Organizational identification
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Organizational Identification (OID) is a term used in the fields of Organizational Behavior and Industrial/Organizational Psychology. A few definitions have been written over the years for OID, most of them express the notion of self reference or attachment to the organization, whether as in the perception of oneness between the self and the organization[1], or as the cognitive linking of the self to the organization[2][3]. Pratt[4] suggests that "organizational identification occurs when an individual's beliefs about his or her organization become self-referential or self- defining" (p. 172). Implicit in those definitions is the fact that one does not have to be a member of the organization in order to identify with it. Also, although the cognitive implications of identification are described, today it is argued that affective and behavioral effects emanate from OID as well.
Pratt (1998) identifies two paths to identification: through the recognition of a given organization that it is similar to the self ("identify" as in "to recognize" that the organization has similar values as mine), or through changes in the self in order to become more similar to the organization ("identify" as in "to emulate" the organizations' values into my own identity).
In order to clarify more on what organizational identification is, it is important to make the distinction between it and other organizational phenomena that are often confused with identification. Firstly internalization of organizational values, which also involves the adoption of the organization's values and beliefs, but from a different need or motive. Rather than stemming from attraction to the organization (i.e. the need to be liked), as in identification, the adoption of organization's needs in internalization stems from the need to be right. Moreover, internalization results in a more permanent change in the individual since it involves the adoption of the organization's values more deeply than identification. Also, using Pratt's (1998) conceptual distinction mentioned above, in the emulation path, internalization of the organization's values leads to, and is necessary for identification to occur.
Identification is also often confused with organizational commitment, but although commitment too involves some form of attachment to the organization, it does not explain it in self-concept terms, unlike identification. Thus, commitment concentrates more in whether the worker is satisfied with the organization, rather than with how the worker perceives himself in relation to the organization. Also, commitment involves the "acceptance" of the organization's values, whereas identification involves the "possessing", or "sharing" of the organization's values.
Lastly, identification is also sometimes confused with person-organization fit (P-O Fit), which too concentrates on the relationship between the worker and the organization. However, person-organization fit looks at this relationship from a more instrumental point of view- it involves looking at the costs or benefits of that relationship, and the gains or advantages each would give the other. Identification on the other hand, looks at organizational attachment from an identity based theory.
[edit] References
Ashforth B. E., & Mael F. A. (1989). Social Identity Theory and the Organization. Academy of Management Review, 14, 20-39.
Cheney G. (1983). On the various and changing meanings of organizational membership: A field study of organizational identification. Communication Monographs, 50, 342-362.
Dutton J. E., Dukerich J. M., & Harquail C. V. (1994). Organizational Images and Member Identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 239-263.
Pratt, M.G., (1998). To be or not to be: Central Questions in organizational identification. In Whetten D.A., & Godfrey P.C. (Eds.): Identity in Organizations: Building theory through conversation (pp.171- 207). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
