The organization as part of the self: organizational identification as communicative process in a changing organization

The organization as part of the self:

Organizational identification as communicative process in a changing organization

Viola Dijkman | 11883871 Master thesis

Graduate School of Communication

Master’s program Communication Science; Corporate communication (MSc) Thesis Supervisor: dr. J.M. Slevin

2

ABSTRACT

Prior research has emphasized the critical role of communication in the process of organizational

identification. Organizational identification is found to be especially important during times of

organizational change, because it helps to ensure that employees keep their connection with the

organization and orient their behaviour towards the new organizational goals. This leads to

positive outcomes for the organization and the employee.

However, previous research has also shown that organizational change comes with many

uncertainties and is therefore often characterised by lower levels of organizational identification

among employees. Organizations do not know how to correctly and efficiently use

communication to ensure identification of their employees during a change, leading to higher

turnover rates and lower productivity than before the change. Furthermore, the empirical

knowledge as to how exactly communication is relevant in the development of identification is

still limited. Thus, the question this research set out to answer is: what is the role of

communication in the process of organizational identification during an organizational change?

By conducting interviews (N=9) in a changing organization the research displayed the

role of communication in the process of organizational identification. Analysis of the interview

data show that unplanned and planned communication influence targets and moments of

identification. The results allowed to formulate several recommendations for organizations facing

change. Organizations should use transparent communication, could consider an internal

communication campaign to ensure organizational identification and develop a communication

structure tailored to the organizational change.

3

INTRODUCTION

Nowadays, business environments are characterized by the revolution in information and

communication technologies leading to heightened levels of instability and consumer

capriciousness (Atouba, Carlson, & Lammers, 2016; Uhl-Bien, Marion, & McKelvey, 2007).

Due to these times of economic uncertainty and social change, work environments are becoming

more and more competitive (Price, Whiteley, & Palmer, 2013; Rugman, Oh, & Lim, 2012).

Organizations try to improve and keep their competitive advantage, but planned organizational

changes often face difficulties and end without success (Hughes, 2011; Specht, Kuonath, Pachler,

Weisweiler, & Frey, 2018). Organizational identification has proven to have positive outcomes

and it is especially important during times of change (Elstak, Bhatt, Riel, Pratt, & Berens, 2015).

More precisely, research has shown that employees who identify with their organizations

generally display positive behaviors and attitudes towards the organization and want the

organization to succeed (Ashforth, Harrison, & Corley, 2008; Riketta, 2005).

Although it is clear that identification is very powerful, many organizations are unable to

develop strategies to ensure employees maintain identification during times of change.

Organizational changes are characterized by uncertainties and ambiguities (Corley & Gioia,

2004), and to reduce these feelings of uncertainty employees identify with groups, other than the

organization, that are more distinctive and more clearly structured (Hogg, Sherman, Dierselhuis,

Maitner, & Moffitt, 2007). Therefore, large organizational changes can significantly reduce the

degree of employees’ organizational identification (Amiot, Terry, & Callan, 2007; Giessner,

Viki, Otten, Terry, & Täuber, 2006). It may seem odd to speak of identification in a time of

eroding individual-organization relationships, but it is precisely because individuals seek security

that it is relevant to understand the dynamics and potential of organizational identification

4

(Ashforth et al., 2008). The lack of identification to one’s organization experienced by many

workers can be costly to both organizations and employees in terms of turnover, morale, and

productivity (Scott, 2001). During times of change, identification ensures that employees

maintain their connection with the organization (Chreim, 2002) and orient their behavior towards

the organizational goals (Pratt, 2000). Lower levels of identification can lead to less effort, and

reduced support for and loyalty towards the organization (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Dutton,

Dukerich, & Harquail, 1994; Van Dick, Wagner, Stellmacher, & Christ, 2004). Hence,

organizations should induce identification to facilitate their functioning (Cheney, 1983; Pratt,

1998).

An important concept in understanding employee-organization identification is

communication. Research has shown that employees’ notions on the communication environment

in the organization and in particular the use of specific communication practices can positively

affect the organizational identification (Atouba, 2018). Furthermore, key workplace outcomes

like satisfaction are shaped by identification during communicative interaction with others (Scott

& Stephens, 2009). The current research will explore the process of organizational identification

and will attempt to answer the following question:

RQ: What is the role of communication in the process of organizational identification during

an organizational change?

This study will use in-depth interviews, focusing in particular on how employees use and

evaluate communication about the organizational change and how this influences organizational

identification. Organizational identification will be approached from a communication

5

the organization will not be considered as one but as existing of multiple entities e.g. teams and

departments.

This study provides both theoretical and managerial contributions. First, it will contribute to

the relatively limited body of research into how communication practices affect organizational

identification. Second, it adds to the existing literature on organizational change and how

organizations can ensure the success of a change process. Finally, these new insights will lead to

guidelines for management of changing organizations to further develop their communication

strategies to be as effective as possible. By establishing a better overview of the process of

communication and identification during a change, directions to lead the change in the most

efficient manner can be proposed. When faced with issues of identification because of

organizational changes, management can consider these guidelines to support employees in the

best possible way. By maintaining high levels of identification, management can ensure correct

implementation of the organizational change. In the following section, the relevant theories are

presented, followed by the methods of the study. Finally, the results will be analyzed and

discussed in light of previous findings.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Organizational identification

Identity and identification have been objects of research for many years for researchers in the

fields of organizational and political psychology, sociology and communications (Ashforth &

Mael, 1989; Riketta, 2005; Scott, Corman, & Cheney, 1998; Scott & Stephens, 2009; Tajfel &

Turner, 1979). Although different theories exist regarding identification some are less suitable for

6

organizational identification than others. To create the best conceptualization of organizational

identification several theories will be discussed in light of the current research.

In earlier research, the concept of identification is most often viewed in light of the social

identity theory (SIT) (Ashforth et al., 2008; Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Pratt, 1998; Tajfel & Turner,

1979). Tajfel and Turner (1979) explain SIT as a social-psychological perspective based on the

idea that individuals classify themselves and others into distinct social categories like gender or

religion. Social identification refers to the idea of oneness or belongingness to a form of human

collective (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). Organizational identification is a specific form of social

identification where the individual defines himself in respect of his membership in a particular

organization (Mael & Ashforth, 1992). More specifically, it involves the cognitive awareness of

being a member along with value placed on this membership (Ashforth et al., 2008).

Different researchers have used SIT when discussing organizational identification

(Ellemers, Kortekaas, & Ouwerkerk, 1999; Hogg & Terry, 2000; Langner & Seidel, 2014).

However, SIT was borrowed from social psychology and was intended to address identification

with social categories and groups rather than organizations (Pratt, 1998). There are reasons to

believe groups and organizations should not be regarded as the same type of actor in this

research. Firstly, groups and social categories are generally not understood as autonomous

based actors whereas organizations are perceived as sovereign self-reflective

identity-based actors (Blader, Bartel, & Wrzesniewski, 2012; King, Felin, & Whetten, 2010). Secondly,

Ashforth & Mael (1989) claim that although SIT literature indicates that categorization is

satisfactory for identification to occur, the ubiquity of formal and informal groups in

organizations shows that categorization is seldom the only factor in identification.

7

This research will therefore consider identity as an emergent process and will attempt to

find evidence supporting the situated approach of identification, which is more suitable for

communication research. This also solves the lack of focus on the process of emerging identity,

as the literature on emerging identity remains too loosely associated (Pratt, 1998; Pratt,

Rockmann, & Kaufmann, 2006).

The chosen approach is based on Giddens' (1984) structuration

theory that focuses on the duality between structure and system, meaning the process in which

human action produces but is also mediated by structure. Scott et al. (1998) use this theory to

separate identity, identification and the identification process. They state that it is perhaps more

accurate to say that perceived membership of an organization leads to identification with this

organization instead of identity indicating the belongingness to a collective. In this view, the

question is not so much if an employee is identified, but more precisely when various

identifications are strong or weak.

Moments of identification

Scott and Stephens (2009) recommend moving away from the views that treat

identification as something enduring and take a more situated approach that links identification to

specific circumstances. This is line with the idea of a dichotomy of situated (temporary and

unstable) and deep structure identification (fundamental link between individual and collective)

(Ashforth et al., 2008; Rousseau, 1998). In this situated identification, particular identities can be

triggered by specific settings and interpretations of identity can change due to events,

developments or trends (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Dutton & Dukerich, 1991). This approach is

also demonstrated in Elsbach (1999), who writes that research has focused on the fixed

impression of being identified instead of the more shifting concept of becoming identified. A

model was then developed that calls for more adaptive and changing explanations of

8

organizational identification. Following these studies, the current research also examines

identification as a changing process that is dependent on a specific moment and its circumstances.

Targets of identification

Another significant object of organizational identification research are the targets of

identification. Research has shown that identification can have different targets, that is,

individuals in an organization can identify with different organizational levels, such as their team,

their department or their business unit (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). Differentiating between these

targets of identification is relevant for the current research, because it is related to the question of

how employees identify. Various studies have assessed the idea of multiple targets in

organizational identification research (Bartels, Pruyn, de Jong, & Joustra, 2006; Elstak et al.,

2015; Riketta & Van Dick, 2005; D. Van Knippenberg & Van Schie, 2000). Van Knippenberg

and van Schie (2000) argue that other targets of identification may be more valuable in

day-to-day organizational life than the organization as a whole. Another study that indicates the

importance of considering different targets is done by Riketta and van Dick (2005). They argue

that overall work-group identification is stronger than organizational identification. However,

they also found that identification with proximal targets is not always the more important factor

in accounting for work-related attitudes and behaviors compared to identification with distal

targets. Furthermore, Ashforth and Johnson, (2001) describe the phenomenon of changing

identification targets as organizations providing “multiple hats to wear” and an organization can

be seen as a melting pot of all kinds of sub-identities (Bartels et al., 2006). In this research the

organization is therefore not considered as a holistic construct, but organizational identification

will be examined while perceiving the organization as multiple entities e.g. teams and

9

To keep this research both manageable and focused, broad institutional identifications will

not be considered (class, religion, nation, ethnicity, etc.). The focus will be on those

identifications linked to distinctively organizational phenomena to form valuable and feasible

recommendations for organizational practice and theory. In the present study, it is suggested that

organizational identification exists when an individual’s (perceived) membership of an

organization affects their self-definition or self-reference. That is, organizational identification

occurs when one comes to integrate beliefs, values, goals or other parts of identity of one’s

organization into one’s own identity. This definition is based on SIT but also includes the more

emergent approach of the identification process. In the current research the identification process

during a specific organization change will be analyzed and therefore the focus will be on when

and how employees are identified, questions which cannot be answered using only social-identity

theory.

A more recent development in organizational identification literature is that

researchers study the role of organizational identification in organizational change processes

(Elstak et al., 2015; Van Knippenberg, Martin, & Tyler, 2006). An understanding of how

organizational identification plays out during an organizational change will help with ensuring

employees’ sense of belongingness in a time that is marked with uncertainty which in turn can

prevent decrease in job satisfaction and an increase in turnover intentions (Elstak et al., 2015).

Organizational change

Organizational change can be defined as differences in how an organization functions, who its

members and leaders are, what form it takes, or how it allocates its resources (Weick & Quinn,

1999). Organizational change, in general, is characterized by uncertainties and ambiguities

(Corley & Gioia, 2004). These feelings of uncertainty activate employees to identify with groups

10

that are more distinctive and more clearly structured than the group they currently identify with

(Hogg et al., 2007). Organizational changes can therefore significantly influence the degree of

employees’ organizational identification (Amiot et al., 2007; Giessner et al., 2006) and changes

in organizations typically lead to lower levels of employee-organization identification (Bartels et

al., 2006).

During times of organizational change, identification is especially important since it

ensures that employees orient their behavior towards the new organizational goals (Pratt, 2000).

For a change to be successful, it should be appropriated by employees and must be accompanied

by changes in employees’ identifications (Chreim, 2002). Chreim (2002) also states that although

much research has been done concerning change management, this has largely overlooked how

identifications can be influenced during change.

Nevertheless, in research on identification during a merger, Elstak et al. (2015)

investigated self-enhancement and uncertainty reduction as two possible motives for

identification. They found that when the identity of the merging unit is perceived as uncertain,

employees may identify with more distal groups to deal with this uncertainty. This confirms the

idea that the individual's social identity may be drawn not only from the organization, but also

from their department, profession (function), union, work-group or even lunch group (Ashforth &

Mael, 1989). This therefore also means that not only large changes like mergers affect

organizational identification, but also smaller changes on the work-group or department level can

affect the identification process of individuals in an organization. The relevance of identification

during an organizational change was also discussed by Knippenberg et al. (2006) when they

found a link between level of organizational identification and organizational members’

11

organization were more interested in change information and the change process compared to

employees that were less identified.

Examining organizational identification during an organizational change requires an

emergent view on identification. There is a connection between issues (e.g. events, developments

or trends) and changing interpretations of identity (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Dutton & Dukerich,

1991). In other words, an organizational change can affect the moments and targets of

identification due to changing values, organizational structure or a redefined direction of strategy.

Organizations should consider how to manage these changing identification moments and targets

to ensure a successful change outcome (Chreim, 2002).

Having discussed how identification is conceptualized and how an organizational change

may affect identification, it is important to address the role of communication in this process. A

number of studies have examined the role of communication in the organizational identification

process (Albert, Ashforth, & Dutton, 2000; Atouba, 2018; Atouba et al., 2016; Cheney &

Tompkins, 1987; Scott et al., 1998; Scott & Stephens, 2009) and the next section will give an

overview.

Communication in a changing organization

Employees do not merely receive an organizational change, they negotiate the change by

communicating about it (Price et al., 2013). Organizational members experience the organization

through different encounters with and information from organization leaders and coworkers

(Men, 2014). The way they feel about the change (their attitude) also determines the way they

will talk about the change. Previous research has also concluded that the negative and positive

reactions to a change are a result of management’s (lack of) communicative effort. The

12

negative/positive reactions will in turn affect the acceptance and recognition of the new strategy

(Aggerholm, 2014).

The emphasis on the communicative nature of identification processes derives from the

work of Burke (1969), who discusses how identification is crucial in reducing divisions in society

and organizations. Employees’ perceived closeness or similarity between the organizational

identity and their personal identity, i.e. the strength of their organizational identification, is

created and preserved through communication practices and behaviors (Atouba et al., 2016).

Identifying the relevant communication practices would therefore provide a better understanding

of identification processes (Atouba et al., 2016). Moreover, the most important indicators and

explanations of identification are found in language and therefore, manifestations of

identification are emphasized when they take place in social interaction with others (Scott et al.,

1998). In line with this, Scott and Stephens (2009) argue that key workplace outcomes like

satisfaction and turnover intentions are heavily shaped by the appropriate identification during

communicative interactions related to certain others. In other words, they find that

communication-based activities that include interactions with miscellaneous others may cause

different levels of identification. They imply that further attention to the role of communication in

shaping and expressing identification is therefore needed.

Communication adequacy

A relationship between organizational communication adequacy (relevant, accurate and

useful information) and organizational identification shows that communication is an important

factor in fostering identification with the organization (Atouba et al., 2016). In his research

among IT workers, Atouba (2018) finds that organizational identification mediates the

relationship between internal communication adequacy and turnover intention. The results

13

suggest that an important aspect in tackling the turnover challenge among IT professionals is

improving the quality of information employees receive because this will enhance their

identification with the organization. Furthermore, Smidts, Pruyn, and Van Riel (2001)

find that

providing relevant information to employees is necessary for a good communication climate and

thus for organizational identification. They suggest that management should ensure that

employees are adequately informed in order to enhance identification.

Communication direction

Another perspective on communication in relation to identification is adopted by Bartels,

Peters, de Jong, Pruyn, and van der Molen (2010) who argue that communication direction

influences the type of identification. Vertical communication (top-down or bottom-up

communication in the organization’s hierarchy) is found to be an important predictor of

identification with the organization as a whole. Conversely, horizontal communication (with

proximate employees) is an important predictor of identification with profession/function. This

resonates with Li, Xin, and Pillutla (2002), who note that in joint ventures, top management

members who frequently have to communicate with their parent company are more like to have a

parent organizational identity than employees who do not interact as much with the parent

company. This indicates that the direction of communication practices forms organizational

identification and this process will be further examined in the current research.

This section has attempted to provide a brief summary of the literature relating to

organizational identification in a changing environment and the role of communication in the

identification process. In order to investigate a) when and how employees identify with their

organization during an organizational change and b) what the role of communication is in this

process, the following claims are proposed.

14

1. Organizational identification is an emergent process and when and how employees

identify with their organization can be affected by an organizational change.

2. Communication adequacy and communication direction can affect organizational

identification in a changing organization.

The framework in figure 1 illustrates an overview of the discussed theoretical findings and the

claims proposed.

Figure 1: Framework based on existing theory

METHODS

The aim of the research is to shed light on the organizational identification process in a changing

organization in order to deliver recommendations for future research and practice. Individual

in-depth interviews will help with the investigation of a changing organization as this is a situation

that would be impossible to engineer. Interviews are the best way to investigate a complex social

process such as organizational identification, because this method provides rich and detailed

information about individuals’ experiences and perspectives (Braun & Clarke, 2013). This

15

method also allows for probing and asking unplanned questions due to what participants state,

which is complementary to the explorative nature of the research (Braun & Clarke, 2013).

Finally, interviews ensure the researcher has control over the data produced, which increases the

likelihood of generating data that is useful for forming practical recommendations (Braun &

Clarke, 2013).

Sampling strategy and sample characteristics

For this research the method of purposive sampling was used. This method is appropriate because

to answer the research question specific cases (employees in a changing organization) are needed

to provide information-rich data. The sample used, consists of employees of a large organization

in the financial sector in the Netherlands. The financial sector has changed tremendously since

the financial crisis. More and more organizations have changed their way of working to adapt to

the environment more quickly and change from a big bureaucratic company to a more ‘agile’

(nimble, deft) company. The agile working method is aimed at tailoring services to client needs.

The agile way of working means small teams from different departments (e.g. finance, marketing,

product management, IT and data analysis) that are responsible for their own specific customer

related mission. A mission may e.g. be ‘optimizing the process of mortgage application’. In this

particular organization, a team consists of an employee that is responsible for supporting and

coaching team members (senior business developer), an employee that is responsible for

managing the work processes and setting priorities (product owner), and team members (business

developers).

This agile way of working is a big change in the company and means more responsibility

for teams and individuals, less interdepartmental meetings, more room for initiative, being more

flexible, and faster development time in projects (Barlow et al., 2011). This new way of working

16

was adopted after changing the organizational structure in which three layers in the organization

were reduced to two. The unit between the operating business and IT, the COO (chief operating

office) was integrated with business and IT. Two types of teams were formed: value proposition

teams (responsible for investigating options for new services and products) and value delivery

blocks (responsible for developing and maintaining products/services in IT systems). This change

meant new roles, new teams, and all employees had to go through a selection process for a new

position. This restructuring of teams and implementing the new (agile) way of working made this

organization very suitable for the current research and the posed research question. An overview

of participants can be found in table 1.

Table 1: Characteristics of participants

Interview

number

Name

(pseudonym)

Gender

Years in

company

Department

Function

1

Evert

Male

16

Investments

Senior business

developer

2

Tom

Male

12

Advice

Business

developer

3

Lisanne

Female

4

Investments

Business

developer

4

Kevin

Male

5

Innovation &

Technology

Management

consultant

5

Chris

Male

20

Investments

Product owner

6

Roos

Female

31

Investments

Lead product

owner

7

Daan

Male

12

Advice

Business

developer

8

Oliver

Male

27

Investments

Senior business

developer

9

Max

Male

6

Private bank

Management

17

Interview procedure

Employees were contacted via e-mail, the first five e-mail addresses retrieved from a family

member of the researcher. The other four employees were found through the network of the first

interviewees. The interviews were scheduled and always located in the office of the employee.

Meeting participants in their own environment is important, as this is where the researcher is

closest to their daily organizational lives. This generates data that accurately reflect their opinion,

making the results as credible as possible (Braun & Clarke, 2013). The interviews were kept quite

informal and the participants were ensured that they were talking to someone with a prolonged

engagement in the field to make them feel comfortable (Creswell & Miller, 2000).

The individual in-depth interviews were 51:48 minutes on average and they were

conducted in Dutch. Before the interviews started, the interviewee was informed on the content

of the interview. The researcher explained that the interviews were part of a master thesis for the

University of Amsterdam on the subject of organizational change and communication. The

researcher then also explained that there were no right or wrong answers and that results were to

be anonymized in the paper. The researcher made sure that the interviewees felt comfortable with

being recorded for research purposes and that they understood the researcher was very interested

in their opinions and perspectives.

The interview was guided by the interview guide that is presented in appendix 1.

This

interview guide was used in every interview, but unplanned questions were asked as a result of

what the participants brought up in the interviews. Furthermore, as interesting questions emerged

in one interview, they were incorporated into the conversations in subsequent interviews. The

interviews were started by asking participants to describe their jobs and organizational positions.

The second topic of the interview was focused on the description of the organizational change.

18

The aim was to really understand what happened in the company and what this meant for the

specific employee. Next, employees were asked about the communication about the change. The

third topic covered the initial communication about the change and the fourth topic asked the

participants to explain more about communication with colleagues. The next three topics covered

identification. The aim of these topics was to understand how, when and with what target the

participant identifies. To explain organizational identification examples were used based on the

organizational identification scale by Mael & Ashforth (1992). Finally, the researcher asked the

interviewee if they wanted to add anything (last comments, remarks) and thanked them again for

participation. During the entire interview the researcher tried to listen very carefully and made

sure to clarify with the interviewee if an answer was unclear or ambiguous. The accuracy of

participants’ statements was also ensured due to member checking; by bringing the interpretation

of their statements back to them, to confirm the credibility of the information (Creswell & Miller,

2000).

Data analysis

To analyze the data, open coding was used on the transcript of the interviews. The transcripts

were imported into Atlas.ti and codes were added per selected segment. The topics in the answers

are used to determine these segments. To make sure the research is as reliable and valid as

possible memos were made throughout the entire process. Data analysis progressed from open

coding to refining a structure in the data. By carefully going over the assigned codes and keeping

in mind the initial theoretical concepts (communication adequacy and direction, and moments

and targets of identification) and the research question, a structure was created. This structure

encompasses the theoretical concepts for which evidence was found, complemented with findings

of the interviews and will be further elaborated on in the next section.

19

RESULTS

Organizational change and employees

Before discussing organizational identification and the role of communication it is important to

understand employees’ evaluation of the change and their position in the organization. A full

description of participants, their overall attitude and experiences in the organization can be found

in appendix 2.

The participants will be introduced briefly to give an overview before discussing

the results.

Evert (employee for 16 years) was a manager and not only helped himself but also his team

members work through the change. He explains that his identification with the organization has

changed and he would now also consider working somewhere else whereas he would have never

thought about that in the past.

Tom (employee for 12 years) states his opinion on the change differed from day to day, from

very enthusiastic to questioning whether he wanted to work at this organization at all. He does

not identify with the organization as a whole but mainly with his close colleagues and his

responsibilities.

Lisanne (employee for 4 years) did not live through a lot of insecurity and views the change as

something positive, although the change process took a long time in her opinion. Her

identification with the proximal targets in the organization has grown since the organization

change because her responsibilities shifted more to the practice and customers which makes it

easier to identify with services and products of the organization.

Kevin (employee for 5 years) now works close to the management team and produces strategy

and decision-making documents, but he still does not identify with the overall organization. He

20

states that he does not perceive the organization as being a part of himself. He does however

identify with his direct colleagues and responsibilities.

Chris (employee for 20 years) is very happy with his role and responsibilities in the company.

Although he thinks agile works and it is always good to innovate, he sees it as another process

technique that a big consulting firm developed. He identifies with the organization very much and

feels personally harmed when e.g. the organization gets negative news coverage.

Roos (employee for 31 years) feels like the change made her challenge herself and she was very

ambitious when she applied for a new position, so she is very happy she got the opportunity to

prove herself. She has worked in lots of different departments, teams and projects and therefore

has seen a lot of the company. She identifies with the organization strongly because of the many

facets she has experienced.

Daan (employee for 12 years) started working at the company at a very young age and with the

restructuring made his way to the headquarters. He states that the organization is a big part of his

life and identifies strongly with his team, responsibilities and the services/products he works on.

Oliver (employee for 27 years) considered an early retirement but never really considered a

different employer. According to him, the challenge accompanying the change derives from the

fact that there are still parts of the organization that do not adopt agile principles. He identifies

with the company as a whole and explains that he believes it is important that the company is

doing well.

Max (employee for 6 years) switched to a new position right after the change was announced. He

positively looks back on the communication around the change although he thought management

did not always provide enough new information. He does not identify with the organization as a

21

whole, and also questions if identification with distal targets is even necessary for the employee

or company.

Organizational communication

Employees were asked about the communication regarding the organizational change, their

opinion of this communication and the influence it had on them. Two broad types of

communication were found to be of importance in the process of organizational identification. A

further assessment of underlying attributes provided a sufficient foundation for a differentiation

of these two types of communication.

Planned communication

A very important theme that emerged from the interviews was the planned or formal

communication the company used during the organizational change. The organizational change

was introduced to the employees using a top-down communication strategy. The employees

talked about a big kick-off session in which the management team explained the change that was

coming. Employees state that everybody that would be affected by the change was informed

about the organizational change at the same time.

Additionally, after the big kick-off employees

were informed by management teams or specific employees involved in the organizational

change on new developments with presentations, information documents on intranet, and e-mails.

Planned communication: adequacy

The information the employees received was evaluated as adequate since it was described as

accurate, relevant and useful. They state that these kinds of changes are communicated using an

existing protocol which ensures employees acquire the right information that is relevant for them.

Oliver gives an example:

22

“Yes, very relevant. Segmented to target group so people that would not be placed would receive different information than people that were placed automatically. No they did a good job there.”

This adequate information was very much appreciated by the employees. The importance of

adequate communication in communicating and introducing a change is also talked about by e.g.

Lisanne and Roos when they explained that they evaluated the change as positive because

everything was communicated very clearly. Lisanne says that she would understand negative

feelings towards the change and the company in general from people that were less informed.

Employees also explains that colleagues that were less positive about the adequacy of the

information more quickly detached themselves from the entire process and the organization.

Several employees argue that if the change is not adequately communicated, this will lead to

resistance from employees. This can be derived from e.g. the following statement by Kevin:

“And that leads to a lot of agitation. And that is not good of course. Clear communication can prevent unclear situations with employees. (..) And that unclearness is good to prevent because that often leads to very bad side effects.”

By receiving adequate information employees were able to understand the change and the change

process which allowed them to stay connected to the organization and motivated to work towards

the new situation. Employees state that although the change, inevitably, sometimes led to

uncertainty the adequacy of the information reduced these uncertainties which allowed them to

still feel like they belonged in the organization. The data thus shows that communication

adequacy can affect change acceptance and feelings of identification towards the organization.

Not communicating adequate information can have negative consequences like detachment from

the change process and dis-identification from the company.

23

Planned communication: transparency

Another concept that came up when discussing planned communication was transparency.

Transparent communication, which was described as substantial and timely information and

possibility for participation, is an important factor at play in the organizational identification

process.

Concerns were expressed about the level of communication transparency during the

change. Max states that communication moments contained too little substantial information:

"There were enough communication moments but the amount of new information at those moments eh we did not receive a lot of new information to continue with at these moments.”

Chris also explains his feeling concerning the transparency of communication during the change

process were not good. He felt like there were certain people acting secretive because they knew

more about the change plans.

Other employees explain that they feel like they were involved in

the change process and appreciated the openness that management had towards employees.

There

was a divide in opinions when it comes to how open and timely the communication around the

change was. It is clear however, that transparent communication is appreciated, and lack thereof

is not. Transparent communication ensured that employees stayed involved and identified.

Moreover, dialogue and participation in the change was not possible, although there was enough

time and attention for questions. Employees explain that time for questions is more important

than actually participating in structuring the change. They understand that not everybody can be

consulted on every decision and did not seem to have a problem with this. However, a lot of

value was placed on substantial and timely information and n

on-transparent communication can

have negative consequences, like Chris states:

24 “But on the other side I see that [company name] does not do a lot to encourage this [identification] (..) They destroy it themselves and that has to do with these endless organizational changes and the non-transparent decision-making processes.”

Unplanned communication

The second type of communication that affected organizational identification was the unplanned

communication. The formal communication statements by the organization led to employees

talking about the change with each other. This helped the employees to make sense of the

organizational change and the process of these conversations influenced their identification

process based on two underlying roots.

Unplanned communication: change is subject

The participants point out that the organizational change quickly became daily topic of

conversation. Evert explains that he talked about the change with his manager and his team:

“For me it was just I think ehh just like for the team. Eh, I talked about with my manager (..). I really looked for the conversation with the team. What is our view on this change and what do we think of it?”

Lisanne and Kevin also state that people started talking in groups, about the new roles and what

they would entail. Chris explains how even after employees have new roles there are still

discussions about whether others believed they deserved that specific spot in the organization.

Oliver expresses how he had a lot of conversations at the coffee corner about the possible

outcomes of the change. He also explains that this is a problem because people stop working and

only worry and talk about the change. The is in line with what Max says about change being main

topic of communication:

“Look it is fun if you have one or more common goals as a team because that also helps to feel connected as a team. And if you are in an organizational change that has such a big impact and that is such a heavy burden that that

25

becomes the goal and then it is more every man for himself. So the feeling for the team becomes less important and people tend to think more of themselves.”

The examples show that the organizational change became a very important topic to talk about

with colleagues. With the change becoming the focus, there was less time to communicate about

common goals, interests, results or other connecting topics making it harder to remain identified

with the organization.

Unplanned communication: disparity between employees

Another aspect of unplanned communication is the fact that employees have a harder time

communicating with each other because they react to the change differently. Daan talks about the

difference:

“That really lives. People that get energy from it and are excited about what is going to happen and it can’t come soon enough and they want to start. Yes and the group that is negative and only thinks in problems and that is all they talk about.”

This disparity is also found in what Max states:

“There are people leaving voluntarily, people forced leave. There were people who applied for a job and were very happy they got it. And with those three different kinds of eh people you are in a team, so that makes it harder to identify as a team.”

The organizational change leads to a situation in which employees are no longer equal in terms of

attitude towards the company, job security and thoughts about the change. Oliver also explains

that some departments or functions bypass the entire change and that this leads to disparities

between employees. Employees explain that this disparity makes it harder to communicate with

each other, because people no longer have the same goals or attitudes. Some employees want to

talk about the change and what good it can bring, while others would rather complain about their

26

job insecurity. This in turn makes it harder to identify with each other and with the team. The two

underlying attributes of unplanned communication (change being the topic of conversation and

employees reacting to the change differently) should therefore be included when discussing the

organizational identification process.

The results show that the claim that communication (adequacy and direction) influences

organizational identification in a changing environment is partly true. Although evidence for the

importance of communication adequacy in the organizational identification process is found,

there is a lack of evidence to also include communication direction in the identification

process.

When employees were asked if they feel different when communicating with their direct

colleagues (horizontal) or with their superiors (vertical) they stated this is not the case. They

explain that the pace or the topic of conversation may be different but that this does not influence

their feeling of identification. They do not necessarily identify with the organization as a whole

when communicating bottom-up or when they are approached top-down by management. Daan

explains:

“With higher levels you do talk about [name company] as a whole, I recognize that. But also on more local level because of all the changes the company goes through, we talk about that too. The company is here now, do you remember when we went more that way and now we stand for these goals and yes, I still stayed. So, I notice it just as much then. For me the difference depends more on the business line, so the corporate banking part, I have no idea what happens there.”

Furthermore, the data shows that also communication transparency should be considered when

investigating organization identification and the planned or formal communication. Another

aspect of communication, the unplanned communication or reactions of employees seem to also

affect organizational identification. Therefore, it can be said that not only the formal

27

communication plan formulated by the organization but also the manner in which employees

communicate about the change should be acknowledged when examining identification.

Organizational identification

Moments of identification

For the first attribute of identification, it was revealed that employees identify with their

organization at different times and in different ways. Overall, it can be stated that identification is

a communicative concept that is triggered by specific communication situations. This can for

instance be at home when listening to the radio or seeing a TV commercial. However,

identification is usually stronger when communicating with colleagues. Participants state that

they identify with their organization more when they are interacting with people that understand

what it is like working for that company. Tom says:

“I have to say, if it is about a conversation about work and ehm the results, the feeling I get from that is way stronger with colleagues than with eh people outside of the company.”

Participants also explain that the way they identify with their organization is affected by the

change. The organizational change made them reevaluate the organizations’ identity and whether

this would still match their own identity. Roos explains that she had to make a choice:

“But in the end it also gave me some peace because the organizational change also made me realize I could do this somewhere else but it therefore also strengthens that I consciously chose for [name of company] again.”

Furthermore, employees in this company state that they are used to continuous change and they

explain that the change makes them reevaluate their organizational identity and re-identify with

the company. They explain that their organizational identification benefits from this too, because

they continually ask themselves if their identity still matches the organizations’ identity. Contrary

28

to this positive effect of the organizational change on identification, employees also talk about a

negative effect. Several participants felt like the change showed a different side of the company

and they realized they were not as valuable to the company as they had hoped. Oliver expresses

this as follows:

“Eh. Yes yes identification is strong but it does change due to a change process like this. (..) Well it doesn’t make me less loyal but eh (..) you do see the interaction between you and the company change. You have seen an uglier side of the company and that changes the way you act around each other. (..) As a person it’s never nice to hear that you can leave, you always want to hear that they think you are such a hero that everybody wants you to stay.”

Targets of identification

For the second attribute of identification, data showed that identification is stronger with

proximal targets. Participants tend to identify with their direct colleagues, team and role in the

organization more than with the entire company. They also explain that they are more interested

in news-coverage, results or customer opinions when it covers a topic they (indirectly) worked

on. Evert explains how he identifies with his role and responsibilities:

“If it is things I played a part in. Then yes, of course. It’s appreciation for the hard work so to say. But I don’t really feel the appreciation for the collective, no. (..) If we are talking about my ideal role or a good place for me to be. I can totally identify with what is asked of me. Yes, I am in the right place.”

The more distal targets, like the business line or the entire organization are usually too large and

encompass too many different assets for employees to identify themselves with. Employees

explain that the organization is theoretically one, but in practice can be considered as consisting

of different smaller organizations. Summed up, these smaller organizations form the transcending

whole which is harder to identify with. Moreover, i

dentification can be viewed as layers in which

29

the layer closest to the employee generates the strongest identification, every layer after that is

more difficult to identify with. Kevin describes that:

“Well for me it is like a circle from small towards big. With my own team, with my direct colleagues, I am very close to them and also with the people around that. I also see them outside of work. I identify with the well-being of those people (..). Around that very small in-crowd there is a group of people you work with (..) I identify with them too in the sense that I care if they make the right work-related decisions (..) If it is outside of that second ring, then I would care about it less. So identification is very layered to me.”

Some employees do identify with the more outside layers, and they state this may be due to time

spend at the company. While working at the company for a longer time and seeing a lot of

different departments, assignments, roles and colleagues, employees have a lot of different

identification targets. In that sense, changes in team, department structure or projects can have an

influence on the range of targets which in turn can affect the process of identification by

expanding employees’ network and ‘enlarging’ the layer close to them. Employees explain that

organizational changes can lead to new identification targets and dis-identification with e.g.

current team or responsibilities. Employees also explain that they believe identification with

proximal targets is more important than identification with distal targets. They do not consider it

problematic that they mostly identify with their responsibilities or direct team. Max describes

this:

“I think it is primarily important that you understand what your department does and what it adds to the company. But I think it is more important that you identify with your own department than with the bigger picture. The parts of that puzzle will come together in the end but I think it would be less convenient if people would not identify with their department but only with the organization.”

30

However, by only identifying with more proximal targets, employees are more like to switch

employers because they believe they can do the same work for a different employer. This can be

derived from Evert’s statement

:

“But my engagement and identification with [name of company] is weaker. I am more drawn to look further now (..) Over the years I have thought about what do I like? What am I good at? Where am I at? What do I need to leave work with a smile on my face? If it feels good, I am fine with staying (..) If I look at the horizon, I am not sure if my future is at [name of company]. I look more at roles and responsibilities in the broader sense instead of only looking at [name of company].”

The organizational identification process and targets are shown to differ per situation.

Organizational identification is a phenomenon that can change over time and can be triggered by

a specific situation. Chris expresses how his organizational identification used to be different:

“I used to be someone taking pictures of [name of company] offices when I was abroad. That made me proud. That has changed since 2008, partly because of the financial crisis and also because of the enormous amount of

opportunism I see in the top management. (..) And so you see that identifying gets harder. I am not only proud of the company anymore, I am also very critical.”

CONCLUSION

This study was precipitated by several existing problems. Even though many organizations are

changing their structure and way of working, they still face difficulties maintaining high levels of

employee-organization identification resulting in negative unintended consequences, such as high

employee turnover and low productivity (Scott, 2001). Another problem, resulting in this

research was the lack of focus on the process of emerging identity in change and communication

literature (Pratt, 1998; Pratt et al., 2006).

31

The current state of research indicates the criticality of employees’ maintaining their

connection with their organization during times of change (Knippenberg et al., 2006) and

orienting their behavior towards the organizational goals (Pratt, 2000). In the process of

identification, communicative interactions related to others heavily shape key workplace

outcomes like satisfaction and turnover intentions (Scott & Stephens, 2009). When attempting to

answer the question of when and how employees identify it is important to consider identification

targets (Bartels et al., 2006; Elstak et al., 2015; Riketta & Van Dick, 2005; D. Van Knippenberg

& Van Schie, 2000) and not treat identification as something enduring but investigate it as an

emergent process (Scott & Stephens, 2009; Ashforth et al., 2008).

To resolve the above-mentioned problems, the empirical research in the Dutch

organization was conducted, thus giving more observations. The research had a specific focus on

adequacy and direction of communication, and moments and targets of identification. In

particular, this study examined employees’ evaluation of the communication by the organization

during the change and the link to their organizational identification in order to create

recommendations for changing organizations in the future. Additionally, the current paper

investigated whether the moments and targets of identification changed due to the organizational

change.

A framework was created summarizing the outcomes of the theoretical framework and the

insights gained from the empirical research.

32

Figure 2: Framework based on analysis interviews

The framework shows that evidence was found for the two attributes of identification

proposed in the theoretical framework. Furthermore, the influence of communication can be

assessed in two distinct categories: unplanned and planned. These two categories each have two

underlying root attributes. Planned communication was formed by communication adequacy and

communication transparency. Unplanned communication was formed by change being the

subject and the disparity between employees. There was no evidence for the claim that

communication direction would affect organizational identification. As a response to the

outcomes of the theoretical framework and insights based on results, the present research allowed

to suggest (1) an improvement of managers’ communication strategies regarding the change

situation, (2) an overcome of employees’ tendency to only focus on the organizational change

and, (3) an improvement of employees’ organizational identification with distal targets.

33

Firstly, transparent communication is considered to be equally important as adequate

information. Although employees state that the information they received was correct and

relevant, it was not always considered timely and substantial. The creation of overall transparent

communication, where employees of all levels are engaged in the interaction and information

field would therefore be a good strategy. Employees in this research recognized substantial and

timely information as important for acceptance of the change. Participation in structuring the

change was less important, however room for dialogue and questions about the change is

necessary. A practical implication could be creating a monthly corporate message stating the

current state of affairs on the change, or regular communication catch-ups between managers and

their teams updating them on the change. Managers should be informed about the change and

decisions being made accordingly,

and they should also receive guidance on the subject of

transparency and adequacy of their communication, to support and engage with all levels of

employees.

Secondly, employees state they had difficulty identifying with the company and its goals

during the change; they feel like change being the main topic of communication correlated with

the dis-identification of employees. Despite the fact that the organization put a lot of effort in the

communication about the change, that is only one part of the organizational communication.

Therefore, organizations should be careful of the organizational change taking over the daily

routine and ensure that employees still have attention for their common team goals. Although

employees should get the chance to talk about the change, this should not encompass a longer

period and lead to a certain paralysis when working towards team goals. By not letting the change

be the main topic of conversation, the disparities between employees will also be less striking. By

focusing on the similarities (common goals and interests), communicating and therefore

34

identifying with colleagues will not become such a big obstacle.

The practical implication of this

strategy could be to identify and develop a communication structure that will produce support of

positive affect and reduce negative emotions. As an example, it can be the development of

regular small meetings where employees come together to talk about the change, and their

experiences and worries regarding the change. By dealing with the change at specific moments

and getting enough time to talk about it, the change will be less likely take over employees’

regular day-to-day work activities.

Thirdly, as mentioned, the insights from the research results have highlighted the

difficulty for employees to identify with distal targets. This may lead to higher turnover rates

because employees do not experience the organization alone adding value, they mostly care about

their role and responsibilities. As such, they would consider working at a different company

when looking for new opportunities. The practical implication of this third insight can be more

attention for employees’ identification with the company brand. To implement this strategy an

internal communication campaign focusing on the companies’ culture values and what

differentiates them from other organizations could be a good way to start the conversation on

identification. This would facilitate an environment in which employees will think and talk about

why they work at the organization. A conversation as such could remind employees of their

choice to work at the organization and improve identification with the organization.

To sum up, this research suggests that while dealing with an internal organizational

change, organizations should commemorate several topics, such as adequacy as well as

transparency of their planned communication. Moreover, organizations could focus on their

distinctive cultural values and create a communication structure to guide employees through the

change while also maintaining focus on common goals and values.

35

DISCUSSION

The proposed recommendations should be interpreted with caution as they might not be relevant

or feasible for all companies and changes. Firstly, a different organizational change, such as a

merger might have different effects on the organizational identification (Elstak et al., 2015).

Secondly, the difference between proximal and distal identification targets may be less relevant

in smaller companies as these might have less differentiated identities. More precisely, the

difference between work group identification and organizational identification may be less

pronounced in holographic companies (integrating subunits) rather than ideographic

organizations (incorporating lots of differentiated identities) (Riketta & Van Dick, 2005).

However, research also shows that variables related to the organization as a whole (e.g. intentions

to leave the company) were higher correlated with organizational identification than workgroup

identification (Riketta & Van Dick, 2005). In other words, for certain variables, identification

with the organization as a whole is more important than identification with more proximal

targets. Moreover, the proposed recommendation is in line with Mael & Ashorth (1992), who

found that organizational distinctiveness has a positive effect on employees’ identification with

organization.

The findings of the present study might instigate discussion and create questions from

academic and practical perspectives. The first question can arise regarding the design of the

study. This research was executed using 9 semi-structured interviews to shed light on

communication and identification of employees in a changing organization. However, due to

limited time, the measurement took place at one single point in time. The results can thus not be

generalized for the long term. The establishment of a longitudinal research design might give an

additional and wider understanding of the role of time in an organizational changing context

36

(Kim, Hornung, & Rousseau, 2011). Furthermore, the findings are not interpreted as causal

relations because of the qualitative nature and lack of cross-sectional data in this research. Also,

with self-report measures, one cannot entirely exclude the possibility that common method bias

may have developed the relationships between constructs. Future research should test the causal

claim that planned and unplanned communication are indeed tools for influencing organizational

identification. Moreover, this research was conducted with data obtained from a single financial

organization and it is therefore difficult to make generalizable statements about organizational

identification in changing organizations. Accordingly, field experiments and longitudinal designs

might be applied, preferably in a larger sample of organizations.

The second limitation in this discussion is arguably the lack of including external factors

like perceived external reputation, since these might also be an antecedent of organizational

identification (Bartels et al., 2006; Smidts et al., 2001). However,

external factors only have a

greater influence on overall organizational identification whereas internal factors have a greater

impact on identification with proximal targets (Bartels et al., 2006). Further research should be

undertaken to investigate the complementary role of external factors such as reputation.

Additional studies will be needed to develop a full picture of organizational identification

in a changing environment. These studies could consider various moderator variables like the

nature of the change and the role of employees. Future research could consider using the

differentiation of episodic and continuous change described by Weick and Quinn (1999) as these

two differ in reason, time and process, arguably having a distinct influence on the organizational

identification process. Moreover, identification with distal targets might be stronger than

identification with proximal targets for employees officially representing their organization (e.g.

salespeople or chief executives) (Riketta & Van Dick, 2005).