Upload
s-alexander
View
217
Download
4
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