categorizations

because they are ‘maximally informative’ in terms of every day meaning and functioning.

In organizational contexts, the workgroup may be a basic-level (i.e., maximally

informative) self-categorization for many employees because it is has high cue validity

(e.g., relating to everyday team-based task imperatives; Paulus & van der Zee, 2004).

Nevertheless, in this regard,wewould argue that basic-level categorizations aremaximally

informative primarily because, in line with the principle of meta-contrast (Turner, 1985),

they (1) maximize the number of attributes shared by members of the category and (2)minimize the number of attributes shared with other categories. Thus, what is optimally

distinctive is typically also maximally informative (i.e., most comparatively fitting and

accessible) in the context in question. As Rosch, Mervis, Gray, Johnson and Bayes-Braen

(1976, p. 384) note, it is a human advantage ‘not to differentiate one stimulus from others

where that differentiation is irrelevant to the purpose at hand’. Importantly too, the

60 Lynne J. Millward and S. Alexander Haslam

findings of this study are consistent with self-categorization theorists’ claim that category

fit (in the form of high meta-contrast or optimal distinctiveness) does not structure

identification on its own, but rather in combination with category accessibility.

Accordingly, to see identification as a reflection of any one principle in isolation wouldappear to do violence to organizational reality.

Practical implications

It follows from the above analysis that if context is a key driver of identification, then there

is scope for manoeuvring identities in ways that actively harness their performance

potential (Haslam, Eggins & Reynolds, 2003). By understanding the precise conditionsunder which particular foci of identification become salient (in combination with

knowledge of which foci really matter for performance in a given context), it would

appear that there is scope to manage identity by addressing the structural and contextual

imperatives that drive this process. This is important because previous research points to

the crucial importance of organizational identity for organization-level performance

criteria such as turnover, absence levels and organizational citizenship (Albert, Ashforth&

Dutton, 2000; Ashforth & Mael, 1989; van Dick, 2004; Haslam, 2001; Haslam, Postmes &

Ellemers, 2003; Mael & Ashforth, 1992) and also productivity (van Dick et al., 2009;Millward&Postmes, 2010;Wieseke et al., 2009). At the same time, previous research also

makes it clear that if it is crucial for performance that employees identifymore highlywith

their workgroup, then this needs to be facilitated through attention to relevant structural

and contextual factors (Millward, Banks & Riga, 2010; Millward & Postmes, 2010;

Millward et al., 2007).

The fact that our simple verbal manipulation was sufficient to affect the salience of

different foci of identification for different groups of workers also suggests that, even in

complex organizational settings, language can be strategically deployed by managers orleaders to engage (or disengage) particular identities. This possibility fitswith Fiol’s (2002)

analysis of the role of language in transforming organizational identities, aswell aswith the

work of Reicher and colleagues in pointing out that language-based ‘identity entrepre-

neurship’ is a critical component of effective leadership (Reicher, Haslam & Hopkins,

2005; see also Haslam, Reicher & Platow, 2010).

These findings also mandate a more reflexive use of surveys when investigating

organizational phenomena – paying close attention to the way in which questions are

linguistically framed by survey rubric, and to the context in which questionnaires areadministered. For just as laboratory studies show that linguistic framing can influence the

way similarities, differences, gains and losses are perceived (Kahneman & Tversky, 2000;

Tversky, 1977; Tversky&Kahneman, 1981), so too the present findings suggest that these

factors are also at play in field contexts.

Limitations and recommendations for future research

Two obvious limitations of this study are (1) that we focused on a single broad cultural

difference between private- and public-sector organizations as a proxy for investigating

the impact of identity accessibility on strength of identification and (2) that there are

undoubtedly differences in the characteristics of people who are drawn into private- and

public-sector organizations. Nevertheless, we caution against overplaying cultural or

individual differences as a simple cause of the effects we have uncovered. In the first

instance, this is because we found no main effects for organizational sector, and this

Foci of identification 61

accords with the observations of Markovits et al. (2007) that differences between public

and private-sector employees are complex and multi-dimensional. At the same time, it

appears that the organizational sector in which a person works is associated with

differences in cultural values (e.g., as argued by Martin, 2002) that have an impact incombination with other factors on patterns of identification. The question of whether

(and how) individual differences feed into – or are a consequence of – organizational

values (and identities) is thus an important one for future work to address. Related

questions also concern the degree to which the identities we have studied are nested

within each other and the way in which the salience of one impacts upon that of others

(van Knippenberg & van Leeuwen, 2001; McGarty, 1999).

The cross-sectional nature of the present investigation also meant that salience could

not be ascertained at baseline. However, random assignment to each of the threemanipulations should evenly distribute a priori variation in salience and unmeasured

variables across all three groups. At the same time, fit was manipulated normatively by

generating positive in-group evaluations related to identities defined at a given level of

abstraction. It would certainly be interesting to see whether comparative fit manipula-

tions (e.g., of the form used by van Dick et al., 2005) that tap into other components of

identity (e.g., in-group ties, in-group affect, depersonalization; for example, as discussed

Cameron, 2004; Jackson & Smith, 1999; Leach et al., 2008) would have generated

different findings and to clarify the theoretical significance of any observed variation.Notwithstanding the above limitations, the main strength of the present study is that

it combined experimental and quasi-experimental design features to study identifica-

tion within a naturalistic context. This methodology, we believe, serves to maximize

both the internal and the external validity of the investigation (e.g., as recommended by

Grant & Wall, 2009) and to increase the study’s relevance as a window onto the

complex determinants of identity salience in contemporary workplaces. Importantly

too, in so far as our findings accord with the logic of theoretical principles that have

previously been studied mainly in the laboratory (e.g., Oakes et al., 1991), the presentstudy is a significant and reassuring step forward. Indeed, it is with precisely such steps

that the science of occupational and organizational psychology advances (Millward,

2005).

Acknowledgement

We are grateful to three reviewers for their constructive comments on previous drafts of

this paper. Particular thanks to Israel Berger, LynneMillward’s academic executor, for his help

with the final revision.

References

Akerlof, G., & Kranton, R. (2009). Identity economics: How our identities shape our work, wages

and wellbeing. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Albert, S., Ashforth, B. E., &Dutton, J. E. (2000). Organizational identity and identification.Academy

of Management Review, [Special issue] 25. doi:10.5465/AMR.2000.2791600

Albert, S., & Whetten, D. A. (1985). Organizational identity. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.),

Research in organizational behavior, (Vol. 8, pp. 263–295). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Ashforth, B. E., Harrison, S. H., & Corley, K. G. (2008). Identification in organizations: An

examination of four fundamental questions. Journal of Management, 34, 325–374.doi:10.1177/0149206308316059

62 Lynne J. Millward and S. Alexander Haslam

Ashforth, B. E., & Johnson, S. A. (2001). Which hat to wear? The relative salience of multiple

identities in organizational contexts. In M. A. Hogg &D. J. Terry (Eds.), Social identity processes

in organizational contexts (pp. 31–48). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of

Management Review, 14, 20–39. doi:10.5465/AMR.1989.4278999

Barreto,M., Ellemers, N., &Palacios,M. S. (2004). The backlash of tokenmobility: The impact of past

group experiences on individual ambition and effort. Personality and Social Psychology

Bulletin, 30, 1433–1445. doi:10.1177/0146167204264336Boyne, G. (2002). Public and private management: What’s the difference? Journal of Management

Studies, 39, 97–122. doi:10.1111/1467-6486.00284Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality

and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 475–482. doi:10.1177/0146167291175001Bruner, J. S. (1957). On perceptual readiness. Psychological Review, 64, 123–152. doi:10.1037/

h0043805

Cameron, J. E. (2004). A three-factor model of social identity. Self and Identity, 3, 239–262.doi: 10.1080/13576500444000047

Cornelissen, J. P., Haslam, S. A., & Balmer, J. M. T. (2007). Social identity, organizational identity and

corporate identity: Towards an integrated understanding of processes, patternings and

products. British Journal of Management, 18, 1–16. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8551.2007.00522.xDorfman, P. W., & Howell, J. P. (1988). Dimensions of national culture and effective leadership

patterns: Hofstede revisited. Advances in International Comparative Management, 3, 127–150.

Dutton, J. E., & Dukerich, J. M. (1991). Keeping an eye on the mirror: The role of image and identity

in organizational adaptation. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 517–554. doi:10.2307/256405

Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V. (1994). Organisational images and member

identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 239–263. doi:10.2307/2393235Ellemers, N., de Gilder, D., & Haslam, S. A. (2004). Motivating individuals and groups at work: A

social identity perspective on leadership and group performance. Academy of Management

Review, 29, 459–478. doi:10.5465/AMR.2004.13670967

Fiol, C. M. (2002). Capitalizing in paradox: The role of language in transforming organizational

identities. Organization Science, 13, 653–666. doi:10.1287/orsc.13.6.653.502Fiol, C. M., Hatch, M. J., & Golden-Biddle, K. (1998). Organizational culture and identity: What’s the

difference anyway? In D. Whetten & P. Godfrey (Eds.), Identity in organizations. Building

theory through conversation (pp. 56–62). Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.

Fiol, C. M., & O’Connor, E. J. (2005). Identification in face-to-face, hybrid, and pure virtual teams:

Untangling the contradictions. Organization Science, 16, 19–32. doi:10.1287/orsc.1040.0101Grant, A. M., & Wall, T. D. (2009). The neglected science and art of quasi-experimentation:

Why-to, when-to, and how-to advice for organizational researchers. Organizational Research

Methods, 12, 653–686. doi:10.1177/1094428108320737Haslam, S. A. (2001). Psychology in organizations: The social identity approach. London: Sage.

Haslam, S. A., Eggins, R. A., & Reynolds, K. J. (2003). The ASPIRe model: Actualizing social

and personal identity resources to enhance organizational outcomes. Journal of Occupational

and Organizational Psychology, 76, 83–113. doi:10.1348/096317903321208907Haslam, S. A., & Ellemers, N. (2005). Social identity in industrial and organizational psychology:

Concepts, controversies and contributions. In G. P. Hodgkinson (Ed.), International

review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 20, pp. 39–118). Chichester, UK:Wiley.

Haslam, S. A., Oakes, P. J., Reynolds, K. J., & Turner, J. C. (1999). Social identity salience and the

emergence of stereotype consensus. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 809–818.doi:10.1177/0146167299025007004

Haslam, S. A., Oakes, P. J., Turner, J. C., & McGarty, C. (1995). Social categorization and group

homogeneity: Changes in the perceived applicability of stereotype content as a function of

Foci of identification 63

comparative context and trait favorableness.British Journal of Social Psychology,34, 139–160.doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8309.1995.tb01054.x

Haslam, S. A., Postmes, T., & Ellemers, N. (2003). More than a metaphor: Organizational identity

makes organizational life possible. British Journal of Management, 14, 357–369. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8551.2003.00384.x

Haslam, S. A., Reicher, S. D., & Platow, M. J. (2010). The new psychology of leadership: Identity,

influence and power. London, UK: Psychology Press.

Haslam, S. A., Ryan, M. K., Postmes, T., Spears, R., Jetten, J., & Webley, P. (2006). Sticking to our

guns: Social identity as a basis for the maintenance of commitment to faltering organizational

projects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 607–628. doi:10.1002/job.370Hatch, M. J. (1993). The dynamics of organizational culture. Academy of Management Review,

18, 657–693. doi:10.5465/AMR.1993.9402210154

Hatch, M. J., & Schultz, M. (2002). The dynamics of organizational identity. Human Relations, 55,

989–1018. doi:10.1177/0018726702055008181Herriot, P., & Scott-Jackson, W. (2002). Globalization, social identities and employment. British

Journal of Management, 13, 249–257. doi:10.1111/1467-8551.00241Hofstede, G. (2003). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values.

(2nd ed.) Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Jackson, J.W.,& Smith, E. R. (1999). Conceptualizing social identity: A new framework andevidence

for the impact of different dimensions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 120–135. doi:10.1177/0146167299025001010

Jetten, J., Postmes, T., & McAuliffe, B. J. (2002). ‘We’re all individuals’?: Group norms of

individualism and collectivism, levels of identification and identity threat. European Journal of

Social Psychology, 32, 189–207. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.65Johnson,M. D.,Morgeson, F. P., Ilgen, D. R.,Meyer, C. J., & Lloyd, J.W. (2006).Multiple professional

identities: Examining differences in identification across work-related targets. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 9, 498–506. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.2.498Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (Eds.) (2000). Choices, values and frames. New York: Cambridge

University Press.

Leach, C. W., van Zomeren, M., Zebel, S., Vliek, W., & Ouwerkerk, J. W. (2008). Group-level self-

definition and self-investment: A hierarchical (multi-component) model of in-group

identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 144–165. doi:10.1037/

0022-3514.95.1.144

Lipponen, J., Helkama, K., Olkkonen, M., & Juslin, M. (2005). Predicting the different profiles of

organizational identification. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78, 1–17. doi:10.1348/096317904X22935

Lyons, S. T., Duxbury, L. E., & Higgins, C. A. (2006). A comparison of the values and commitment of

private sector, public sector, and parapublic sector employees. Public Administration Review,

66, 605–618. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00620.xMael, F. A., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated

model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 103–123.doi:10.1002/job.4030130202

Markovits, Y., Davis, A. J., & van Dick, R. (2007). Organizational commitment profiles and job

satisfaction among Greek private and public sector employees. International Journal of Cross

Cultural Management, 7, 77–99. doi:10.1177/1470595807075180Martin, J. (2002). Organizational culture. London, UK: Sage.

McGarty, C. (1999). The categorization process in social psychology. London, UK: Sage.

Millward, L. J. (1995). Contextualising social identity in considerations of what it means to be a

nurse. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 303–324. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420250305Millward, L. J. (2005).Understanding occupational and organizational psychology. London, UK:

Sage.

64 Lynne J. Millward and S. Alexander Haslam

Millward, L. J., Banks, A., & Riga, K. (2010). Effective self-regulating teams: A generative

psychological approach. Team Performance Management, 16, 50–73. doi:10.1108/

13527591011028924

Millward, L. J., Haslam, S. A., & Postmes, T. (2007). Putting employees in their place: The impact of

hot-desking on organizational and team identification. Organization Science, 18, 547–559.doi:10.1287/orsc.1070.0265

Millward, L. J., & Postmes, T. (2010). Who we are affects how we do: The financial benefits of

organizational identification. British Journal of Management, 21, 327–379. doi:10.1111/

j.1467-8551.2009.00667.x

Oakes, P. J. (1987). The salience of social categories. In J. C. Turner, M. A. Hogg, P. J. Oakes, S. D.

Reicher & M. S. Wetherell (Eds.), Rediscovering the social group. A self-categorization theory

(pp. 117– 141). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Oakes, P. J., Haslam, S. A., & Turner, J. C. (1994). Stereotyping and social reality. Oxford: Blackwell.

Oakes, P. J., Turner, J. C., &Haslam, S. A. (1991). Perceiving people as groupmembers: The role of fit

in the salience of social categorizations. British Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 125–144.doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1991.tb00930.x

Ouwerkerk, J. W., Ellemers, N., & de Gilder, D. (1999). Group commitment and individual effort in

experimental and organizational contexts. In N. Ellemers, R. Spears & B. J. Doosje (Eds.), Social

identity: Context, commitment, content (pp. 184–204). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Paulus, P. B., & van der Zee, K. (2004). Should there be a romance between teams and groups?

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, 475–480. doi:10.1348/

0963179042596496

Peteraf,M.,& Shanley,M. (1997).Getting to knowyou: A theory of strategic group identity. Strategic

Management Journal, 18, 165–186. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199707)18:1+<165::AID-SMJ914>3.3.CO;2-R

Prati, L. M., McMillan-Capehart, A., & Karriker, J. H. (2009). Affecting organizational identity: A

manager’s influence. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 15, 404–415.doi:10.1177/1548051809331502

Rainey, H. G., & Bozeman, B. (2000). Comparing public and private organizations: Empirical

research and the power of the a priori. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,

10, 447–470.Ravasi, D., & Schultz, M. (2006). Responding to organizational identity threats: Exploring the role of

organizational culture. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 433–458. doi:10.5465/

AMJ.2006.21794663

Reicher, S. D., Haslam, S. A., & Hopkins, N. (2005). Social identity and the dynamics of leadership:

Leaders and followers as collaborative agents in the transformation of social reality. Leadership

Quarterly, 16, 547–568. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.06.007Riketta, M., & van Dick, R. (2005). Foci of attachment in organizations: A meta-analytic comparison

of the strength and correlates of workgroup versus organizational identification and

commitment. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 67, 460–510. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2004.06.001Riketta, M., van Dick, R., & Rousseau, D. M. (2006). Employee attachment in the short and long

run. Zeitschrift fur Personalpsychologie, 5, 85–93. doi:10.1026/1617-6391.5.3.85Rosch, E. H. (1973). Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 328–350. doi:10.1016/0010-0285

(73)90017-0

Rosch, E. H. (1978). Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and

categorization (pp. 27–48). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Rosch, E. H.,Mervis, B., Gray,W.D., Johnson, D.M., & Bayes-Braen, P. (1976). Basic object in natural

categorization. Cognitive Psychology, 8, 382–429. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(76)90013-XRousseau, D. M. (1998). Why workers still identify with organizations. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 19, 217–233. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199805)19:3<217::AID-JOB931>3.0.CO;2-N

Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership: A dynamic view. San Francisco,

CA: Jossey-Bass.

Foci of identification 65

Sparrow, P. R. (2000). New employee behaviours, work designs and forms of work organization.

Journal of Managerial Psychology, 15, 202–218. doi:10.1108/02683940010320561Tajfel, H. (Ed.) (1978). Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology

of intergroup relations. London, UK: Academic Press.

Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boudler, CO: Westview Press.

Turner, J. C. (1985). Social categorization and the self-concept: A social cognitive theory of group

behaviour. In E. J. Lawler (Ed.), Advances in group processes (Vol. 2, pp. 77–122). Greenwich,

CT: JAI Press.

Turner, J. C. (1999). Some current issues in research on social identity and self-categorization

theories. In N. Ellemers, R. Spears & B. J. Doosje (Eds.), Social identity: Context, commitment,

content (pp. 6–34). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the

social group. A self-categorization theory. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Turner, J. C., Oakes, P. J., Haslam, S. A., & McGarty, C. A. (1994). Self and collective: Cognition and

social context. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 454–463.Tversky, A. (1977). Intransitivity of preferences. Psychological Review, 84, 327–352. doi:10.1037/

h0026750

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice.

Science, 211, 453–458. doi:10.1126/science.7455683van Dick, R. (2001). Identification in organizational contexts: Linking theory and research from

social and organizational psychology. International Journal of Management Reviews, 3,

265–283.van Dick, R. (2004). My job is my castle: Identification in organizational contexts. In C. L. Cooper &

I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology

(Vol. 19, pp. 171–204). Chichester, UK: Wiley.

vanDick, R., Stellmacher, J.,Wagner, U., Lemmer, G., &Tissington, P. A. (2009). Groupmembership

salience and task performance. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 24, 609–626. doi:10.1108/02683940910989011

van Dick, R., Wagner, U., Stellmacher, J., & Christ, O. (2004). The utility of a broader

conceptualization of organizational identification: Which aspects really matter? Journal

of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, 171–191. doi:10.1348/

096317904774202135

van Dick, R., Wagner, U., Stellmacher, J., & Christ, O. (2005). Category salience and organizational

identification. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78, 273–285.doi:10.1348/096317905X25779

van Knippenberg, D., & van Schie, E. C. M. (2000). Foci and correlates of organisational

identification. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, 137–147.van Knippenberg, D., & van Leeuwen, E. (2001). Organizational identity after a merger: Sense of

continuity as the key to post-merger identification. In M. A. Hogg & D. J. Terry (Eds.), Social

identity processes in organizational contexts (pp. 249–264). Philadelphia, PA: PsychologyPress.

Wieseke, J. M., Ahearne, S. K., Lam, S. K., & van Dick, R. (2009). The role of leaders in internal

marketing. Journal of Marketing, 73, 123–145. doi:10.1509/jmkg.73.2.123

Received 8 October 2010; revised version received 28 August 2012

66 Lynne J. Millward and S. Alexander Haslam