Organization Identification - Essay Example

Organization identification xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Name xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Course xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Lecture xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Date Introduction Organizational identity is a subject that is worth studying by fact, being part of an organization has been part and parcel of our lives. For progress to be noted the way things have been done in the past needs some scrutiny so that progression may be embraced in a brave approach. Organizational identification is the feeling of attachment towards organizational values and the concerned individual or otherwise the individual-organization perceptual link. Conditions like equal treatment of employees helps in developing of character with low frequency of absenteeism, exemplary job satisfaction and desirable cooperative behavior The dependent variable is commitment (organizational identification) while the independent are gender, student status and employment status (Bartels et al 2010).The type of organizational identity likely to be developed between part time and full time employment status is likely to differ to a great extent since the identity develops with time . This creates a sense of belonging and the urge to be committed to the well being of the organization and to the individual too. A factor like a threat from within the organization is a threat to a desirable organizational identity development specifically due to time be a limiting factor. Shared objectives and common values among employees and leaders in an organization bring about the aspect of future predictability trend of an organization that can be useful in the setting up of attainable goals (Gillespie and Mann 2004). Effective organizational identity among the concerned needs trust as a virtue to be fully engrained among the members. The manager’s role is best played where trustworthiness among the members is credited through rewards. Justice and support from the organization has a part to play for the organizational members since the issue of trust between the organization and its members is meant to be mutual for visionary progress (Tan and Tan 2000). In situations where organizational members highly identify themselves with it, there occurs high likelihood of rendering of services at their best to the costumers thus leading to high organization turn over. The organization has a major part to play in the internal marketing of its members which has as significant effect towards individual productivity that is largely dependent on levels of identity created. The concept of organizational identity rose interest in the 70’s with the intent of investigating on organization role towards its members, though, in recent times its evident that its essence is as paramount as it is for the external marketing of an organization. The communication strategy has a great part to play in an organization due to its effect from the managers, members and to the customer whose relationship is a prerequisite for the development of any organization (Bartels 2010). The continuance of commitment to an organization has cost incurred especially in cases of transfer thus the employment status has it role to play in the developing of organizational identity .The implication of organizational identity fully revolves around its members, the leaders and the organization as a body as the critical discussion is set to involve. Summary Several studies have focused on the concept of organization identification. There are two approaches; earlier conceptualization and Social Identity Theory. In the earlier conceptualization, Foote (1951) was the first to use the term identification in the organization context. In his conceptual paper, he considered identification as a basis for motivation. According to Foote (1951) organization is the conception of an individual as a member of an organization. The self- conception will eventually motivate an individual to act on behalf of the organization. He further described it as ‘appropriation of and commitment to certain identity or a series of identities. Brown (1969) defined organization identification as self-defining response that is set between an individual and an organization the individual belongs. Browns’ approach focuses on four aspects: consistency of individual and organizational goal, organization attraction, and loyalty to the organization and self reference to the member of the organization. The description is similar to that of Foote (1951) on the emphasis on ‘organization’ versus ‘self’; however, his approach is broader. For instance, in operationalizing one of the given four aspects, a respondent has to prioritize the identity that is most important to him or her. This aspect of Browns’ definition may appear to refer to the salience of particular identities as compared to others, rather than to that process of identification. Lee (1971) defined it as ‘the degree of the individual’s broad personal identification with the organization’ (p.215). His approach has encompassed three aspects: it describe the very sense of belonging, loyalty, similarity of an individual with the others in the organization. This definition is more distinguish than that of Browns’. However, similar to Browns (1969), he uses loyalty in the definition which relates to behaviors that defend or support the organization. Definition from the Social Identity Theory (SIT) is most dominant in the present literature. SIT has an assumption that an individual has a personal identity and various social identities to take his or her place in the world. Ashforth and Mael (1989) were the first researchers to use the Social Identity Theory. They observed organizational identification as a unique form of social identification. The significant social identification component that they referred to is the basic idea of self-categorization. Later, Dutton et al. (1994) concluded that identification is the idea of an individual’s concept that contains similar attributes to those of an organization identity. According to them, organization identification is the level to which an employee define himself by applying the same attributes as those that define an organization. Dutton et al’s view is strongly rooted in SIT. In contrast with earlier conceptualization, the term perceived organization identity is described in their review. The above definitions show some overlap. Basically, there is a linkage between the organization and the self in terms of definition of oneself in relation to the characteristics of an organization. Despite of this strong overlap, some definitions are more used and suitable than others. Some approaches describe more than identification. On other hand some scholars have chosen a narrow definition without the basics aspects of Social Identity Theory. Organization identification may define as the insight of ones with an organization (Gounarius 2006). Various positive attitudinal and most behavior outcomes are generally linked to organizational identification (Mael & Ashforth 1992). Identification is said to be linked to positive organization membership and support. Some authors observed that employees who have great identification portray organizational citizenship behavior (Christ et al 003, Feather & Rauter 2004). Strong organization identification has led to the employees having less need to move out of the organization and they are inclined to stay within the organization (Van Dick et al. 2004). Similarly, they are likely to spread a positive image of their organization. Organization prestige, which may be as a result of organization identification, is more likely to affect the employees due to perceived external prestige, that is, how the external factors and outside world view the organization. If the employee observe that influential stakeholders think well of the organization, the employee will tend to feel proud of the organization. Strong identification by an employee has therefore, been increased as a result of positive evaluation of the organization as shown by the argument above (Carmeli 2005). There has been recognition of various targets of identification; however, Gallois & Callan (2001) observed that it is very important to examine compatibility between two targets identification. They have concluded that in some instances, departmental identification may have serious impact on the larger organization (Carmeli 2005). This may be true as what may be seen as prototypical behavior for one department may be maladaptive or counter-normative for another. This will definitely affect an organization if an employee may identify strongly with an organization and develop feelings, attitudes, behaviors and beliefs that are strongly associated with membership of an organization. Nevertheless, if these attitudes, beliefs, behaviors and feelings are not compatible with professional perceptions, diminished satisfaction would be observed. This will then result to tension in the workplace. Gallois et al. (2001) studied the resultants of membership in various groups in organization would influence employee’s reaction to organizational change. This study indicated that an employee who exhibited compatible at a high degree were likely to accept changes within an organization. It is then obvious that as much as organization identification assist an employee of a certain organization to embedded in the organization, departmental identification within the same organization may result to incompatibility with other department within the organization which may affect the organization negatively. However, (Christ et al 003, Feather & Rauter 2004) did explore alternative way of operationalizing and conceptualizing the compatibility between different identification targets. They observed that identification congruency and organization communication may assist an organization in the solving incompatibility in the department within the organization. It is beyond doubt that every manager of an organization has to ensure that all employees are working accordingly and that there is job satisfaction. Fogarty et al (2000) observed that job satisfaction is a desirable outcome in every organization. Organization identification is positively connected with organizational member’s ‘self-concepts’ as already seen in the previous discussion. Therefore, it is argued that organization identification from self-concept view is linked with job satisfaction. Organization identification has therefore, proven to be a vital predictor in explaining various positive employees behavior and attitudes. Given the various benefits, it is therefore evident that an organization should fully support organization identification. However, most the authors lack detailed research on the benefit of organization identification to the customers (Christ et al 003, Feather & Rauter 2004). Not only is organization identification important in an organization but also beneficial. Employees, who identify strongly with an organization, demonstrate positive behaviors and attitude towards the organization. Stronger identification results to job satisfaction, less employees’ absenteeism, and less resigning by the employees. Basically, the employees will go an extra mile in the job. This is important as employees are very important stakeholders in an organization and they play a basic role in the enhancing the response of an organization to the external environment (Carmelli 2005). The manager therefore, is able to control and manage the organization effectively. In addition, satisfaction among the employees will also enhance satisfaction to the customer. Eventually the organization will create a positive external environment. These will the then improve the image of the organization both internally and externally resulting to achieving the set objectives. In a profit organization, employees’ behavior and attitude are basically important. They are mainly concerned with provision of service. Non-profit organizations are not spared either. Most of them are increasingly being accountable for their services (Gounarius 2006). These include: police department, hospitals and schools. Thus instead of offering services or courses, they must consider patients, civilians or students as customers who are affected by the action of the organization and also that the customers judge them. It is important to note that an organization should also value the employees by understanding their need. It is clearly obvious that employees’ organizational identification should be well managed as it is a crucial factor for success (Gounarius 2006). In conclusion, organization identification may be explains the relationship between the organization and an individual. Several authors have come up with different definition of organization identification. They have used different approaches and theory in their definitions. Organization identification is essential for any organization as it forges an employee behavior that benefits the organization at the long end. It is therefore, important that the organization to pay attention to the managing of the organizational identification. This will enable the employees to be satisfied with their work increasing the output of the organization. The external environment will then be friendly to the organization. However, further research should be done in order to assist in the full understanding the benefits of organization identity and also eliminating the negative of the same in the organization, for the benefit of the organizations. The overall benefits of organization identification can therefore, not be ignored. REFERENCES Ashforth, B, Mael, A, 1989, Social Identity Theory and the Organization. Academy of Management Review, 14, 20-39 Bartels, J, Peters, O, De Jong M, Pruyn A, and van der Molen M, 2010, Horizontal and vertical communication as determinants of professional and organizational identification. Personnel Review, 39, 210-226. Brown, M, 1969, Identification and some conditions of organizational involvement. Administrative Science Quarterly, 14, 346–355. Carmeli, A, 2005, Perceived external prestige, affective commitment, and citizenship behaviors. Organization Studies, 26, 443-464. Christ, O, Wagner, J, Stellmacher, and Van Dick, R, 2003, When teachers go the extra mile: Foci of organizational identification as determinants of different forms of organizational citizenship behavior among schoolteachers. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 329 341. Dutton, J, Dukerich, J, and Harquail, C, 1994, Organizational images and member identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 239-263. Feather, N, Rauter, K, 2004, Organizational citizenship behaviors in relation to job status, job insecurity, organizational commitment and identification, job satisfaction and work values. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, 81-94. Fogarty, T, Singh, G,Rhodes, and Moore,K, 2000, Antecedents and Consequences of Burnout in Accounting: Beyond the Role Stress Model. Behavioral Research in Accounting, (Vol.12):31-67. Foote, N, 1951, Identification as the basis for a theory of motivation. American Sociological Review, 16, 14–21. Gallois, C, Tluchowska, M, Callan, V, 2001, Communicating in times of uncertainty: The role of nested identities in the assessment of the change process. Paper presented to the Organizational Communication Division at the May, 2001 International Communication Association Conference, Washington, DC. Gillespie, N, Mann, L, 2004, ’’Transformational Leadership and Shared Values: the Building Blocks of Trust”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 588–607. Tan, H, Tan, F, 2000,“Toward the Differentiation of Trust in Supervisor and Trust in Organization”, Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, Vol. 126 No.2, pp. 241–260. Gounarius, S, 2006, Internal-market orientation and its measurement. Journal of Business Research, 59, 432– 448 Lee, S.M. (1971). An Empirical Analysis of Organizational Identification. Academy of Management Journal, 14, 213–226. Mael, F, Ashforth, B, 1992, Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 103-123. Puusa, A, Tolvanen, U, 2006, Organizational Identity and Trust. Electronic Journal of Business Studies vol.11 (2). Smidts, A, Pruyn, 2001, "The impact of employee communication an perceived external prestige on organizational identification." Academy of Management Journal 49(5): 1051-62. Van Dick, R, 2004, My job is my castle: Identification in organizational contexts. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 19, 171- 203. Read More