A Multi-Foci Model of Organizational Identification: The Roles of External, Internal, and Relational Factors in Forming Employees’ Organizational Identification
Shuying Chen (12745006) Supervisor: dr. Pernill van der Rijt
Master’s Thesis
MSc Communication Science (corporate communication track) Graduate School of Communication, University of Amsterdam
Abstract
The present study proposes a multi-foci model of organizational identification consisting of external, internal and relational factors. Using survey data from 364 employees in mainland China, the present study finds that organizational identification is a consequence of perceived external prestige (PEP), perceived organizational support (POS) and relational identification (RID) of employees. Positive affect one has towards the organization is found to be a partial mediator in the associations between PEP, POS and organizational identification, and it perfectly mediates the relationship of RID and organizational identification. The present study adds to research in this field by highlighting the relational dimension of identification, bringing in more communication perspectives. It also contributes to understanding the role of positive affect in such a mechanism and joining an affective process to the cognitive one which long dominates organizational identification studies. Limitations and suggestions for future research are discussed in the end.
Keywords: organizational identification; external prestige; organizational support; relational identification; positive affect
A Multi-Foci Model of Organizational Identification
Organizational identification has been a central concept in organization studies as well as managerial practices over the past few decades. It is the “perceived oneness with an organization and the experience of the organization's successes and failures as one’s own” (Mael & Ashforth, 1992, p.103). Extant studies support that organizational identification predicts a number of organizational outcomes including job satisfaction (e.g., Karanika-Murray, Duncan, Pontes, & Griffiths, 2015; Loi, Chan, & Lam, 2014), organizational citizenship behavior (e.g., Newman, Miao, Hofman, & Zhu, 2016), extra-role behavior (e.g., Lee, Park & Koo, 2015; Tavares, van Knippenberg, & van Dick, 2016), work performance (e.g., Lu, Capezio, Restubog, Garcia, & Wang, 2016; Shen et al., 2014), support for
organizational change (Jimmieson & White, 2011), and turnover intention (e.g., Knapp, Smith, & Sprinkle, 2014; Kumar Mishra & Bhatnagar, 2010). The level of organizational identification is also found to be associated with various forms of employee wellbeing such as emotional dissonance (Kumar Mishra & Bhatnagar, 2010), burnout (Avanzi et al., 2018), health complaint and emotional exhaustion (Wegge, Van Dick, Fisher, Wecking, & Moltzen, 2006). To nurture organizational identification among employees is thus of practical
importance to organizations, initiating the professional and academic interests in understanding the antecedents of such an organizational process.
Previous studies found a number of factors that result in individuals’ identification with the organization, such as the distinctiveness (Oakes & Turner, 1986) and prestige (Al-Atwi & Bakir, 2014; Gkorezis, Mylonas & Petridou, 2011) of and support (Lam, Liu & Loi, 2016) from the organization, the work climate (Teng, Lu, Huang, & Fang, 2020), the salience of out-groups (Tajfel & Turner, 2001), psychological contracts (Arain, Bukhari, Hameed,
Lacaze, & Bukhari, 2018; Lu et al., 2016) and organizational tenure of the employee (Riketta, 2005).
Social exchange perspective argues that organizational identification is the result of the employees’ reciprocation for the benefits they receive from the organization (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). These benefits can be both external and internal, from one’s evaluation of the status of the organization itself and the status of him/herself in the organization (Tyler & Blader, 2003). On the one hand, perceived external prestige of the organization provides employees with external incentives for identification because of their needs for
self-enhancement (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). On the other, perceived organizational support is the internal incentive because it signals to the employees the organization’s approval of their value, respect for their input, and guarantee about their future (Lam et al., 2016), catering for an individual’s needs for safety and affiliation (Ashforth, Harrison, & Corley, 2007).
In addition, it is also argued that employees’ relational identification with their
colleagues has a spillover effect that can be generalized to the organization (Ashforth et al., 2007). Their relationships with colleagues constitute a facet about their relationships with the organization itself, and employees are more likely to see themselves as organizational
members when they feel more socially integrated with other members (Wiesenfeld, Raghuram, & Garud, 2001).
Most current studies either examine organizational identification from a top-down perspective by looking at how organizational factors influence their employees, or from a bottom-up perspective where employee’ individual characteristics lead to identification (Ashforth et al., 2007). It is also argued that research in organizational identification has focused mostly on the individual vis-à-vis the collective, while an interpersonal level has long been missing (Sluss & Ashforth, 2007). The present study, however, aims to bring these perspectives together and study how external and internal organizational clues as well as relational factors are related to organizational identification of employees, so as to create a
model that synthesizes the multiple foci meaningful to research in this field. Therefore, the first research question of the present study is as follows:
RQ1: To what extent do perceived external prestige (PEP), perceived organizational support (POS) and relational identification (RID) predict organizational identification?
Müller (2017) argues that social identity theory has long been dominated by the cognitive approach, which leads to over-simplification by emphasizing only organizational attributes. Kraus, Ahearne, Lam, and Wieseke (2012) suggest that employees’ affective responses is underexamined in organizational identification studies. The present study, therefore, intends to understand the role of positive affect, which is a pleasant emotional state one experiences in organizational contexts (Kreiner & Ashforth, 2004) that shows his/her overall liking for the organization (Jaussi, 2007). Some argue that it constitutes an important component of organizational identification (Cameron, 2004; Tajfel, 1981), while others propose that these positive feelings of pride or affiliation resulted from self-enhancement precedes identification (Ashforth et al., 2007; Dutton et al., 1994). Therefore, the second research question of the present study is formulated:
RQ2: What is the role of positive affect in the process of organizational identification? The present study chooses to focus specifically on organizations in China, a country that possesses a high-context culture where the social context instead of content is emphasized in communication (Hall, 1976; Kim, Pan, & Park, 1998). The reasons are twofold. Firstly, individuals in a Chinese cultural setting have a predisposition to define themselves in relation to the surrounding social contexts they belong to (Tsui & Farh, 1997; Yama & Zakaria, 2019). This matches the notion of organizational identification and thus it is valuable to see how it comes into play in an organizational setting. Secondly, in a high-context culture, people are deeply involved in their relations with each other (Hall, 1976). Especially in an organization, the relationship-oriented mindset (“guanxi” in Chinese language) is considered
inherent (Mujtaba, Cai, Lian, & Ping, 2013; Nie & Lämsä, 2015), and the relative status of self to others and the social relations one possesses are central to individual experience and social identification (Tsui & Farh, 1997). How one perceives the status of the organization in others’ eyes (i.e., PEP) and the status of his/herself inside the organization (i.e., POS)
represents one’s perception of the relative status both externally and internally. And the extent to which one identifies with the role-relationship at work (i.e., RID) indicates how much one defines him/herself in terms of the social relations shared with other organizational members. Therefore, the proposed model should be of central value in such a cultural setting.
The present study first reviews theories and research findings regarding target variables and their associations before a multi-foci model of organizational identification is proposed. Cross-sectional survey data were used for regression analysis. The findings and their
implications are then discussed, followed by limitations and future research directions. Theoretical Background
Social identity theory (Ashforth & Mael, 1989) suggests that people tend to classify themselves as belonging to certain social categories with whose members they share similar characteristics. This forms a part of their self-definition and a more favorable attitude towards the in-group than the out-group. Organizational identification is one specific form of social identification that takes place in an organizational setting when employees define themselves as organizational members (Mael & Ashforth, 1992).
This section first presents theories and research findings concerning the external (i.e., PEP), internal (i.e., POS) and relational (i.e., RID) antecedents of organizational
identification. Then the association of positive affect and organizational identification is discussed, followed by the associations between PEP, POS, RID and positive affect. By arguing that these three factors are related to positive affect which then relates to
organizational identification, the present study thus hypothesizes the mediating role of positive affect in such relationships.
PEP and organizational identification
Perceived external prestige indicates the status of the organization in the eyes of
outsiders as interpreted by the employees (Smidts, Pruyn, & van Riel, 2001). It is found to be positively associated with organizational commitment (Kang, Stewart, & Kim, 2011), job satisfaction (Tuna, Ghazzawi, Yesİltas, Tuna, & Arslan, 2016) and psychological well-being (Mathe & Scott-Halsell, 2012) of employees. Social identity theory suggests that an
individual identifies with the organization to enhance self-esteem and is likely to partake the prestige of an organization (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). This evaluation of prestige is
determined by social comparison, with reference to the relative status of the organization and others (Tajfel & Turner, 2001). The more prestigious an organization is to outsiders, the more its membership contributes to one’s need for superiority, and the more strongly one identifies with the organization (Dutton, Dukerich, & Harquail, 1994).
Employees therefore construe the external status of an organization to outsiders and form their perception of organizational prestige, on which the external motives for
organizational identification is based (Fuller et al., 2006). This coincides with Mead’s (1934) notion of “I” and “me” where identity is seen as a social process influenced by one’s
perceptions of and reactions to others’ opinions. Previous studies found a substantial positive relationship between PEP and identification at levels of the work team (Carmeli, Galbard, & Goldriech, 2011) and the organization as a whole (Mishra, 2013; Mishra, Bhatnagar, D'Cruz, & Noronha, 2012). Reade (2001) finds that for international corporations, employees’
identification with the local branch is associated with the company’s local prestige, and identification with the international brand is related to its global prestige. Liu, Lam and Loi (2014) conducted a two-phase survey among Chinese nurses and find that participants’
perceptions of work-unit and organizational prestige are related respectively to their levels of work-unit and organizational identification at a later stage. Given these findings, the present study hypothesizes that:
H1: PEP is positively related to organizational identification. POS and organizational identification
Perceived organizational support is employees’ beliefs about the extent to which the organization cares for their well-being and values their contributions (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986). In addition to intergroup attributes such as the prestige of an organization, the intragroup attribute (i.e., the status of an individual within the organization) also contribute to increasing employees’ self-worth and self-esteem and thus their identification with the organization (Fuller et al., 2006; Tyler & Blader, 2003). Social exchange perspective suggests that employees tend to reciprocate the material and
socioemotional benefits offered by the organization they work in (Zagenczyk, Gibney, Few, & Scott, 2011). These benefits not only satisfy employees’ material needs with favorable job rewards and conditions, but also meet their needs for self-fulfillment with care, approval and respect (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). Employees whose innate psychological needs are fulfilled will develop internal motivation which leads to organizational identification (Rockmann & Ballinger, 2017).
The association of POS and organizational identification has been examined in extant studies. He, Pham, Baruch and Zhu (2014) conducted a survey in which 502 white-collar employees from 17 Vietnamese organizations participated, and a significantly positive association between POS and organizational identification is found. A similar research of Shen et al. (2014) conducted in 13 organizations from six major cities in China also finds that POS is a significant predictor of organizational identification among Chinese employees. The research of Lam and colleagues (2016) supports this positive association among Chinese
nurses. Other studies find that POS mediates the relationships between other organizational phenomena and organizational identification (e.g., Gillet, Colombat, Michinov, Pronost, & Fouquereau, 2013; Sluss, Klimchak, & Holmes, 2008; Zagenczyk et al., 2011). While these studies do not explicitly aim at examining the relation between POS and organizational identification, their results support the argument that POS is associated with organizational identification, which is a prerequisite for mediation to be established. Based on these findings, the present study hypothesizes that:
H2: POS is positively related to organizational identification. RID and organizational identification
Relational identification is a (partial) definition of oneself in terms of a role relationship shared with other individuals that one feels some degree of closeness with (Sluss & Ashforth, 2007). It can be particularized to a specific role-relationship or generalized without
specifying any individual (Sluss & Ashforth, 2007). The former is found in a lot of current research that study relational identification with leaders (Carmeli, Atwater, & Levi, 2011; Yoshida, Sendjaya, Hirst, & Cooper, 2014), supervisors (Ersoy, Born, Derous, & van der Molen, 2011) and co-workers (Thompson & Korsgaard, 2019). The present study, however, intends to examine relational identification in terms of other organizational members in general, which is under-researched in previous studies.
It is argued employees tend to establish a connection where other organizational members are seen as “agents” of the organization and the organization is “home” to them (Sluss, Ployhart, Cobb, & Ashforth, 2012, p.953), and the role-relationship between colleagues provides “a lens through which the organization may be viewed” (Niu, Yuan, Qian, & Liu, 2018, p.987). Therefore, the quality of the role-relationship can be transposed onto the organization (Sluss & Ashforth, 2008), such that one is more likely to develop their
feelings and understandings about the organization through their experiences with other organizational members.
Sluss and Ashforth (2008) also argue that identification with a relationship structurally nested within an organization will converge with organizational identification, because individuals tend to be influenced by the opinions of those who they share social relations with. Ashforth et al. (2007) propose a process model of identification where employees interpret and make sense of information about the organization before enacting their organizational identities, and the social interactions with other organizational members are the immediate structural contexts where this identification process takes place (Jones & Volpe, 2011). Therefore, the more one identifies with the role-relationship, the more he/she is engaged in a social context where organizational identification is likely to take place.
Through interviews with employees in an architecture company, Vough (2012) finds that employees see the interpersonal relationship with colleagues as an incentive for
organizational identification. Other researchers also argue that social network within an organization (Jones & Volpe, 2011) and social ties with colleagues (Bartels, van Vuuren, & Ouwerkerk, 2019) are associated with organizational identification. Carmeli, Atwater, and Levi (2011) conducted a survey among employees in R&D departments in Israel and find a positive association between RID with supervisors and organizational identification. Sluss, Ployhart, Cobb, and Ashforth (2012) also find that one’s RID with immediate supervisor at Time 1 is associated with his/her organizational identification at Time 3, through affect transfer, behavioral sensemaking and social influence at Time 2. Similarly, Niu et al. (2018) surveyed 201 employees of 20 organizations in China and find that RID is associated with organizational identification at a later stage. However, these studies that explicitly examined the association between RID and organizational identification are mostly targeted at the role-relationship with supervisors. To the knowledge of the present study, the relation between
generalized RID and organizational identification has not been well examined. Therefore, the present study is interested in establishing the association of RID with general organizational members and organizational identification, and hypothesizes that:
H3: RID is positively related to organizational identification. Positive affect and organizational identification
Ashforth et al. (2007) argue that organizational identification is also concerned with how one feels about the organization. Positive affect towards an organization is the pleasant emotional state experienced by an individual (Kreiner & Ashforth, 2004) that shows the overall liking for and positive feelings about the organization (Jaussi, 2007). A higher level of positive affect shows a state of “high energy, full concentration, and pleasurable
engagement” while a lower level indicates “sadness and lethargy” (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988, p.1063). It is found to be related to organizational outcomes such as
employees’ performance and organizational citizenship behavior (van Woerkom & Meyers, 2015), helping behavior (George, 1991) and knowledge sharing at work (Huang, 2009).
Positive affect is both considered a component and an antecedent of organizational identification. Cameron (2004), for example, developed a three-factor model of social identity consisting of cognitive centrality (i.e., the amount of time thinking of being a group member), ingroup affect (i.e., the positive feelings of being a group member), and ingroup ties (i.e., the attachment to other in-group members). However, seeing positive affect as a component concerns more about the measurement of organizational identification, instead of why and how employees develop identification with an organization, which pertains more to the present study. Therefore, the researcher chooses to examine whether employees’ positive affect towards an organization, as a different construct, precedes organizational identification.
Ashforth et al. (2007) argue that experiencing positive affect facilitates organizational identification, because when one feels good about a collective, he/she is more likely to define
him/herself in terms of the organizational membership. These positive emotions one
experiences at work are first movers that precedes behavioral identification (Ashforth, 2001; Harquail, 1998). Hentschel, Shemla, Wegge, and Kearney (2013) support that the positive affect an individual has towards the team in which he/she works is positively related to identification at team level. Jaussi (2007) finds that one’s affect for the organization correlates strongly with identification with the organization. Therefore, the present study hypothesizes that:
H4: Positive affect is positively related to organizational identification. The mediating role of positive affect
Extant studies find that positive affect towards the organization is status-related, resulting from employees’ reflection of the organizational image and a consequent enhancement of self-esteem (Müller, 2017). One’s affect towards the organization can be entailed by the evaluation of his/her organizational membership (Tanis & Beukeboom, 2011). When an organization is considered prestigious by outsiders, employees tend to partake the honor and feel good about their membership (Dutton et al., 1994). While recognizing organizational attributes such as PEP is a cognitive process to organizational identification, these attributes also evokes an affective process where individuals feel attached to an
organization they then identify with (Smidts et al., 2001). Therefore, when an individual feels the organization is considered positively from the outside, they are more likely to develop positive affect towards the organization, which then leads to organizational identification (van Dick, 2001). Given this proposed mechanism, the following hypotheses are formulated:
H5a: PEP is positively related to positive affect towards the organization.
H6a: Positive affect mediates the relation between PEP and organizational identification. Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002) propose that employees develop a sense of competence and worth when the organization shows that it cares for their value, and that their job-related
positive moods are enhanced consequently. Panaccio and Vandenberghe (2009) find that POS is positively related to psychological well-being of employees, which is operationalized by higher positive affect and lower negative affect employees feel when thinking of the organization. The same finding is supported in a later study of Caesens, Stinglhamber and Ohana (2016).
Research in organizational commitment suggests that employees tend to develop an affective commitment towards the organization, as an act of reciprocation to POS (e.g., Marique et al., 2013). Empirical studies have proven that POS is positively associated with affective commitment to the organization (e.g., Caesens, Marique, & Stinglhamber, 2014; Marique, Stinglhamber, Desmette, Caesens, & De Zanet, 2013; Stinglhamber et al., 2015). Since affective organizational commitment is a construct associated with positive affect (Thoresen, Kaplan, & Barsky, 2003), the present study finds these findings relevant. Riketta (2005) argues that research in organizational identification should take into account findings referring to affective organizational commitment “to the greatest extent possible” (p.377), in that the two constructs overlap a great deal in measurement and provide valuable input to each other.
Given the above reasoning, employees perceiving that the organization offerings meet their need are more likely to develop positive emotional bonds to the organization and
develop attitudes and behaviors beneficial to the organization in return (Caesens et al., 2016). They are also more likely to incorporate organizational membership into their self-identity as a result (Eisenberger et al., 1986). Thus, it is hypothesized that:
H5b: POS is positively related to positive affect towards the organization. H6b: Positive affect mediates the relation between POS and organizational identification.
Sluss and his colleagues (2012) propose a model of convergence across relational and organizational identification through “affective, cognitive and behavioral mediating mechanisms” (p. 951). They argue that affects are transferrable in that employees’ identification with the role-relationship increases their positive affect felt towards the relationship (Sluss & Ashforth, 2007; Sluss & Ashforth, 2008), which simultaneously increases their positive affect towards the organization as a whole. This positive affect towards the organization is found closely related to organizational identification (Harris & Cameron, 2005) and seen as the entrée for an individual to identifying with the organization (Sluss et al., 2012). Therefore, the present study hypothesizes that:
H5c: RID is positively related to positive affect towards the organization.
H6c: Positive affect mediates the relation between RID and organizational identification. In sum, the present study argues that PEP, POS and RID are associated with one’s level of organizational identification and that positive affect towards the organization is a mediator in such relationships. Figure 1 shows a conceptual model of the proposed hypotheses. The present study then moves on to empirically examine the model.
Figure 1. Conceptual model. H6a, H6b, and H6c represent the mediated relationships between PEP, POS, RID and organizational identification through positive affect, respectively.
Method Sample and procedures
Considering limited time and budget, online self-report survey was used in the present study. The sample consisted of full-time employees working in mainland China. The
sampling method was snowball sampling. First, the researcher’s acquaintances were recruited to finish the survey and were then asked to share the survey with their friends and colleagues.
The sample size was 364. Of the sample, 172 (47.30%) were women and 192 (52.70%) were men. The age of all respondents ranged from 18 to 66 (M = 36.64, SD = 10.81) and their organizational tenure ranged from 0 to 42 years (M = 11.41, SD = 11.01). The majority of the sample were well-educated with 65.10% holding a bachelor’s degree or above.
The survey was based on mature scales developed originally in English, but the present study was administered in Chinese for the sake of comprehension. These survey questions (see Appendix A) were first translated to Chinese and then back to English to ensure the accuracy of translation, as is done in previous studies (e.g., Miao, Newman, Sun, & Xu, 2013; Niu et al., 2018). After translation, a few participants were recruited for a pre-test and the wording of the Chinese version was altered before dissemination. For example,
“prestigious” was first translated as something with higher status but later changed to something people would respect due to the nuances in Chinese language. A factsheet was provided and the participants were told that the study was for academic purposes only and their anonymity would be strictly guaranteed. They were required to give their consent to the study before filling out the survey questionnaire.
Measures
Organizational identification. A six-item scale developed by Mael and Ashforth (1992) was employed and the wording was adapted due to its original use in school settings. Sample items in this scale were: “I am very interested in what others think about the organization”,
“This organization’s successes are my successes”, and “When someone praises the organization, it feels like a personal compliment”. The responses varied on a Likert scale from 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree. The Cronbach’s alpha was .74. The reliability of the scale is acceptable.
Perceived external prestige. A three-item scale based on similar studies of Bartels, Pruyn, Jong and Joustra (2007) and Smidts et al. (2001) was employed. The scale items were: “The organization has a good reputation”, “The organization is looked upon as a prestigious one to work for”, and “When I talk with family and friends about the organization, they often display a positive attitude towards it”. The responses varied on a Likert scale from 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree. The Cronbach’s alpha was .82, making it a reliable measure.
Perceived organizational support. This variable was measured by a shorter six-item version of the scale developed initially by Eisenberger et al. (1986). The scale has also been used in several studies (e.g., Loi, Lin, & Tan, 2019; Shanock & Eisenberger, 2006) and the six-item version was chosen because of reduced length. Sample items in this scale were: “The organization values my contribution to its well-being”, “The organization strongly considers my goals and values”, and “The organization is willing to help me when I need a special favor”. The responses varied on a Likert scale from 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree. The Cronbach’s alpha was .89. The scale is reliable.
Relational identification. A seven-item scale adapted from the work of Zhang, Chen, Chen, Liu, and Johnson (2014) was employed. This scale was chosen because it distinguished the relational aspects of identification from collective ones, and was not focused on
identification with specific individuals such as the supervisor. Sample items in this scale are: “I share mutual respect with other members”, “I coordinate my own work well with other members”, and “I communicate a lot with other members outside work”. The responses varied on a Likert scale from 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree. Two items were found
not belonging in this category in factor analysis and excluded from the analysis (details about factor analysis is given in “Data analysis” section below). The Cronbach’s alpha of the remaining items was .84, leaving them a reliable measure of RID.
Positive affect. A four-item scale was used to measure how participants felt at work. It was selected and adapted to organizational settings by Shin (2014) from the original ten-item scale of Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) developed by Watson et al. (1988). Sample items in the scale were: “When I am at work, I feel confident”, “When I am at work, I feel active”, and “When I am at work, I feel joyful”. The responses varied on a Likert scale from 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree. The Cronbach’s alpha was .88. The scale was reliable.
Control variables. The age (Carmeli, Gilat, & Waldman, 2007), gender (Kreiner & Ashforth, 2004), educational level (Lee, 1971) and organizational tenure (Mael & Ashforth, 1992) of employees had been found related to organizational identification in previous
studies. Thus, the four control variables were also surveyed. Age was reported by participants in years, and gender was denoted as a dummy variable (0=female, 1=male). Education was measured with a five-point scale adapted from a similar study of Niu et al. (2018) and the response categories were: 1=less than high school degree, 2=high school degree, 3=associate degree in college, 4=undergraduate degree, and 5=graduate degree and above. It is then transformed into a dummy variable where people with an undergraduate degree and above were considered to have a high level of education while the rest had a low level of education (0=low, 1=high). Participants were also asked since which year they had started working in the current organization, and organizational tenure was then calculated by the researcher. Data analysis
After the survey results were gathered, the reverse-coded items were re-coded and the items with missing and mistaken values (e.g., failure to indicate the year they started working
in the organization with a four-digit number) were excluded by the researcher, before the data analysis could proceed.
A factor analysis using principal axis factoring was first done to determine the validity of the survey questions. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of sampling adequacy had a value of .94, and the Bartlett’s test was significant (p < .001). After oblique rotation, five factors (see Appendix B) in accordance with the target variables were extracted with eigenvalue higher than 1, altogether explaining 61.98% of the total variance. For RID measures, two questions (i.e., “I frequently participate in the social events organized by the organization” and “I attend social occasions with other members on a regular basis”) did not belong to the same factor as other questions measuring RID, therefore these two items were excluded from the analysis. Thus, the reliability and the score of RID for each respondent were calculated with the remaining five items measuring RID.
The scores for target variables were then calculated by taking the average of items measuring each variable. In order for linear regression to be carried out, the present study tested the pre-requisite assumptions. There was no strong multicollinearity among target variables with all scores of VIF smaller than five and tolerance larger than .20. The residuals were normally distributed according to the histogram and homoscedastic according to the scatterplot. The assumptions for linear regressions were met. Multiple linear regressions were then employed to test the associations, and a PROCESS tool developed by Hayes (2017) was used for mediation analysis. The results are reported in the following section.
Result Descriptive statistics
The descriptive statistics and correlations of independent, dependent and control
variables were first calculated (see Appendix C). In general, participants have a relative high level of organizational identification (M = 3.85, SD = .56). They are also more likely to
perceive the organizations they work in as prestigious (M = 3.84, SD = .66), supportive (M = 3.57, SD = .70), and tend to identify with other organizational members (M = 3.75, SD = .52). In general, they feel relatively positive at work (M = 3.65, SD = .66). These target variables were also moderately correlated. The present study infers that organizations with higher external prestige is at the same time perceived to be more supportive by their employees, or vice versa, and that employees working in such organizational contexts are more strongly connected to their colleagues. This leads to more positive affect and stronger identification with the organization.
Hypothesis testing
Multiple linear regressions were employed for hypothesis testing and the results of regressions are presented in Table 1. The first model tested the relation of control and dependent variables, and there were no linear relationships nor significant associations between age, gender, education, organizational tenure and organizational identification.
In the second model, the hypothesized independent variables were incorporated into the linear regression. The linear model was significant, F(7, 356) = 30.09, p < .001, and a significant increase in explanatory power of the model was found after PEP, POS and RID entered the model, R2 = .37. H1 hypothesizes that PEP is positively related to organizational identification. This was supported by the model, B = .27, t = 5.47, p < .001, 95% CI
[.18, .37]. H2 hypothesizes that POS is positively related to organizational identification. This association was also found significant, B = .20, t = 4.00, p < .001, 95% CI [.10, .29]. Another independent variable in the present study, RID, is also hypothesized to be positively
association with organizational identification (H3). The model supported this hypothesis, B = .14, t = 2.36, p = .019, 95% CI [.02, .26], but it can also be seen that the association was relatively weak for RID as compared to PEP and POS. In sum, H1, H2 and H3 were all supported in the present study.
The third model regressed organizational identification on positive affect. The linear model was significant, F(5, 358) = 26.26, p < .001, and by adding positive affect, together with other control variables, the model explained nearly 27% of the total variance, R2 = .27. Positive affect was very much related to organizational identification, B = .44, t = 11.22, p < .001, 95% CI [.36, .52]. Therefore, H4 was supported.
Table 1
Results of multiple linear regressions (N=364)
Model 1 2 3 Control Variables Age .00 .01 .00 Gender .10 .09 .08 Education .00 .05 .05 Organizational Tenure -.00 -.00 -.00 Independent Variables PEP .27*** POS .18*** RID .14* Mediator PA .44*** R2 .01 .37 .27 F-statistics 0.99 30.09*** 26.26***
Notes. The dependent variable is organizational identification. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p<.001 As can be seen in the models above, the external, internal and relational factors (i.e., PEP, POS, and RID) as well as positive affect were all found positively associated with organizational identification. The present study, however, goes one step further and proposes that positive affect was a mediator in such relationships. To further determine the mediating
effect, the PROCESS tool was used. The PROCESS tool first tested the association between PEP, POS, RID and positive affect (H5a, H5b, and H5c, respectively), and then regressed organizational identification on both the mediator (i.e., positive affect) and the independent variables. The results are shown in Table 2.
Firstly, positive affect was regressed on PEP, POS and RID. The model was significant, F(7, 356) = 63.95, p < .001. PEP was positively related to positive affect, B = .16, t = 3.33, p = .001, 95% CI [.07, .26]. POS also had a significant association with positive affect, B = .30, t = 6.16, p < .001, 95% CI [.20, .39]. The positive association between RID and positive affect was stronger, B = .46, t = 7.94, p < .001, 95% CI [.35, .58]. In sum, H5a, H5b and H5c were all supported.
Organizational identification was then regressed on all the target variables. The model was significant, F(8, 355) = 27.90, p < .001. This model explained nearly 40% of the
variance, R2 = .39. Positive affect was significantly related to organizational identification, B = .15, t = 2.88, p = .004, 95% CI [.05, .26]. PEP remained significantly related to
organizational identification but the coefficient decreased slightly in the presence of positive affect, B = .25, t = 4.94, p < .001, 95% CI [.15, .35], as compared to Model 2 above. It can thus be inferred that positive affect partially mediates the relationship between PEP and organizational identification. H6a was partially supported. Similarly, POS also had a significant while weaker association with organizational identification when positive affect was added to the model, B = .15, t = 2.92, p = .004, 95% CI [.05, .25]. H6b was partially supported. The association between RID and organizational identification, however, became insignificant after positive affect was added to the model, B = .07, t = 1.08, p = .28, 95% CI [-.06, .20]. Therefore, the association between RID and organizational identification was perfectly mediated by positive affect. H6c was supported.
Table 2
Results of mediation analysis (N=364)
Model 4 5
Dependent Variable Positive affect Organizational identification
Control Variables Age .01** .00 Gender .02 .08 Education -.05 .05 Organizational Tenure -.00 -.00 Independent Variables PEP .16*** .25*** POS .30*** .15** RID .46*** .07 Mediator PA .15** R2 .56 .39 F-statistics 63.95*** 27.90*** Notes. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p<.001
Using the PROCESS tool, the bootstrapped effect sizes of the above-mentioned relations were also determined. As can be seen in Table 3, the direct effect of PEP and POS on
organizational identification was larger than the indirect effect, while the indirect effect remained significant. The direct effect of RID on organizational identification, however, was not significantly different from 0 under 95% confidence level, and its association with organizational identification was perfectly mediated by positive affect. That is, the effect of RID on organizational identification takes place solely through the development of positive affect employees have towards the organization.
Table 3
Direct and indirect effect sizes using bootstrapping (N=364)
95% CI
Estimate SE Lower Upper
PEP → Organizational Identification .25 .05 .15 .35
POS → Organizational Identification .15 .05 .05 .25
RID → Organizational Identification .07 .06 -.06 .20
PEP → Positive Affect → Organizational Identification .03 .01 .00 .05
POS → Positive Affect → Organizational Identification .05 .02 .01 .09
RID → Positive Affect → Organizational Identification .07 .03 .02 .13
Notes. SE, standard error. CI, confidence interval. Covariates: age, gender, education, organizational
tenure. Number of bootstrap samples: 5000.
Conclusion and discussion
The present study examined the external, internal and relational factors that contribute to an individual’s organizational identification and the role of emotional experiences (i.e., positive affect) in this mechanism. Contrary to previous studies (e.g., Carmeli et al., 2007; Kreiner & Ashforth, 2004; Lee, 1971; Mael & Ashforth, 1992), demographic variables including age, gender, education and organizational tenure of employees did not influence their level of organizational identification. Employees tend to be influenced by their
perceptions about the status of the organization in others’ eyes (i.e., PEP), and about how the organization treats them (i.e., POS). The associations are in line with previous studies (e.g., He et al., 2014; Lam et al., 2016; Liu et al., 2014; Mishra, 2013). PEP and POS were found to be both directly associated with organizational identification, and indirectly related to
organizational identification through positive affect employees experienced at work, indicating that feeling positive about working in an organization which is prestigious and supportive more or less precedes one’s identification with that organization (Eisenberger et
al., 1986; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). In addition, RID was also found related to
organizational identification and this relationship was fully mediated by positive affect. The findings of previous research that focus on RID with supervisors (e.g., Carmeli et al., 2011; Niu et al., 2018; Sluss et al., 2012) can thus be generalized to other organizational members. When employees identify with their relationships with colleagues, they tend to feel more positive at work and thus identify stronger with the organization. Sluss and Ashforth (2008) propose that one mechanism through which relational and organizational identification converge is affect transfer, which was supported in the present study.
The present study adds to research in organizational identification by consolidating the external, internal and relational factors in organizational contexts. Taken together, the model explains nearly 40% of the variance, indicating that the proposed model performs well in predicting organizational identification. By studying the associations of PEP, POS and organizational identification, the present study brings social exchange and social identity perspectives together. The reciprocal dynamics between employees and the organization, which is the focus of social exchange theories, strongly influences one’s evaluation about the relationship with the organization and facilitates one’s organizational identification (Tavares et al., 2016).
While it has been argued and supported in a number of previous studies that external status of an organization and internal status of a person in the organization both contribute to one’s identification with the organization (e.g., Fuller et al., 2006; Tyler & Blader, 2003), a relational dimension is of similar, if no more important, value but less considered (He & Brown, 2013). Extant literature largely ignores the role of peers in the workplace, while socialization literature suggests that employees are likely to be influenced by other
organizational members in forming their identification with the organization (Kraus et al., 2012). The present study supports that the more one identifies with the role relationship
he/she shares with other organizational members, the more he/she is likely to identify with the organization itself. He and Brown (2013) argue that to see organizational identification as merely a consequence of perceived organizational attributes is static and impersonal, and that more dynamic, interactional and interpersonal factors need to be taken into account in
organizational identification research. Scott (2007) also argues that to study organizational identification from a communication perspective remains a promising but underexamined field and suggests that researchers need to explore how multiple levels of identifications, especially a relational one which most pertains to communication studies, develop and converge through interactions. The relational dimension in the present study, therefore, adds an interpersonal layer to organizational identification model and brings in more
communication perspectives.
The role of positive affect is also highlighted in the present study. Lane and Scott (2007) propose a Neutral Network Model of Organizational Identification consisting of four
constructs that interact with one another in forming organizational identification: self, organization, attribute (e.g., organizational values and goals) and valence (i.e., affect). The latter two are of greater interest to the present study, in that organizational identification is both attribute- and valence-influenced, and that the attribute-influenced cognitive process has an impact on the valence-influenced emotional process (Lane & Scott, 2007). The present study supports this argument and finds that perceived organizational attributes are associated with one’s positive affect towards the organization, and that both the perceived attributes and affect are significant in predicting organizational identification. In addition, positive affect partially mediates the relations between perceived organizational attributes and
organizational identification, which adds new insight into how the cognitive and emotional processes interact.
Previous organizational identification studies conducted in a Chinese context largely focus on organizational attributes and PEP and POS are mainly discussed (e.g., Lam et al., 2016; Liu et al., 2014; Shen et al., 2014). While Chinese workplace is characterized as relationship-oriented (Mujtaba, Cai, Lian, & Ping, 2013; Nie & Lämsä, 2015), there has not been much research (except for Niu et al., 2004) that explicitly assesses the association of RID and organizational identification. The present study finds that individuals who identify more strongly with the relationships with other organizational members are more likely to identify with the organization as well, because they tend to feel more positive about the organization. This finding indicates that Chinese employees view relationships with
colleagues in the workplace as central to their feelings about organizational experiences, and thus their likelihood of defining themselves as organizational members will be influenced by such role-relationships (Tsui & Farh, 1997). Taken together, the model consisting of external, internal and relational factors explains a lot about how organizational identification takes place in Chinese organizational settings.
Practical implications
As the model explains a lot about one’s organizational identification, it is thus rewarding for organizations to invest in improving PEP, POS and RID to cultivate positive affect and thus organizational identification among their employees. The management may seek to foster the external prestige which can result from words-of-mouth, publicities and other company-controlled information (Smidts et al., 2001). Since it is the perceptions of employees about the organizational prestige, management should also pay attention to internal communications about how the organization is viewed by outsiders (Mishra, 2013; Smidts et al., 2001), and encourage employees’ cognitive acceptance of the external prestige (Kang & Barlett, 2013).
Mignonac, Herrbach, Archimi, and Manville (2018) suggest that it is also important for an organization to align higher POS with higher PEP, because a discrepancy of the two might counterbalance the positive effect. To be perceived as supportive and thus enhance
organizational identification, the organization needs also cultivate a helpful, secure and just atmosphere where employees have enough autonomy and rewards for their work (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002).
While previous studies focus mainly on RID with supervisors and suggest that supervisors should develop transformational leadership style and communication skills to increase employees’ identification (e.g., Gkorezis, Bellou, & Skemperis, 2015; Qu, Janssen, & Shi, 2015), RID with other organizational members such as colleagues and co-workers is of the same importance and will also influence organizational outcomes (Thompson & Krosgaard, 2019). Cooper (2013) suggests that managers should organize team building activities, design work tasks that require cooperation and encourage shared values and goals for organizational members, in order to encourage RID among employees. The findings of the present study show that enhancing PEP, POS and RID therefore leads to more positive affect one has towards the workplace and facilitates his/her identification with the
organization, on the basis of which other beneficial organizational outcomes may arise (Ashforth et al., 2007; Riketta, 2005).
Limitations and future research directions
The present study has a few limitations. First, the sample was not randomly selected and the average education level was relatively high in that the majority had an undergraduate degree or above. A research of Bai, Zhang, Wang, Dang, Abbey, and Rozelle (2019), based on the data from the Chinese National Population Sample Survey in 2015, finds that only 30% of people aged 25 to 64 have attended some high school education. China Statistical Yearbook in 2018 also reported that according to Chinese National Population Sample
Survey in 2017, only 13.87% of the population older than six years had attended college education and above, and the figure was 6.49% for undergraduate degree and above (National Bureau of Statistics of China, 2018, Table 2-14). While it remains unknown how much of the workforce population is employed by organizations, future research can seek to other
sampling methods, if possible, that reach more undereducated individuals, and compare the findings with those in the present study.
Second, the scale developed by Zhang et al. (2012) that measured RID in the present study did not show enough validity. One possible explanation to the problem is translation. Another explanation is that the two questions excluded from the analysis (i.e., “I frequently participate in the social events organized by the organization” and “I attend social occasions with other members on a regular basis”) were both related to attending social
events/occasions, which may relate more to personal characteristics and preferences, as compared to other items measuring RID (e.g., “I share mutual respect with other members”). He and Brown (2013) also suggest that further research is needed to determine to what extent this effect is contingent on individual and situational differences. How to measure RID with other organizational members in general requires reconsideration in the future.
As only cross-sectional data were used in the present study, it can only be inferred that there were associations instead of causal relations between target variables. Future research can benefit by taking more rounds of surveys at consecutive time points (e.g., Klimchak, Ward, Matthews, Robbins, & Zhang, 2019; Liu et al., 2014) to see if PEP, POS and RID actually precede and result in positive affect and organizational identification.
George and Jones (2000) argue that organizational constructs exist “in and through time” (p.200), and that one’s organizational experiences cannot be separated from this innate
temporal feature. Caesens et al. (2016) also argue that one’s perception of the workplace might evolve and rebalance according to new information and events. Therefore, an
alternative for future studies is to measure target variables within a shorter time period. For example, Herrbach’s (2006) study measured positive affect that employees had been experiencing over one month prior to the survey instead of seeing it as a constant in organizational contexts. New insights can also be provided by investigating how these variables measured in the short term interact with those in the long term. Caesens et al. (2016), for example, study how both weekly POS and general POS jointly influence positive affect. Future studies can seek to capture the temporal dynamics of the target variables and see how they influence organizational identification.
Lastly, as the target variables correlated with each other, the model could be bi-directional. Lane and Scott (2007) argue that organizational identification can be both an antecedent and consequence of attributes and valence, and that causality is “more likely to move in one direction or another under certain conditions and within certain contexts” (p.178). Some studies supported that organizational identification precedes positive affect (Herrbach, 2006), or that it mediates the relation of POS and affective organizational
commitment (e.g., Marique et al., 2013), which works reversely as in the present study. The possible alternatives were not examined since it is beyond the scope of the present study. Future research, however, is encouraged to look at the fuller picture and more importantly, to find out how the directions are contingent on organizational conditions and contexts.
References
Al-Atwi, A. A., & Bakir, A. (2014). Relationships between status judgments, identification, and counterproductive behavior. Journal of managerial psychology, 29(5), 472-489. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-02-2012-0040
Arain, G. A., Bukhari, S., Hameed, I., Lacaze, D. M., & Bukhari, Z. (2018). Am I treated better than my co-worker? A moderated mediation analysis of psychological contract
fulfillment, organizational identification, and voice. Personnel Review, 47(5), 1133-1151. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-04-2016-0090
Ashforth, B. E. (2001). Role transitions in organizational life: An identity-based perspective. Routledge.
Ashforth, B. E., Harrison, S. H., & Corley, K. G. (2008). Identification in organizations: An examination of four fundamental questions. Journal of management, 34(3), 325-374. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308316059
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of management review, 14(1), 20-39. https://doi.org/10.2307/258189
Avanzi, L., Fraccaroli, F., Castelli, L., Marcionetti, J., Crescentini, A., Balducci, C., & van Dick, R. (2018). How to mobilize social support against workload and burnout: The role of organizational identification. Teaching and Teacher Education, 69, 154-167.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.10.001
Bai, Y., Zhang, S., Wang, L., Dang, R., Abbey, C., & Rozelle, S. (2019). Past Successes and Future Challenges in Rural China’s Human Capital. Journal of Contemporary
China, 28(120), 883-898. https://doi.org/10.1080/10670564.2019.1594102 Bartels, J., Pruyn, A., De Jong, M., & Joustra, I. (2007). Multiple organizational
identification levels and the impact of perceived external prestige and communication climate. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 28(2), 173-190.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.420
Bartels, J., Van Vuuren, M., & Ouwerkerk, J. W. (2019). My colleagues are my friends: The role of Facebook contacts in employee identification. Management communication quarterly, 33(3), 307-328. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318919837944
Caesens, G., Marique, G., & Stinglhamber, F. (2014). The relationship between perceived organizational support and affective commitment. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 13(4), 167-173. https://doi.org/10.1027/1866-5888/a000112
Caesens, G., Stinglhamber, F., & Ohana, M. (2016). Perceived organizational support and well-being: a weekly study. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 31, 1214-1230. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-01-2016-0002
Cameron, J. E. (2004). A three-factor model of social identity. Self and identity, 3(3), 239-262. https://doi.org/10.1080/13576500444000047
Carmeli, A., Atwater, L., & Levi, A. (2011). How leadership enhances employees’ knowledge sharing: the intervening roles of relational and organizational identification. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 36(3), 257-274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-010-9154-y
Carmeli, A., Gelbard, R., & Goldriech, R. (2011). Linking perceived external prestige and collective identification to collaborative behaviors in R&D teams. Expert systems with applications, 38(7), 8199-8207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2010.12.166
Carmeli, A., Gilat, G., & Waldman, D. A. (2007). The role of perceived organizational
performance in organizational identification, adjustment and job performance. Journal of Management Studies, 44(6), 972-992. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00691.x Cooper, D. (2013). Dissimilarity and learning in teams: The role of relational identification
and value dissimilarity. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 37(5), 628-642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2013.06.005
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of management, 31(6), 874-900.
Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V. (1994). Organizational images and member identification. Administrative science quarterly, 239-263.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2393235
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied psychology, 71(3), 500.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.500
Ersoy, N. C., Born, M. P., Derous, E., & van der Molen, H. T. (2011). Antecedents of organizational citizenship behavior among blue-and white-collar workers in Turkey. International journal of intercultural relations, 35(3), 356-367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2010.05.002
Fuller, J. B., Hester, K., Barnett, T., Frey, L., Relyea, C., & Beu, D. (2006). Perceived external prestige and internal respect: New insights into the organizational identification process. Human relations, 59(6), 815-846. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726706067148 George, J. M. (1991). State or trait: Effects of positive mood on prosocial behaviors at
work. Journal of applied Psychology, 76(2), 299. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.76.2.299
Gkorezis, P., Bellou, V., & Skemperis, N. (2015). Nonverbal communication and relational identification with the supervisor. Management Decision, 53(5), 1005.
https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-11-2014-0630
Gkorezis, P., Mylonas, N., & Petridou, E. (2011). The effect of perceived external prestige on Greek public employees' organizational identification. Gender in Management: An International Journal, 26(8), 550-560. https://doi.org/10.1108/17542411211199273 Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture, New York: Anchor Press–Doubleday.
Harquail, C. V. (1998). Organizational identification and the “whole person”: Integrating affect, behavior, and cognition. In D. A. Whetten & P. C. Godfrey (Eds.), Identity in
organizations: Building theory through conversations, 223-231. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Harris, G. E., & Cameron, J. E. (2005). Multiple Dimensions of Organizational Identification and Commitment as Predictors of Turnover Intentions and Psychological
Well-Being. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 37(3), 159-169. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0087253
Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford publications.
He, H., & Brown, A. D. (2013). Organizational identity and organizational identification: A review of the literature and suggestions for future research. Group & Organization Management, 38(1), 3-35. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601112473815
He, H., Pham, H. Q., Baruch, Y., & Zhu, W. (2014). Perceived organizational support and organizational identification: joint moderating effects of employee exchange ideology and employee investment. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 25(20), 2772-2795. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2014.908315 Hentschel, T., Shemla, M., Wegge, J., & Kearney, E. (2013). Perceived diversity and team
functioning: The role of diversity beliefs and affect. Small Group Research, 44(1), 33-61. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496412470725
Herrbach, O. (2006). A matter of feeling? The affective tone of organizational commitment and identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(5), 629-643.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.362
Huang, M. (2009). A conceptual framework of the effects of positive affect and affective relationships on group knowledge networks. Small Group Research, 40(3), 323-346. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496409332441
Jaussi, K. S. (2007). Attitudinal commitment: A three‐dimensional construct. Journal of occupational and organizational Psychology, 80(1), 51-61.
https://doi.org/10.1348/096317906X107173
Jimmieson, N. L., & White, K. M. (2011). Predicting employee intentions to support organizational change: An examination of identification processes during a re‐ brand. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50(2), 331-341.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.2010.02005.x
Kang, D. S., & Bartlett, K. R. (2013). The role of perceived external prestige in predicting customer‐oriented citizenship behaviors. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 24(3), 285-312. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21165
Kang, D. S., Stewart, J., & Kim, H. (2011). The effects of perceived external prestige, ethical organizational climate, and leader‐member exchange (LMX) quality on employees' commitments and their subsequent attitudes. Personnel Review, 40(6), 761-784. https://doi.org/10.1108/00483481111169670
Karanika-Murray, M., Duncan, N., Pontes, H. M., & Griffiths, M. D. (2015). Organizational identification, work engagement, and job satisfaction. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 30(8), 1019-1033. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-11-2013-0359
Kim, D., Pan, Y., & Park, H. S. (1998). High‐versus low‐context culture: A comparison of Chinese, Korean, and American cultures. Psychology & Marketing, 15(6), 507-521. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6793(199809)15:6<507::AID-MAR2>3.0.CO;2-A Klimchak, M., Ward, A. K., Matthews, M., Robbins, K., & Zhang, H. (2019). When Does
What Other People Think Matter? The Influence of Age on the Motivators of Organizational Identification. Journal of Business and Psychology, 34(6), 879-891. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-018-9601-6
Knapp, J. R., Smith, B. R., & Sprinkle, T. A. (2014). Clarifying the relational ties of organizational belonging: Understanding the roles of perceived insider status,
psychological ownership, and organizational identification. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 21(3), 273-285. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051814529826 Kraus, F., Ahearne, M., Lam, S. K., & Wieseke, J. (2012). Toward a contingency framework
of interpersonal influence in organizational identification diffusion. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 118(2), 162-178.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.03.010
Kreiner, G. E., & Ashforth, B. E. (2004). Evidence toward an expanded model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(1), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.234
Kumar Mishra, S., & Bhatnagar, D. (2010). Linking emotional dissonance and organizational identification to turnover intention and emotional well‐being: A study of medical
representatives in India. Human Resource Management, 49(3), 401-419. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20362
Lam, L. W., Liu, Y., & Loi, R. (2016). Looking intra-organizationally for identity cues: Whether perceived organizational support shapes employees’ organizational identification. Human Relations, 69(2), 345-367.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726715584689
Lane, V. R., & Scott, S. G. (2007). The neural network model of organizational
identification. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 104(2), 175-192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2007.04.004
Lee, S. M. (1971). An empirical analysis of organizational identification. Academy of Management journal, 14(2), 213-226. https://doi.org/10.2307/255308
Lee, E. S., Park, T. Y., & Koo, B. (2015). Identifying Organizational Identification as a Basis for Attitudes and Behaviors: A Meta-Analytic Review. Psychological Bulletin, 141(5), 1049-1080. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000012
Liu, Y., Lam, L. W., & Loi, R. (2014). Examining professionals’ identification in the workplace: The roles of organizational prestige, work-unit prestige, and professional status. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 31(3), 789-810.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-013-9364-6
Loi, R., Chan, K. W., & Lam, L. W. (2014). Leader–member exchange, organizational identification, and job satisfaction: A social identity perspective. Journal of Occupational and Organizational psychology, 87(1), 42-61.
https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12028
Loi, R., Lin, X., & Tan, A. J. (2019). Powered to craft? The roles of flexibility and perceived organizational support. Journal of Business Research, 104, 61-68.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.002
Lu, V. N., Capezio, A., Restubog, S. L. D., Garcia, P. R., & Wang, L. (2016). In pursuit of service excellence: Investigating the role of psychological contracts and organizational identification of frontline hotel employees. Tourism Management, 56, 8-19.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.03.020
Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of organizational Behavior, 13(2), 103-123. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030130202
Marique, G., Stinglhamber, F., Desmette, D., Caesens, G., & De Zanet, F. (2013). The relationship between perceived organizational support and affective commitment: A social identity perspective. Group & Organization Management, 38(1), 68-100. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601112457200
Mathe, K., & Scott-Halsell, S. (2012). The effects of perceived external prestige on positive psychological states in quick service restaurants. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 11(4), 354-372. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332845.2012.690684 Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society. University of Chicago Press: Chicago.
Miao, Q., Newman, A., Sun, Y., & Xu, L. (2013). What factors influence the organizational commitment of public sector employees in China? The role of extrinsic, intrinsic and social rewards. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(17), 3262-3280. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2013.770783
Mignonac, K., Herrbach, O., Serrano Archimi, C., & Manville, C. (2018). Navigating ambivalence: perceived organizational prestige–support discrepancy and its relation to employee cynicism and silence. Journal of Management Studies, 55(5), 837-872. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12330
Mishra, S. K. (2013). Perceived external prestige and employee outcomes: Mediation effect of organizational identification. Corporate Reputation Review, 16(3), 220-233.
https://doi.org/10.1057/crr.2013.9
Mishra, S. K., Bhatnagar, D., D’Cruz, P., & Noronha, E. (2012). Linkage between perceived external prestige and emotional labor: Mediation effect of organizational identification among pharmaceutical representatives in India. Journal of World Business, 47(2), 204-212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2011.04.007
Mujtaba, B. G., Cai, H., Lian, Y., & Ping, H. (2013). Task and relationship orientation of Chinese students and managers in the automotive industry. Journal of Technology Management in China, 8(3), 142-154. https://doi.org/10.1108/JTMC-07-2013-0030 Müller, M. (2017). Long Lost: The Emotional Side of Identification—Complementing SIT
with Psychoanalytic Insights. Journal of Management Inquiry, 26(1), 3-16. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492616646453
National Bureau of Statistics of China. (2018). Table 2-14: Population Aged Six and Over by Sex, Educational Attainment and Region (2017). In National Bureau of Statistics of China (Ed.), China Statistical Yearbook 2018. Retrieved from:
http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjsj/ndsj/2018/indexeh.htm
Newman, A., Miao, Q., Hofman, P. S., & Zhu, C. J. (2016). The impact of socially responsible human resource management on employees' organizational citizenship behaviour: the mediating role of organizational identification. The international journal of human resource management, 27(4), 440-455.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2015.1042895
Nie, D., & Lämsä, A. M. (2015). The leader–member exchange theory in the Chinese context and the ethical challenge of guanxi. Journal of Business Ethics, 128(4), 851-861.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1983-9
Niu, W., Yuan, Q., Qian, S., & Liu, Z. (2018). Authentic leadership and employee job behaviors: The mediating role of relational and organizational identification and the moderating role of LMX. Current Psychology, 37(4), 982-994.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-018-9937-0
Oakes, P., & Turner, J. C. (1986). Distinctiveness and the salience of social category
memberships: Is there an automatic perceptual bias towards novelty?. European journal of social psychology, 16(4), 325-344. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420160403
Panaccio, A., & Vandenberghe, C. (2009). Perceived organizational support, organizational commitment and psychological well-being: A longitudinal study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 75(2), 224-236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2009.06.002
Qu, R., Janssen, O., & Shi, K. (2015). Transformational leadership and follower creativity: The mediating role of follower relational identification and the moderating role of leader
