through Communication?
A Cross-Sectional Analysis of the Relationship between Internal and External
Communicative Aspects, Communication Climate Satisfaction and
Organizational Identification of Employees.
Author: Belinda Notter Student ID-Card Number: 11351500
Master thesis
Graduate School of Communication
Master’s Program: Communication Science (MSc) Track: Corporate Communication
Supervisor: Mr. Toni van der Meer Date of Completion: 26.06.2017
ABSTRACT
Prior research has emphasized the critical role of communication in the process of organizational identification. This research incorporated a communication science perspective on the topic of organizational identification because the empirical knowledge as to how exactly communication is relevant in the development of identification is still limited. The study suggested a positive relationship between internal and external communicative aspects and organizational identification of employees. In addition, it supported the argument, that communication climate satisfaction moderates the relationship between internal communicative aspects and organizational identification. An online questionnaire was conducted among 195 employees. The results of the regression analysis show, that adequacy of communicated information as well as perceived external reputation are positively and significantly related to organizational identification. However, no significant relationship was found between organizational identification and communication abilities of colleagues and/or supervisors, dialogue and feedback possibilities or the frequency of face-to-face communication. The moderation analysis indicated significant interaction effects of communication climate satisfaction and all internal communication variables. This finding implies that effective internal communication at the workplace can significantly affect levels of OI in situations when employees are not satisfied with the overall communication climate. The communicative approach towards organizational identification remains a big challenge for further research, as there are many indications, that communication plays an important part in the development of OI, however, which communicative processes are the most relevant and why could not yet be comprehensively established.
Keywords: Organizational Identification, Internal Communication, Communication Climate Satisfaction, Perceived External Reputation
GRADUATE SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION INTRODUCTION
Organizational identification (OI) has been recognized by scholars and practitioners as a crucial factor contributing to organizational effectiveness (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). OI is an important field of research because it involves many different antecedents and outcomes that matter to an organization (Ashforth, Harrison & Corley, 2008). OI includes many organizationally relevant behavioral outcomes such as cooperative orientations with other members of the organization, higher levels of work effort and advocacy participation (Bartel, 2001). Strong OI can positively affect employees’ supportive attitude towards the organization, their decision making, their work performance, motivation, satisfaction and wellbeing and therefore be beneficial to the overall organizational performance (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Bartel, 2001; Riketta, 2005; Smidts, Pruyn, van Riel, 2001). Considering the positive outcomes associated with OI, managers are interested to find ways to create an environment that allows identification to take place, even encourage it. Besides its organizational relevance, a lot of research has focused on the factors influencing the degree of OI, often emphasizing the crucial role of organizational communication (Bartels, Pruyn, De Jong & Joustra, 2007). However, the understanding as to how exactly communication is relevant to the process of OI is still limited (Bartels et al., 2007).
This study will incorporate a communication science perspective on the topic as prior research suggests that it is deemed to be an antecedent of OI (Scott, 2007; Smidts et al., 2001; Nakra, 2006). In today’s fast moving global economic situation with higher job mobility and with the changing needs of employees, demanding greater autonomy and control within their organization, it has become more and more challenging for organizations to positively impact OI (Atouba, Carlson & Lammers, 2016). The decentering of organizations, a steady increase in electronic communication and virtual work is a reality in today’s society and could impact the creation of shared values, expectations and reality among workers (Wiesenfeld, Raghuram
& Garud, 1998). Moreover, communication is as much a chance as a challenge for organizations: Employees have more information than ever available about employers, competing firms and employment terms, which may put their loyalty to the test (Scott, 2001). OI has been described as a psychological bond that ties individuals together to a functioning network rather than a random collection of functioning individuals. Without this bond, employees may feel disconnected from the organization, working autonomously and not necessarily in the best sense of their employer (Wiesenfeld et al., 1998). In respect thereof, fostering OI helps organizations to retain certain control over their members because identification stimulates more commitment and involvement among employees (Whetten & Godfrey, 1998).
A solution for organizations that struggle to create and maintain OI could be the strategic use of communication practices that foster OI because it can be adapted for most types of organizations. Even though research suggests, that communication plays a vital role in social identity development and maintenance, only little is known about specific communication strategies and practices that matter in the identification process (Scott, 2007; Nakra, 2006).
Through internal communication, values and goals in line with the organization’s aim can be conveyed, influencing employees to identify with the communicated messages rather than content that was not emphasized through communication (Kassing, 1997). What and how something is communicated within an organization also impacts the employees’ satisfaction with the message and affects the organization’s communication climate, two factors that are particularly essential to the process of OI (Smidts et al., 2001). Most research has taken an organization-centric view on the topic. This study however, will mainly focus on the perceptions of the employee as the receiver of the communicated information and messages, because the identification process depends on how a corporate message comes across and is understood by the receiver (Nakra, 2006). The perception of the message can define if and
GRADUATE SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION
how information about identity, culture and values of the organization is understood, and further stimulate meaningful dialogue between employer and employee, and may therefore positively impact the process of identification (Dutton, Dukerich & Harquail, 1994).
By taking a communicative approach, the current study aims to identify specific communication strategies and practices that can be helpful to create a fostering environment for OI. Some aspects will be in alignment with prior research like the reexamination of internal communicative aspects such as adequacy of communicated information or communication abilities of others at the workplace (Scott & Stephens, 2009; Smidts et al., 2001). However, this study will contribute to existing literature (Reed, Goolsby & Johnston, 2016; Scott, 2001) by taking unexplored aspects and practices into account which are especially relevant for organizations that have incorporated new ways of working. The current increase of communication technology may take its toll on OI, as research theorized that mediated communication contributes to a reduced feeling of attachment and involvement to an organization (Scott, 2001). Is face-to-face communication therefore better in fostering OI than mediated communication? And in relation to this, can OI be strengthened by offering more dialog and feedback possibilities for employees? These aspects have not been evaluated relating to OI and might offer new insights and implications for today’s organizations.
As an additional contribution, the present study supports the argument, that how satisfied an employee is with the organization's communication climate is influencing the degree of OI (Nakra, 2006). Prior research suggests that effective communication is positively related to OI. But, who is to define what effective communication is? Again, the focus of this study lies on the recipient: Communication has no effect, until someone is there to hear it (Nakra, 2006). The effectiveness of organizational communication is dependent on the employee’s perception of it: If the message is understood, if it is liked and what feelings and actions it evokes. Therefore, satisfaction with organizational communication can be used as a measure of effective communication (Nakra, 2006). This study therefore expects, that
communication climate satisfaction takes a moderating role in the relationship between internal communication and OI.
But not only internal factors can be crucial in an employees’ identification process. A lot of research suggests, that perceived external prestige is a substantial concept for the development of OI (Bartels et al., 2007; Smidts et al., 2001). For a more extensive understanding of OI, the external reputation of an organization, as perceived by its employees will be considered as an external factor. Employees’ perception of what outsiders think about their organization matters because the feeling of pride about belonging to an organization is a critical factor that shapes OI (Tajfel, 1982). The understanding of reputation in this study is again recipient based, and implies a communicative nature: It is the employees’ perception of the reputation that reveals itself in communication between them and outsiders of the organization. Both concepts, internal and external communicative aspects will therefore be incorporated into the study. The overarching research question reads as follows:
RQ: How are internal and external communicative concepts (internal employee
communication and perceived external reputation) related to the organizational identification of employees? And to what extent is the relationship between internal employee communication and organizational identification moderated by communication climate satisfaction of employees?
The present study uses an online survey questionnaire to examine the relationship between OI and internal and external communicative aspects of organizations. The cross-sectional survey will collect self-reported information from employees at an individual setting.
GRADUATE SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
Organizational identification (OI)
OI is described as a form of member’s attachment to an organization and implicates numerous desirable organizational outcomes, including employee satisfaction, increased work performance and wellbeing (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Ashforth et al., 2008; Bartel, 2001; Nakra, 2006; Scott & Stephens; 2009). Employees who strongly identify themselves with the organization are more willing to behave and make decisions that affect the organization in a positive way or are in line with the organizational goals (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Smidts et al., 2001). Other relevant outcomes associated with strong OI include increased organizational citizenship behaviors and cooperation (Dukerich, Golden & Shortell, 2002; Van Dick, Grojean, Christ & Wieseke, 2006). OI is also associated with reduced turnover and turnover intentions (Van Dick, 2004; Van Dick et al., 2004). In addition, “identifying allows people to persuade and to be persuaded” (Cheney, 1983, p. 342), which suggests, that employees who strongly identify themselves with an organization are more receptive towards company rules, policies and strategies.
On an individual level, outcomes are less distinct. Prior research suggests that OI primary allows employees to fulfill self-related motives, such as self-enhancement desires, which help them to see themselves in a positive way (Ashforth et al., 2008). Individual outcomes of OI therefore mostly include the achievement of feeling positive about oneself, which can further positively impact their work performance and job satisfaction.
A theory that has occasionally been used to explain the development of OI is social exchange theory. From this perspective, employees feel the urge to reciprocate the fulfillment of their socioemotional needs with socioemotional attachment to the organization that has benefitted them (He & Brown, 2013). This notion indicated, that employees who experience beneficiary and fair treatment from their employer are more likely to have stronger OI.
This study takes a more common approach and draws from social identity theory to offer explanations for OI. Social identity theory states, that people tend to classify themselves into social groups or categories (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). The two theories do have a similarity: Namely the fulfillment of individual needs, since scholars argue, that feeling part of a group, seeking meaning, reducing uncertainty and creating a sense of order in life is also a basic human need and identification can fulfill this need (Ashforth et al., 2008).
The most commonly used definition of OI using the social identity perspective was given by Mael and Ashforth (1992, p. 104) as “the perception of oneness with or belongingness to an organization, where the individual defines him or herself in terms of the organization(s) in which he or she is a member.” This definition indicates, that OI is connected to a self-definition by the employee in terms of characteristics of the organizations. OI as a specific form of group identification is also described as “the process through which the identity is formed as a function of group membership” (Bartels et al., 2007, p. 173). These points of view show the close connection between identification and identity. Some scholars state, that employees first need to identify themselves as members of a certain organization so they can identify with the organization (Ashforth et al., 2008).
Communicative approach to OI
Social identity theory offers a perspective that fundamentally connects the concepts of identity and identification to communication (Scott, 2007). Through communication with others our belongingness to and our self-concept in terms of that group or organization can be expressed, assessed and recognized, and the costs and rewards of maintaining those identities are revealed (Scott, 2007). Essential hereby is, that OI should not be treated as a stable member attribute. It is suggested, that employees are not necessarily constantly identified with an organization, but that identification continuously varies over certain situations, interactions, activities and attachment targets (Scott & Stephens, 2009). An explanation for
GRADUATE SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION
such variation may among other factors be derived from the different communicative interaction and corresponding communication partners that employees collaborate with (Scott & Stephens, 2009). For example, employees working from home may not feel the same attachment towards their employer compared to times when they are physically present in the office and are able to discuss work related issues face-to-face with their colleagues and socially interact with them during breaks. In another example, employees who are confronted with negative news reporting about their organization may experience lower levels of OI than employees of an organization who has recently been able to communicate a great success to their employees. Therefore, it is suggested that the various communication activities that are commonly practiced in a workplace can affect the degree of identification of the employees with the organization.
That the nature of OI is a communicative one is also implied by the fact that identification can be a crucial factor to overcome disunion in an organization (Scott & Stephens, 2009), and communication builds the bridge between the organizational members to “form a shared sense of social reality” (Gossett, 2002, p. 386). Communication as a managerial instrument offers a way to express culture, values, goals and achievements of an organization to the employees and at the same time reduce uncertainties in organizational roles. The exposure to these factors, that – at least partially – compose the organization’s identity, in turn, facilitates stronger employee identification with the organization (Dutton et al., 1994).
Internal factors relating to OI
The organizational communication literature describes OI as a “language-based process of sharing in the "substance" of the organization” (Sass & Canary, 1991, p. 290). This notion indicates that OI can be shaped and induced by implementing communication-based managerial strategies (Chreim, 2002). However, vertical communication, occurring between superior and subordinate, is not the only aspect of internal communication that matters for the development of OI. Information about the organization’s identity, values and culture also transported in the communication among colleagues that hold the same hierarchical position, which is referred to as horizontal communication. The present study will elaborate on four internal communicative aspects that include vertical and horizontal communication, to take a communicative approach to OI research. The aspects included in this study are perceived adequacy of communication in the workplace, communication abilities of colleagues and/or supervisors, dialogue and feedback possibilities and communication channels. All of them are related based on how well or effectively a communicated message is formulated and perceived by the employee. The communicated message in this context conveys information about the organization, its identity, its values and culture, which can be made more or less salient to the receiver of the message and therefore stimulate more or less identification among employees.
Perceived adequacy of communication in the workplace. Prior research emphasizes
the importance of receiving useful and sufficient information about employees’ personal and organizational role to strengthen identification (Smidts et al., 2001). By providing adequate information about the organization in general (rules, policies, goals and developments) and the members’ professional roles in specific, allows the employees to learn about the organization’s identity and what distinguishes it from others as well as their own role within the company, and helps them to develop their self-concept (Dutton et al., 1994). Adequate
GRADUATE SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION
information can make the organization’s identity appear more salient and visible to its members, who are then more likely to identify with it (Smidts et al., 2001). In addition, the exposure to useful (and carefully selected) information can enhance the attractiveness of an institution, as members will perceive it more favorably, which again strengthens OI (Dutton et al., 1994; Smidts et al., 2001). Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H1: Employees’ perception of receiving adequate information is positively related to
the strength of their organizational identification.
Communication abilities of colleagues and/or supervisors. As other organizational members are often the primary source of information, the communication of and between the various members in an organization plays a critical role in the development of OI (Scott & Stephens, 2009). Communication abilities of others refer to e.g. listening, giving feedback, being able to adapt communication according to different situations and the extent to how someone is perceived as being well informed (Scott & Stephens, 2009). The communication abilities of colleagues and supervisors will here, in line with prior research (Scott & Stephens, 2009) be conceptualized as a perception and an assessment of the communicative performance of another person (McFall, 1982). Through communicative interactions with other members of the organization, a lot of information concerning the organization’s identity can be revealed (e.g. cultural values, expectations or goals). Depending on the communication abilities of the parties involved, the organization’s identity can be more or less salient and comprehensible (Scott & Stephens, 2009). The other members are also a form of embodiment of the organization’s identity (Scott & Stephens, 2009). This study proposes, that if other members of the organization deliver the necessary information in a competent way, the communicative interactions with them can strengthen OI. Therefore, it is suggested that:
H2: Employees’ perception of their colleagues and or supervisors as competent
Dialogue and feedback possibilities. In contrast to the communication abilities of other members at the workplace, the concept of dialogue and feedback possibilities assigns the employee a more active role in the communication process, namely as receiver and sender of messages, and focuses mainly on communication between employer and employee. Drawing from research about employees’ perceptions of workplace freedom of speech, this study derives assumptions about the role of employee feedback and dialogue possibilities and how this relates to commitment and identification. Scholars argue that participative communication practices between employees and the organization are other factors contributing to OI (Atouba et al., 2016). In organizations where freedom of speech is encouraged and perceived as such by employees, higher levels of organizational commitment and identification were found (Gorden & Infante, 1991; Kassing, 2000). It follows, that in organizations, where employees are free to speak their mind, an environment is created, where meaningful interactions can take place and a healthy feedback culture is actively lived, levels of OI should be higher than in other organizations. In addition, prior research suggests, that participation and the opportunity to provide and receive feedback is associated with higher levels of OI among organizational members. A study found that temporary workers often have difficulties to identify with the organization they work for because among other factors, they reported an inability to provide feedback and engage in dialogue with colleagues and supervisors (Gossett, 2002). The present research suggests, that the possibility to engage in dialogue and feedback interactions with other members of the organization is a crucial factor for the OI process. Hence, hypothesis 3 reads as follows:
H3: The extent to which dialogue and feedback possibilities are provided in an
GRADUATE SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION
Communication channels. Digitalization at the workplace changed the ways members of an organization communicate with each other. As less face-to-face communication and more computer-mediated communication is taking place in workplaces, issues regarding the identification process may emerge. This study uses the theory of media richness (Daft & Lengel, 1986; Daft, Lengel & Trevino, 1987) as a framework. Media richness theory states that different communication media vary in terms of richness; meaning their suitability to exchange understanding and convey information (Daft & Lengel, 1986; Dennis, Fuller & Valacich, 2008). Face-to-face communication is considered the richest medium, while other forms of communication that provide fewer cues (e.g. vocal or visual) or slower feedback (e.g. written communication) are considered leaner (Dennis et al., 2008).
This study argues that computer-mediated communication does not contribute as much to OI as richer forms of communication. It is possible, that the computer-mediated communication is not as fostering for the development of OI, as no nonverbal cues are revealed in such communicative interactions, which can result in less understandable and relational communication (Walther, Loh, & Granka, 2005). Because of that, the information received through computer-mediated communication may not be as adequate as the information received through face-to-face communication and may not reveal as many cues about the organization’s identity that can be used by the employee to develop a self-concept in terms of the organization’s characteristics. These suggestions have been observed in prior research, where free-lance workers and teleworkers experienced barriers to interact face-to-face with their co-workers which compromised their feeling of belonging (Gossett, 2002; Thatcher & Zhu, 2006). The reduced visibility and lack of face-to-face communication possibilities had challenged their work-related identities and affected their developments of self-concepts (Thatcher & Zhu, 2006). In addition, a lot of informal, social workplace communication, that is associated with OI, is happening through face-to-face interactions (Fay & Kline, 2012).
Drawing from social presence theory, the current study additionally hypothesizes, that decreased face-to-face communications in the workplace can potentially affect an individual’s sense of connection and commitment to the organization (Allen, 2014). Face-to-face communication, as compared to mediated communication, involves a social process that could positively contribute towards the creation of a shared reality and identity and strengthen the organizational bond among employees (Wiesenfeld et al., 1998). Therefore, the following hypothesis is developed:
H4: The frequency of face-to-face communication in an organization is positively
related to the strength of employees’ organizational identification.
Communication climate satisfaction as a moderator
As much research emphasizes the crucial role of the receiver in the communication process (Nakra, 2006), this study prioritizes the role of the receiver, in this context the employee, in the development process of OI. Therefore, to understand how different components of internal communication can affect OI, the employee’s satisfaction with these communication components should be taken into consideration as well. Prior research confirmed, that the more positively employees assess the communication climate of an organization or group, the more strongly they identify with it (Bartels et al., 2007; Bartels, Peters, de Jong, Pruyn, & van der Molen, 2010). Overall communication climate satisfaction is concerned with the level of satisfaction of employees with the organization’s overall communication climate (Nakra, 2006). A positive communication climate fosters an atmosphere of trust, openness, credibility, accuracy and frequent communication (Meintjes & Steyn, 2006). This study suggests an interaction effect of communication climate satisfaction and hypothesizes that the relationship between internal communicative aspects and the strength of organizational identification of employees will be more positive for groups who are highly satisfied with the overall communication climate than groups who are less satisfied.
GRADUATE SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION
As described earlier, the OI level of an organizational member can vary over different communicative situations and affect the degree of identification. This study presumes, that the internal communicative aspects described earlier are moderated by the satisfaction of the overall communication climate in the workplace. Thus, hypothesis 5 implies the following interaction effect:
H5: The relationships between internal communicative aspects and organizational
identification will be stronger for employees who have higher levels of communication climate satisfaction.
External factor relating to OI
Social identity theory assumes, that individuals seek social memberships to enhance their self-esteem and maintain a positive self-concept. Therefore, employees prefer group memberships they perceive as positive (Bartels et al., 2007). However, social classification does not only stem from positive internal attributes, such as employee communication, but also from external factors (Smidts et al., 2001). Perceived external reputation refers to how an employee perceives outsiders to see and judge his or her organization and him- or herself as a member of that organization (Mael & Ashforth, 1992). This aspect – although an external one – is also conceptualized as a perception of employees. Prior research has shown, that perceived external reputation is a substantial antecedent of OI (Bartels et al., 2007; Smidts et al., 2001). In line with social identity theory, employees are more likely to identify with an organization if external views/opinions of the organizations are perceived as positive by the employee (Bartels et al., 2007). Organizational members partially identify with their organization to enhance their self-esteem, as it allows them to indulge in the prestige of the organization they work for (Mael & Ashforth, 1992). This aspect of OI research is also part of a communicative approach, as perceived external reputation is conceptualized as a perception, but constituted and verified through communication of and with the social environment as
well as through media institutions (Jones & Volpe, 2011). The last hypothesis, taking into account the external factor of OI, namely the organization’s reputation as perceived by the employee, reads:
H6: A good external reputation of an organization, as perceived by its employees, is
positively related to the strength of the employee’s organizational identification.
METHODS
Selection and characteristics of respondents
The survey was directed at respondents over the age of 18 who work for an organization or are self-employed. A filter question at the beginning of the survey excluded non-employed respondents (14 in total); minimum work hours were not required, if a person was employed at least part-time. A total of 286 respondents attempted to fill out the survey. However, only 195 respondents filled out the complete survey (no missing variables), of which 41.5 percent work part-time and 58.5 percent full-time. In total 84 (43.1%) male employees participated in the study, with age ranging from 19 to 66 years with an average of 37.31 years (SD = 12.95). A total of 111 (56.9%) female employees filled out the survey, with age ranging from 19 to 62 years (M = 31.27, SD = 11.15). One question block about the communication abilities of colleagues and/or supervisors was not applicable to three respondents because they indicated that they are working on their own. They were kept in the data set and will only be excluded from the analyses regarding the respective question.
The three most common industries that the respondents work in are Health Care/Social Services (12.8%), Education (8.7%) and Scientific/Technical Services (8.7%). Most respondents work in Switzerland (77.9%), followed by the Netherlands (10.3%) and Germany
GRADUATE SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION
(5.6%). An equal number of respondents reported, that the organization they work for has between 51-250 and 1,000-3,000 employees (24.1%).
A fifth (20.5%) of the respondents hold a management position or higher, of which 77.5 percent are male. Most respondents (27.2%) have been with their current organization 1-3 years. On average the respondents work 1-35.2 hours a week. Most respondents (1-36.9%) consider 3-6 people as their direct colleagues.
Research design
This study used an online survey to conduct the quantitative analysis. The software tool Qualtrics was used to design the questionnaire. The cross-sectional survey collected self-reported information from employees at an individual setting. The questionnaire, which was to be completed voluntarily and anonymously, consisted of 24 questions in total and took about 10 minutes to fill out. It could be completed in either German or English. This study used a convenient sample. Respondents were recruited through the private and professional network of the author as well as snowballing technique.
Respondents received the link to participate in the survey either by email or Facebook messenger. The email consisted of a short invitation text, an explanation of the research and a request to forward the email to colleagues, working friends and family. Additionally, the link to the questionnaire was shared in various Facebook groups. At the very beginning of the survey an informed consent form needed to be actively accepted to proceed to the survey.
The first question was a filter question that excluded all respondents from the survey, who were not at least partially employed by an organization or self-employed. To ease the respondents into the survey, it started off with a few questions about the organization the respondents work for. These included mostly control variables (e.g. industry, tenure, work hours per week). Then, the questions followed in that order: Organizational Identification (dependent variable), Sufficiency of Information Regarding Personal and Organizational Role
(independent variable), Usefulness of Information Regarding Personal and Organizational Role (independent variables), Communication Abilities of Colleagues and/or Supervisors (independent variable), Dialog and Feedback Possibilities (independent variable), Communication Channels (independent variable), Communication Climate Satisfaction (moderator) and Perceived External Reputation (independent variable). At the end of the questionnaire, some demographic information was collected. The complete survey can be found in Appendix A (I).
Observed variables
Organizational identification (DV). The dependent variable of this study was measured by a six-item scale based on Mael and Ashforth’s (1992) research. The scale includes items such as: “When someone criticizes the organization I work for, it feels like a personal insult” and “When I talk about the organization I work for, I usually say ‘we’ rather than ‘they’.” All items of the scale can be found in Appendix A (I). All items were measured on a five-point Likert-type scale where 1 = Strongly disagree and 5 = Strongly agree. A principal component analysis showed, that the six items form a single unidimensional scale (Table 1). The scree plot showed a clear point of inflection after the first component and all items positively correlated with this component. With a coefficient alpha of .81, the scale proved to be reliable. As the scale appeared to have reliably measured the organizational identification of employees, the means of the items were computed to create the Organizational Identification Scale. The scale ranges from 1.00 to 5.00 (M = 3.45, SD = .74). The higher the score, the stronger the identification of an employee with the organization he or she works for.
Table 1 - Principal component analysis with varimax rotation for main variables
GRADUATE SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION
Eigenvalue above 1 in % loading alpha
Organizational identification 1 3.12 51.92 .83 .81 Personal Role Information Sufficiency 1 2.65 66.23 .85 .83 Personal Role Information Usefulness 1 2.83 70.78 .89 .86 Organizational Role Information Sufficiency 1 4.87 60.88 .87 .91 Organizational Role Information Usefulness 1 4.79 59.89 .84 .90 Communication abilities of others 1 3.39 56.48 .82 .84 Feedback and Dialog Possibilities 1 2.59 51.76 .85 .76 Communication Climate Satisfaction 1 3.38 67.51 .86 .88 Perceived External Reputation 1 3.05 76.28 .91 .89
Perceived adequacy of communication in the workplace (IV). This concept refers to whether employees “feel they have as much information as they feel they need [emphasis in original] on topics which they consider relevant [emphasis in original]” (Goldhaber, Porter, Yates & Lesniak, 1978, p. 80). The concept was measured by two multi-item scales developed by Smidts et al., (2001), one covering organizational information adequacy and the other one personal information adequacy. Sample items for measuring the adequacy of information on organizational issues are: “The information I receive about the goals of the organization I work for is…” and “The information I receive about how customers and/or clients evaluate our services/products is....” Sample items for measuring the adequacy of information that employees received regarding their personal roles are: “The information I receive about what is expected of me is...” and “The information I receive about how well I
fulfill my tasks is....” The two scales including all items can be found in Appendix A (I). All items for communication adequacy were rated on two five-point Likert-type scales, with respect to both sufficiency and usefulness (1 = Extremely insufficient and 5 = Extremely sufficient and 1 = Extremely useless and 5 = Extremely useful). Principal component analyses showed, that organizational and personal information adequacy are indeed separate factors; therefore, four scales need to be created (two each for sufficiency and usefulness).
Four items regarding personal information sufficiency form a single unidimensional scale (Table 1). The scale appeared to have reliably (Cronbach’s alpha = .83) measured the Information sufficiency regarding the personal role of an employee. Subsequently, the means of the items were computed to create the Personal Role Information Sufficiency Scale. The scale ranges from 1.00 to 5.00 (M = 3.87, SD = .85).
The four items concerned with the personal role information regarding usefulness also form a single unidimensional scale (Table 1) This scale also reliably (Cronbach’s alpha = .86) measured the information usefulness regarding the personal role of an employee. Subsequently, the means of the items were computed to create the Personal Role Information Usefulness Scale. The scale ranges from 1.00 to 5.00 (M = 3.91, SD = .81).
The principal component analysis of the eight items concerned with the sufficiency of information received regarding the organizational role also revealed that these items form a single unidimensional scale (Table 1). The scale proved to be reliable with a Cronbach’s alpha of .91. Subsequently, the means of the items were computed to create the Organizational Role Information Sufficiency Scale. The scale ranges from 1.00 to 5.00 (M = 3.73, SD = .82).
Lastly, the principal component analysis of the eight items concerned with the usefulness of organizational information showed, that they also form a unidimensional scale (Table 1). This scale reliably (Cronbach’s alpha = .90) measured the usefulness of organizational information and the means of the items were therefore computed to create the
GRADUATE SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION
Organizational Role Information Usefulness Scale. The scale ranges from 1.00 to 5.00 (M = 3.78, SD = .72).
Communication abilities of colleagues and/or supervisors (IV) were measured by adaptation of a six-item scale used by Monge, Bachman, Dillard and Eisenberg (1982). Examples of included items are: “Most of my colleagues and/or supervisors are good listeners” and “Most of my colleagues and supervisors are effective communicators.” The complete scale can be found in Appendix A (I). All items were measured on a five-point Likert-type scale where 1 = Strongly disagree and 5 = Strongly agree. One item was reverse coded and had to be recoded for further analyses. The principal component analysis showed, that the six items form a single unidimensional scale (Table 1). With a coefficient alpha of .84, the scale proved to be reliable. As the scale appeared to have reliably measured the communication abilities of colleagues and/or supervisors, the means of the items were computed to create the Communication Abilities of Others Scale. The scale ranges from 1.67 to 5.00 (M = 3.63, SD = .71). A high score means, that an employee perceives his colleagues and/or supervisors to be competent communicators.
Dialogue and feedback possibilities (IV). The extent to which employee feedback and open expression of opinion are encouraged in an organization was measured by the Workplace Freedom of Speech Scale (Gorden & Infante, 1991). This five-item scale measures the employees’ perceptions of the extent that an organization allows and embraces employee feedback and input. Examples of included items are: "In the organization I work for, I feel I have freedom of speech" or "In the organization I work for, superiors do not encourage subordinates to argue corporate issues"). The scale with all items can be found in Appendix A (I). The items will be measured on a five-point Likert-type scale where 1 = Strongly disagree and 5 = Strongly agree (Kassing, 2000). Three items were reverse coded and had to
be recoded before the analysis. The principal component analysis of all five items revealed that one single unidimensional scale can be computed (Table 1). The scale proved to be reliable with a Cronbach’s alpha of .76. Subsequently, the means of the items were computed to create the Dialog and Feedback Possibilities Scale. The scale ranges from 1.00 to 5.00 (M = 3.80, SD = .78). The higher the score, the greater the extent to which an organization allows and embraces employee feedback and dialog, as perceived by the employee.
Communication channels (IV). Communication media vary pertaining to information richness, which means the “ability of information to change understanding within a time interval” (Daft & Lengel, 1986, p. 560). There are richness differences between face-to-face communication and mediated communication. The frequency of face-face-to-face communication and mediated communication was measured by asking the respondents to “Please indicate how often you used the following communication media to communicate with the people you work with in the past week.” The items include face-to-face meetings/discussions/informal conversations, phone calls, Skype/video conferencing, E-mail, internal communication platforms/chats and WhatsApp/SMS. The items were measured on a five-point scale where 1 = never and 5 = always.
Overall communication climate satisfaction (MV) was measured by adaptation to the Communication Satisfaction Questionnaire by Downs and Hazen (1977). This questionnaire indicates the degree of satisfaction of employees on a five-point scale where 1 = Extremely dissatisfied and 5 = Extremely satisfied. The original Communication Satisfaction Questionnaire includes 50 items; however, only five items are relevant for measuring the communication climate satisfaction. Therefore, only these five items were used in this study (e.g. "How satisfied are you with the extent to which the people in the organization you work for have good abilities as communicators?“ or „How satisfied are you with the extent to
GRADUATE SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION
which you receive the appropriate information needed to do your job?"). An additional item (“How satisfied are you with the extent to which feedback possibilities are available at your workplace and dialog is encouraged?”) was added to cover all relevant communication climate constructs. The complete scale including all items can be found in Appendix A (I).
The principal component analysis showed, that the five items form a single unidimensional scale (Table 1). With a coefficient alpha of .88, the scale proved to be reliable. As the scale appeared to have reliably measured the communication climate satisfaction, the means of the items were computed to create the Communication Climate Satisfaction Scale. The scale ranges from 1.00 to 5.00 (M = 3.68, SD = .80). The higher the score, the more satisfied is an employee with the communication climate of his or her workplace.
Perceived external reputation (IV) was measured by selecting four relevant items from the perceived organizational prestige scale used by Mael and Ashforth (1992). The items include items such as the following: “People in my community think highly of the organization I work for” and “When talking with family and friends about the organization I work for, they often display a positive attitude towards it”). The complete scale can be found in Appendix A (I). All items were measured on a five-point Likert-type scale where 1 = Strongly disagree and 5 = Strongly agree.
The principal component analysis of the four items revealed that a single unidimensional scale can be created (Table 1). The scale proved to be reliable with a Cronbach’s alpha of .89. Subsequently, the means of the items were computed to create the Perceived External Reputation Scale. The scale ranges from 1.00 to 5.00 (M = 3.68, SD = .85). The higher the score, the better the organization’s external reputation as perceived by the employees.
Control variables. Since other factors are also influencing OI according to prior research, additional variables were included in the questionnaire such as number of employees, number of direct team members, weekly workload, tenure, employee position, industry and demographics.
Descriptive statistics. Mean, standard deviation and reach of the main variables and their correlations can be found in Table 7 in Appendix B (XV).
Statistical analyses. Hypotheses 1-4 and 6 will be tested using a hierarchical regression analysis, since all the independent variables as well as the dependent variable Organizational Identification are measured at interval level. The interaction effect of hypothesis 5 will be tested by performing moderation analyses using the macro PROCESS, with the variable Communication Climate Satisfaction as the moderator.
For regression analyses, the data should meet five key assumptions (linear relationship between the dependent variable and the independent variables, multivariate normality, no auto-correlation, homoscedasticity and no or little multicollinearity). Scatter plots, histograms and Durbin-Watson test results indicated that the first four assumptions are met by the data. However, correlations tables showed, that some key variables are highly correlated with each other, which can be an indication for multicollinearity. Hence, the assumption was additionally tested by the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) statistic. Since the VIFs of the key variables are smaller than ten, multicollinearity is not assumed.
GRADUATE SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION
Descriptive results. A majority of respondents (54.9%) reached an overall score between 3.5 and 5 on the Organizational Identification Scale, indicating that they experience strong identification with the organization they work for. Medium identification was scored by 42 percent of the respondents and only 3.1 percent of the respondents scored below 1.7 on the Organizational Identification Scale, indicating that they experience weak identification with the organization they work for. An independent samples T-test revealed a significant difference between male (M = 3.60, SD = .70) and female respondents (M = 3.33, SD = .75), t (193) = -2.55, p = .012, 95% CI [-0.47, -0.06] in relation to their organizational identification, indicating that male employees experience a higher organizational identification than female employees.
Correlations of the dependent variable with the control variables indicate that Age and Gender of respondents as well as Tenure, Work position, Average weekly work and Number of employees should be included in further analyses (Table 2).
Table 2 - Correlations of dependent variable and control variables. Age Gender Tenure Work
position Average weekly work hours Number of direct colleagues Number of employees OrgID .18* .18* .23** .32** .18* .05 -.15* *p < .05, ** p < .001, N = 195.
Hypothesis testing. To test hypotheses 1 – 4 and 6, a six stage hierarchical multiple regression was conducted with Organizational Identification as the dependent variable. Control variables were entered at stage one of the regression. The Information Adequacy variables (Personal Role Information Sufficiency, Personal Role Information Usefulness, Organizational Role Information Sufficiency, Organizational Role Information Usefulness) were entered at stage two, Communication Abilities of Others at stage three, Dialog and Feedback Possibilities at stage four, Communication Channels (face-to-face meetings/discussions/informal conversations, phone calls, Skype/video conferencing, E-mail,
internal communication platforms/chats and WhatsApp/SMS) at stage five and Perceived External Reputation at stage six. The regression statistics are reported in Table 3.
The hierarchical multiple regression revealed that at Stage one, demographics contributed significantly to the regression model, F (6,185) = 5.69, p< .001) and accounted for 15.6 percent of the variation in Organizational Identification (R2 = .16). Of the three predictors, Tenure (b* = .19, t = 2.19, p = .030), Work Position (b* = .25, t = 2.94, p = .004), and Number of employees (b* = -.17, t = -2.43, p = .016), contributed significantly to Organizational Identification.
The result of model 2 of the hierarchical regression analysis supports hypothesis 1, “Employees’ perception of receiving adequate information is positively related to the strength of their organizational identification.” Introducing the Information Adequacy variables into the model explained an additional 17.4 percent of the variation in Organizational Identification and this change in R² was significant, F (4, 181) = 11.72, p < .001. On their own, none the four predictors were significant. Organizational Role Information Usefulness was marginally significant, b* = .21, t = 1.94, p = .054. The significance of the overall Information Adequacy model is due to the correlations between the four predictors.
Model 3 of the hierarchical regression does not support hypothesis 2, “Employees’ perception of their colleagues/supervisors as competent communicators is positively related to the strength of their organizational identification.” Adding Communication Abilities of Others to the regression did not improve the model (R² = .00) and the change in R² was not significant, F (1,180) = .12, p = .735.
The same applies to the next block of the model: Dialog and Feedback Possibilities was introduced at stage four but did not contribute for any variation in Organizational Identification and therefore R² did not change significantly, F (1, 179) = .18, p = .668. These results of model 5 indicate, that Hypothesis 3 “The extent to which dialog and feedback
GRADUATE SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION
possibilities are provided in an organization is positively related to the strength of employees’ organizational identification” must be rejected.
Hypothesis 4, “The frequency of face-to-face communication in an organization is positively related to the strength of employees’ organizational identification” was also rejected. Introducing the Communication Channel variables into the model explained an additional 2.9 percent of the variation in Organizational Identification, but this change in R² was not significant, F (6, 173) = 1.29, p = .263.
Table 3 - Linear hierarchical regression model explaining Organizational Identification
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6
Predictors b* b* b* b* b* b*
Age Gender Tenure Work position
Average weekly work hours Number of employees -.06 .06 .19* .25* .04 -.17* -.12 .04 .21* .21* .03 -.16* -.13 .04 .21* .20* .03 -.16* -.13 .04 .21* .21* .03 -.15* -.11 .02 .19* .19* .05 -.15* -.08 .01 .18* .18* .06 -.18* Information Adequacy:
Pers. Role Information Sufficiency Pers. Role Information Usefulness Org. Role Information Sufficiency Org. Role Information Usefulness
-.04 .15 .17 .21 -.03 .15 .17 .21 -.04 .14 .16 .21 -.03 .08 .15 .23* -.02 .05 .10 .21
Communication Abilities of Others -.03 -.03 -.02 -.04
Dialog and Feedback Possibilities .03 .04 .02
Communication Channels: Face-to-face
Phone calls
Skype/video conferencing E-mail
Internal comm. platforms/chats WhatsApp/SMS .09 .04 .04 -.10 .06 .09 .08 .02 .05 -.09 .05 .08
Perceived External Reputation .20*
F F(6, 185) = 5.69 F(4, 181) = 11.72 F(1, 180) = .12 F(1, 179) = .18 F(6, 173) = 1.29 F(1, 172) = 7.69
R2 .16 .33 .33 .33 .36 .39
R2 .16** .17** .00 .00 .03 .03*
GRADUATE SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION
Finally, model 6 supports hypothesis 6 “A good external reputation of an organization, as perceived by its employees, is positively related to the strength of the employee’s organizational identification.” The addition of Perceived External Reputation to the regression model explained an additional 2.7 percent of the variation in Organizational Identification and this change in R² was significant, F (1,172) = 7.69, p = .006. Perceived External Reputation therefore significantly predicts Organizational Identification, b* = .20, t = 2.77, p = .006. Together the 19 independent variables accounted for 38.7 percent of the variance in Organizational Identification.
The PROCESS 2.16.1 macro for SPSS was used to investigate overall hypothesis 5 “The relationships between internal communicative aspects and organizational identification will be stronger for employees who have higher levels of communication climate satisfaction.” For this analysis, each independent variable had to be tested individually with Organizational Identification as the dependent variable and Communication Climate Satisfaction as the moderator variable (Hypotheses 5a, 5b, 5c, 5d, 5e, 5f, 5g). The following paragraph covers the results for the independent variable Personal Role Information Sufficiency. To avoid repetition, the results of the moderation analyses of the other independent variables are summarized in Table 4 and Table 5. At the end of the paragraph, a summary of the overall results is given.
Table 4 - Model Summaries
Hypothesis F p R2 5a F(3, 191) = 11.89 p < .001 R2 = .18 5b F(3, 191) = 18.34 p < .001 R2 = .20 5c F(3, 191) = 11.59 p < .001 R2 = .19 5d F(3, 191) = 17.06 p < .001 R2 = .23 5e F(3, 188) = 6.77 p < .001 R2 = .15 5f F(3, 191) = 10.47 p < .001 R2 = .15 5g F(3, 191) = 6.71 p < .001 R2 = .14
With Personal Role Information Sufficiency as the independent variable, the overall model is significant, F(3, 191) = 11.89, p < .001, R2 = .18. This result indicates, that 18 percent of the variance in organizational identification is due to Personal Role Information Sufficiency, Communication Climate Satisfaction and their interaction. When taking a closer look at each tested predictor (Table 5), it shows that the moderator Communication Climate Satisfaction does not significantly predict Organizational Identification, b = .07, t = .89, p = .375, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.24] in this model. Personal Role Information Sufficiency is a significant predictor of Organizational Identification in this model, b = .19, t = 2.23, p = .027, 95% CI [0.02, 0.36]. These results indicate, that for every unit increase on the Personal Role Information Sufficiency Scale, we get an 0.19 unit increase on the Organizational Identification Scale. The interaction effect was also found to be statistically significant, b = -.18, t = -3.00, p = .003, 95% CI [-0.30, -0.06].
The conditional effects of the independent variable on the dependent variable of different values of the moderator reveal, that the predicted effect of Personal Role Information Sufficiency at an average level (M= 3.68) of Communication Climate Satisfaction is significant, b = .19, t = 2.23, p = .027, 95% CI [0.02, -0.36]. At the level of one standard deviation below the mean (low level = 2.88), the predicted effect of Personal Role Information Sufficiency is also significant b = .33, t = 3.82, p < .001, 95% CI [0.16, -0.51]. At the level of one standard deviation above the mean (high level = 4.48), the predicted effect of Personal Role Information Sufficiency is not significant b = .05, t = .43, p = .667, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.26]. Therefore, at the low level of Communication Climate Satisfaction, for each additional point on the Personal Role Information Sufficiency Scale the average organizational identification increases by 0.33 unit. At an average level of Communication Climate Satisfaction, for each additional point on the Personal Role Information Sufficiency Scale the average organizational identification increases by 0.19 unit.
GRADUATE SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION
The Johnson-Neyman technique additionally shows, that at low levels of Communication Climate Satisfaction the prediction effect is significant and positive. The effect strength gets lower as Communication Climate Satisfaction levels rise. From a little above average level of Communication Climate Satisfaction (at value 3.97), the relationship is not significant anymore, b = .17, t = 1.97, p = .05, 95% CI [0.00, 0.34]. The interpretation of this interaction effect is illustrated in Figure 1. The result does not support Hypothesis 5a “The relationships between Personal Role Information Sufficiency and Organizational Identification will be stronger for employees who have higher levels of Communication Climate Satisfaction”, which is therefore rejected.
Figure 1 – Interaction effect of Personal Role Information Sufficiency and Communication climate satisfaction
For all independent variables, the overall moderation models, as well as the interaction effects, were significant, indicating that effect of the independent variables on the dependent variables depends on the level of the moderator. However, all b values of the interaction effects are negative, which indicated, that the more negative the moderator variable is, the more positive the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable becomes. The conditional effects, as well as the Johnson-Neyman technique, additionally show, that at low levels of Communication Climate Satisfaction the prediction effect of all independent variables is significant and positive, which indicates, that hypotheses 5b, 5c, 5d, 5e, 5f, 5g must be rejected (Table 5 and Table 6). Additional figures of all interaction effects can be found in Appendix C (XVI).
32 Table 5 - Organizational Identification predicted from the independent variables.
Predictors b t p 95% CI
Hypothesis 5a Personal Role Information Sufficiency .19 2.23 .027* [0.02, 0.36]
Communication Climate Satisfaction .07 .89 .375 [-0.09, 0.24]
Personal Role Information Sufficiency X Communication Climate Satisfaction -.18 -3.00 .003* [-0.30, -0.06]
Hypothesis 5b Personal Role Information Usefulness .21 2.76 .006* [0.06, 0.36]
Communication Climate Satisfaction .09 1.16 .249 [-0.07, 0.25] Personal Role Information Usefulness X Communication Climate Satisfaction -.16 -3.25 .001* [-0.26, -0.06]
Hypothesis 5c Organizational Role Information Sufficiency .26 3.38 .001* [0.11, 0.42]
Communication Climate Satisfaction .03 .42 .675 [-0.13, 0.19]
Organizational Role Information Sufficiency X Communication Climate Satisfaction -.15 -2.47 .014* [-0.27, -0.03]
Hypothesis 5d Organizational Role Information Usefulness .35 3.77 .000** [0.17, 0.53]
Communication Climate Satisfaction .07 .91 .366 [-0.08, 0.21]
Organizational Role Information Usefulness X Communication Climate Satisfaction -.13 -2.20 .029* [-0.24, -0.01]
Hypothesis 5e Communication Abilities of Others -.12 -1.38 .170 [-0.29, 0.05]
Communication Climate Satisfaction .27 3.00 .003* [0.09, 0.44] Communication Abilities of Others X Communication Climate Satisfaction -.25 -3.19 .002* [-0.40, -0.09]
Hypothesis 5f Dialog and Feedback Possibilities .14 1.32 .187 [-0.07, 0.36]
Communication Climate Satisfaction .16 1.64 .102 [-0.03, 0.36] Dialog and Feedback Possibilities X Communication Climate Satisfaction -.18 -2.53 .012* [-0.31, 0.04]
Hypothesis 5g Frequency of Face-to-face Communication .08 1.19 .235 [-0.05, 0.21]
Communication Climate Satisfaction .20 2.84 .005* [0.06, 0.34] Frequency of Face-to-face Communication X Communication Climate Satisfaction -.12 -2.01 .046* [-0.25, -0.00]
Table 6 - Conditional effects of independent variables on Organizational Identification
Predictor Values of moderator b t p 95% CI
Personal Role Information Sufficiency One SD below mean 2.88 .33 3.82 .000** [0.16, 0.51] At the mean 3.68 .19 2.23 .027* [0.02, 0.36] One SD above mean 4.48 .05 .43 .667 [-0.17, 0.26] Personal Role Information Usefulness One SD below mean 2.88 .34 4.45 .000** [0.19, 0.49]
At the mean 3.68 .21 2.76 .006* [0.06, 0.36] One SD above mean 4.48 .08 .86 .390 [-0.11, 0.27] Organizational Role Information Sufficiency One SD below mean 2.88 .38 4.54 .000** [0.22, 0.55]
At the mean 3.68 .26 3.38 .001* [0.11, 0.42] One SD above mean 4.48 .14 1.46 .147 [-0.05, 0.34] Organizational Role Information Usefulness One SD below mean 2.88 .45 5.36 .000** [0.28, 0.61]
At the mean 3.68 .35 3.77 .000** [0.17, 0.53] One SD above mean 4.48 .24 2.05 .042* [0.01, 0.48]
Communication Abilities of Others One SD below mean 2.89 .08 .74 .460 [-0.13, 0.28]
At the mean 3.68 -.12 -1.38 .170 [-0.29, 0.05] One SD above mean 4.47 -.32 -2.87 .005* [-0.53, -0.10]
Dialog and Feedback Possibilities One SD below mean 2.88 .28 2.67 .008* [0.08, 0.50]
At the mean 3.68 .14 1.32 .187 [-0.07, 0.36] One SD above mean 4.48 .00 .02 .980 [-0.26, 0.27] Frequency of Face-to-face Communication One SD below mean 2.88 .18 2.54 .012* [0.04, 0.32]
At the mean 3.68 .08 1.19 .235 [-0.05, 0.21] One SD above mean 4.48 -.02 -.19 .848 [-0.21, 0.17]
GRADUATE SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION
The aim of this study was to take a communicative approach to the field of OI and to examine relevant internal and external communicative antecedents of OI. As a second step, the role of communication climate satisfaction as a possible moderator in the relationship between internal communicative measures and OI was examined.
Hypothesis 1 was supported as the results suggested a relationship between information adequacy and OI. However, none of the single predictors seemed to be significantly related to OI, which is probably due to high correlations between the four information adequacy variables. It means that the four variables predict OI, however, as they correlate with each other, they share the variance in OI so that none of them is statistically significant in this regression model. One of the four predictors, namely Organizational Role Information Usefulness, is marginally significant in the model. This tendency indicates, that the information about the organization in general (rules, policies, goals and developments) seems to be the most important predictor of OI. An explanation for why the process of OI tends to be more dependent on organizational information than personal information could be, that the understanding of an organization’s identity is something that an employee cannot easily develop him- or herself (compared to an understanding of his or her personal role in the organization). One can argue, that the information about one’s tasks at work does not necessarily reflect the organization’s philosophy, values and culture; factors that will contribute much more to the identity of an organization than the personal work duties. In conclusion, hypothesis 1 is line with social identity theory because it suggests that it is mainly the exposure to the organization’s identity, that contributes to stronger employee identification with the organization (Dutton et al., 1994).
Hypothesis 2 was rejected, as the results did not suggest a relationship between communication abilities of colleagues and/or supervisors and OI. It was argued, the other
members of the organization are also a form of embodiment of the organization’s identity (Scott & Stephens, 2009). The results of this study, on the contrary, suggest that employees may, in fact, differentiate between the people they work with and the organization they work for and that the communication competence of colleagues and/or supervisors does not fully reflect the organization’s identity. In this study, communication abilities of colleagues and/or supervisors were specifically measured at a team level, while OI was measured at an organizational level. Earlier studies have shown that a pleasant working environment in a working team or department does not necessarily have to reflect positively on one’s identification with the organization as a whole (Bartels et al., 2007). This notion suggests, that high group identification on one level, does not automatically imply high identification with the overall organization. It is therefore speculated, that communication abilities of others may not impact OI, as conceptualized in this study on the organizational level, it could, however, impact group level identification of employees. This connection could be of interest for further research.
Hypothesis 3 was also rejected as no significant relationship between dialog and feedback possibilities at the workplace and OI could be assumed. This hypothesis put emphasis on the impact of meaningful social interaction and participative communication on OI and was based on social identity theory. However, there is research of OI based on social identity theory that explicitly states, that identification with a social group or unit does not necessarily have to be based on interaction, let alone a communitive one (Mael & Ashforth, 1995; Pratt, 1998). These papers mention that cognitive processes might take up a more essential role for categorization and self-enhancement, than communicative processes (Scott, 2007). The same study, however, emphasizes, that the role of communication is not to be neglected in further research about OI because very little is still known about which communicative processes are indeed relevant and how they work in regard to OI (Scott, 2007).
