a report of Organization behaviour

Research in Organizational Behavior 37 (2017) 19–34

Organizational identification and workplace behavior: More than meets the eye

Steven L. Bladera,*, Shefali Patilb, Dominic J. Packerc

a New York University, United States b University of Texas, Austin, United States c Lehigh University, United States

A R T I C L E I N F O

Article history: Available online 20 October 2017

Keywords: Organizational identification Organizational identity Work behavior

A B S T R A C T

Organizational identification is a theoretically profound and practically important construct. It fundamentally transforms the relationship between employees and their work organizations, because highly identified employees integrate their organizational memberships with their sense of who they are. This transformation enhances highly identified employees’ work performance and contributions to the organization. However, despite considerable research on the benefits of organizational identification for employee behavior, theorizing about this effect and its underlying mechanisms remains underde- veloped. In particular, there has not been sufficient theoretical development regarding the specific types of work behaviors that follow from organizational identification, the psychological mechanisms that underlie these behavioral consequences, or observers’ evaluations of these behaviors and those enacting them. To address these issues, we present a framework of the behavioral consequences of organizational identification as well as observers’ reactions to them. Our framework highlights two distinct motivational orientations that underlie organizational identification, one that reliably leads to conformist work behaviors and one that may lead to deviant work behaviors that violate the status quo to advance organizational interests. Moreover, our framework highlights that reactions to these behaviorswill differdependingontheorganization’s emphasison means versusends.Overall, we emphasize that the benefits of organizational identification for work behavior are not as straightforward or as widely recognized as implied in prior research.

© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Overview of our framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Individuals’ motivational orientations: Affiliative and organizational welfare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Affiliative motivational orientation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Organizational-welfare motivational orientation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Organizational context & observers’ evaluations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Means-focused vs. ends-focused organizational contexts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Implications for observers’ evaluations of work behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

* Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (S.L. Blader).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2017.09.001

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Research in Organizational Behavior

journal homepage: www.else vie r.com/locat e/riob

0191-3085/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

20 S.L. Blader et al. / Research in Organizational Behavior 37 (2017) 19–34

Integration: Individual motivations & organizational context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Introduction

Employees who strongly identify with their work organizations are more motivated, more loyal to their organization, and better performers (Bartel, 2001; Blader & Tyler, 2009; Dukerich, Golden, & Shortell, 2002; Ellemers, de Gilder, & Haslam, 2004; Haslam & Ellemers, 2005; Lee et al., 2015; Mael & Ashforth, 1992; Riketta, 2005; Van Knippenberg, 2000; Walumbwa, Avolio, & Zhu, 2008). And the benefits of organizational identification (i.e., the extent to which employees define themselves in terms of their work organization (Ashforth & Mael, 1989)) do not stop there. Organizational identification also has a robust impact on a wide range of desirable employee behaviors, attitudes, and cognitions (Ashforth, Harrison, & Corley, 2008; Haslam, 2004; He & Brown, 2013; Hogg & Terry, 2000; Lee et al., 2015; Riketta, 2005; Tyler & Blader, 2000, 2003). These findings have led scholars to embrace organizational identification as a “magic bullet” in the quest to enhance employee engagement and performance—even if, under some circumstances, this magic bullet involves some downsides (Ashforth, 2016; Dukerich, Kramer, & Parks, 1998; Galvin, Lange, & Ashforth, 2015).

However, although demonstrations of the beneficial outcomes of organizational identification are widespread and continue to proliferate, relatively less attention and effort have been devoted to understanding the specific underlying dynamics that link organizational identification to work behaviors (Ashforth, 2016; Ashforth et al., 2008). Although we know organizational identification is generally good for employee work behavior, we know far less about precisely why, how, or what it is specifically good for. For instance, prior research has not extensively considered the specific types of positive work behaviors—and respective underlying psychological mechanisms—associated with organizational identification. Rather, prior research has tended to conceptualize the behavioral consequences and underlying mechanism(s) of organizational identification in relatively general and vague terms—as if the positive work behaviors that result are a unitary construct and the underlying mechanisms are a straightforward and singular process. This inattention to underlying mechanisms and lack of theoretical precision poses a significant limitation, one that restricts our understanding of organiza- tional identification and its practical value. For instance, the existence of distinct mechanisms raises the possibility that the impact and practical value of organizational identification will differ depending on a range of antecedents, moderating factors, and types of work behaviors under consideration.

These limitations can be illustrated by considering a hypothetical example involving two employees working at the same organization. The first employee is deeply beholden and loyal to organizational rules, norms, and traditions. His work behavior embodies that loyalty, and he can be invariably counted upon to carry out his prescribed role and to do precisely what is expected of him in the pursuit of organizational goals. By contrast, the second employee has an unwavering commitment to doing what she thinks is best for the organization, showing little deference to expectations or tradition and instead subscribing to the motto, “If it ain’t working, ditch it.” She eschews engaging in work behaviors simply because they are typical or expected, opting instead to pursue organizational goals by any means necessary. Does one of these employees identify more strongly with the organization than the other? Is it likely that they identify equally? If so, why is the behavioral manifestation of their identification so different, particularly given that they work at the same organization and thus are subject to the same norms, prototypes, organizational culture, expectations, and so on? Will one employee be valued more than the other? Will one of them be perceived as more identified and committed than the other?

Prior organizational identification research provides little guidance for answering these questions, for distinguishing between these employ- ees, or for anticipating how others in their organization will evaluate and react to them. This lack of guidance is striking, because management research has a long and rich history of distinguishing between work behaviors that are consistent with the status quo and those that depart

from current norms (e.g., Brief & Motowidlo, 1986; Hornstein, 1986; Morrison & Phelps, 1999; Schein, 1990; Staw & Boettger, 1990; Van Dyne, Cummings, & Parks,1995). Yet prior organizational identification research has not extensively acknowledged, theorized, or investigated this duality or the tensions it creates for situations in which normative behavior is regarded as suboptimal or dysfunctional. This oversight limits our understanding of the underlying dynamics and behavioral consequences of organizational identification, as well as our ability to advise organizations about when/why/how to reap the potential benefits of identification. Moreover, this oversight represents a missed opportunity for organizational scholars, who are especially well positioned to investigate these issues and thus to reciprocally inform and enhance social psychological theorizing on social identity as well as the broader range of work on collective self and identity. Indeed, organizational contexts, as compared to other social settings and social categories, involve a wider range of motives (e.g., economic, competence, and autonomy motives), stronger performance demands, more formalized compliance mechanisms, and less stable or certain membership. These inherent characteristics of organizational life can enrich research on the behavioral consequences of collective identification and, more generally, can deepen our understanding of the fundamental psychological dynamics of identification.

In addition, prior research has largely neglected to investigate how observers (i.e., supervisors, coworkers, etc.) assess or regard the work behaviors that follow from organizational identification, and has instead assumed observers will consistently value these behaviors. As a result, prior research not only lacks precision or clarity about the specific work behaviors that can be expected from highly identified employees, but also does not provide adequate guidance as to whether observers consistently recognize and value the work behaviors that follow from strong organizational identification. Yet these issues are critical for understand- ing the prescriptive value of organizational identification research. For instance, they influence whether organizational identification is equally valuable to—and likely to be valued by—organizations that seek conformity (e.g., the military) and those that seek creativity (e.g., technology firms). These questions also influence whether observers in these differing types of organizations are likely to recognize—and reward—the efforts of their strongly identified colleagues.

We analyze these issues and aim to extend prior research. Our analysis is based on the foundational premise, reflected throughout the research literature, that organizational identification involves a profound shift in how employees relate to their organization (Haslam, Postmes, & Ellemers, 2003) and in the nature of their organizationally relevant beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors (e.g., Blader & Tyler, 2009; Haslam, 2004; Lee et al., 2015; Riketta, 2005; Tyler & Blader, 2000, 2003). Indeed, the psychological integration of “me” and “we” is a real game changer in terms of the meaning and experience of organizational membership. We elaborate on this premise by conducting a more granular analysis of organizational identification and its behavioral implications. In doing so, we argue that prior research has not adequately grappled with whether, or how, identification can produce both types of employee behavior described in the hypothetical example above. It thus remains unclear (a) whether identification prompts work behaviors that conform to, or depart from, the status quo, and (b) when, and under what conditions, the various behavioral consequences of identification are rewarded or penalized. We hope our analysis brings greater attention and, ultimately, greater clarity to these issues by spurring further investigation of them.

Overview of our framework

On the one hand, we have strong reason to expect that strongly identified individuals will conform to typical organizational practices (Abrams, Ando, & Hinkle, 1998; Haslam & Ellemers, 2005; Hogg & Terry, 2000; Van Knippenberg, 2000). Indeed, this point is a key premise of social identity theory, the theoretical perspective that dominates most organizational identification research. This premise suggests that highly

S.L. Blader et al. / Research in Organizational Behavior 37 (2017) 19–34 21

identified employees are unlikely to violate organizational norms, even if they are dissatisfied with those norms (Aronson, 1992; Hirschman, 1970; Tyler & Blader, 2000). This perspective portrays highly identified employees as devoted stewards of existing organizational norms, expectations, and prototypes. On the other hand, we also have reason to expect strongly identified employees will deviate from typical organizational practices (Packer, 2008) and, for example, engage in voice behaviors that constructively challenge current opinions, concerns, and ideas (Fuller et al., 2006; Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2008). This perspective portrays highly identified employees as fervent and proactive agents who are willing to leverage a variety of means to advance organizational goals and interests, including those that violate the status quo.

Therefore, whereas some prior research links organizational identifi- cation to normative compliance, other work links it to deviance, and evidence can be found to support either of the two portrayals of highly identified organizational members we described earlier, that is, as members staunchly committed to organizational norms and traditions or as members who are likely to set norms and traditions aside in order to advance organizational goals. To address the shortcomings of prior research and to enhance clarity about the impact of organizational identification on work behavior, we develop and present a framework (see Fig. 1) that focuses on two key issues. First, our framework considers dual motivational orientations that can be associated with identification and that shape highly identified employees’ work behavior. Specifically, we theorize that highly identified employees are typically motivated either by concerns about their affiliation with the organization or by concerns about the organization’s welfare. When an affiliative motive is primary, employees are likely to engage in normative/compliant work behaviors, but when an organizational-welfare motive is primary, they may sometimes engage in deviant organization-serving behaviors. Although both motives reflect strong engagement or investment in the organization, they represent highly distinct manifestations of that engagement or investment. Thus, we argue that although identification enhances organizational engagement and subsequent work behavior, the precise nature of those work behaviors will vary as a function of the highly identified employee’s primary motivational orientation.

Second, our framework also considers how other organizational members (e.g., supervisors, coworkers, and subordinates) evaluate, and react to, the work behaviors that follow from organizational identifica- tion. Our approach to this issue draws upon prior research that distinguishes means-focused versus ends-focused organizations (e.g., Hofstede, Neuijen, Ohayv, & Sanders, 1990; O’Reilly, Chatman, & Caldwell, 1991; Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983; Woolley, 2009). We predict this organizational characteristic will shape how other organizational members evaluate both types of work behaviors that may follow from strong organizational identification. Specifically, we posit that means- focused organizations value conformity, whereas ends-focused organiza- tions value deviance. This difference shapes how differing forms of work behavior (normative vs. deviant) are evaluated and also shapes the perceived identification of those enacting these behaviors. That is, we predict the organizational context will determine the type of work behaviors that are valued and that observers associate with high

identification. In this way, our framework emphasizes the highly subjective nature of how observers assess highly identified employees’ work behaviors.

Overall, then, we distinguish between (a) actors’ identification- related motivations that shape behavior and (b) observers’ evaluations of that behavior. This distinction highlights that the organization-serving behaviors associated with identification can vary and are often, essentially, in the eye of the beholder. Prior identification research has not distinguished between actors and observers in this way, because it has tended to conceptualize the behavioral consequences of identification as a unidimensional, objective property of the behavior itself. By contrast, we assume the work behaviors that result from high organizational identification can vary according to characteristics of those enacting or observing these behaviors. As such, observers may perceive actions as selfish, disloyal, or insubordinate even though these actions were intended to serve the organization. Further, colleagues may mistakenly perceive strongly identified employees as detached, uncommitted, and, in extreme cases, significant threats to the organization.

Individuals’ motivational orientations: Affiliative and organizational welfare

Our framework argues that to understand the various behavioral consequences of strong organizational identifi- cation, we must look to the primary concerns and motivations that drive the behavior of highly identified employees. That is, we must consider highly identified employees’ motivational orientation at the time of the behavior, that is, the identification-related concerns that have motivational primacy in shaping behavior. The key motivational orientations we highlight are (a) an affiliation orientation, in which employees’ key concerns relate to belongingness and connectedness, and (b) an organiza- tional-welfare orientation, in which employees’ key concerns relate to their organization’s interests, goals, and performance. We do not conceptualize these motiva- tional orientations as “types” of identification or chronic categories into which we can classify highly identified individuals. That is, we do not regard these orientations as different forms of organizational identification or as chronic characteristics of highly identified employees (though they can be). Rather, we conceptualize these motivational orientations as reflecting fundamental con- cerns that are relevant to all identified employees but that fluctuate in their relative strength within and across people, time, and situations.

Fig. 1. Highly identified employees’ work behaviors & observers’ evaluations.

22 S.L. Blader et al. / Research in Organizational Behavior 37 (2017) 19–34

Furthermore, note that affiliation and organizational- welfare motivations are distinct but not mutually exclu- sive. Strongly identified employees almost certainly possess strong doses of both motivations. Indeed, both motivational orientations may be part and parcel of what being highly identified means. Nevertheless, we argue that individual and contextual factors will combine to shape the relative salience and strength of these two motivational orientations at any given point in time. When an affiliative motivational orientation is more salient and primary, employees will be inclined to engage in those work behaviors that most clearly signal and reaffirm their belongingness and membership in the organization. That is, they will value, prioritize, and engage in work behaviors that demonstrate their prototypicality and that conform to formal organizational practices and informal organiza- tional norms. By contrast, primacy of an organizational- welfare motivational orientation will prompt employees to engage in work behaviors that are most instrumental to organizational interests and goals, whether or not those behaviors are normative within the organization. As a result, their work behavior will deviate from organization- al practices and norms if and when they perceive those practices and norms as suboptimal for achieving organi- zational interests and welfare.

Prior theorizing and research on the behavioral consequences of organizational identification typically alludes to either affiliative motives, organizational-welfare motives, or both. However, prior work has not clearly differentiated between these dual motivational orienta- tions, nor has it systematically considered their distinct origins and consequences on behavior. Indeed, prior research has been vague about the underlying motivations and mechanisms by which organizational identification shapes work behavior, describing these motivations and mechanisms in generalized, imprecise ways. For instance, prior research often invokes theorizing consistent with an affiliative motivational orientation (e.g., theorizing that primarily conceptualizes identification as cognitive prece- dence of organizational identity over personal identity) to predict organization-serving work behaviors that deviate from organizational norms and practices. Our reasoning highlights that these work behaviors are actually more consistent with an organizational-welfare, rather than an affiliative, motivational orientation. Further, outside the realm of organizational scholarship, although social psychological research recognizes that highly identified group members sometimes deviate from group norms, these effects have not been explicitly attributed to differing motivational orientations.

In the following sections, we draw upon prior research to develop and substantiate our proposed distinction regarding these dual motivational orientations and their distinct impact on work behavior. That is, we consider prior research through the lens of our proposed framework of the motivations and behavioral consequences associated with high organizational identification. Before proceeding with this review, we acknowledge that, in many instances, both motivational orientations can result in the same work behaviors. Indeed, organizational norms typically emerge and persist because they are functional and address

important needs. Thus, conformist behaviors are often quite conducive to organizational goals and interests. Yet conformist behaviors are not always optimal—norms become embedded in an organization’s culture and may persist even once they are no longer adaptive (e.g., Feldman & March, 1981; Staw & Boettger,1990). Moreover, organizational environments are complex and dynamic, and thus norms that are typically functional may not be optimal in all situations. When organizational norms and practices become outdated or are ill-suited to the specifics of a particular situation, the distinction between our proposed motivational orientations will be more apparent and will be manifest in different work behaviors. Further, beyond shaping the type of work behavior an employee engages in, an individual’s primary motivational orienta- tion can also shape the precise way in which that individual enacts a given behavior and his or her persistence in doing so.

Affiliative motivational orientation

Social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979)—the most prominent social psychological theory of people’s identifi- cation with groups, and the theory that has most strongly shaped organizational identification research (Ashforth, 2016)—emphasizes that affiliation-related motives are at the heart of understanding the readiness and strength with which people identify with collectives (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). According to social identity theory, people’s propensity to identify with collectives is grounded in their fundamental need for belongingness (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Tyler & Blader, 2000,2003). That is, people identify with collectives in order to address their drive for inclusion and connectedness, which subsequently enables them to develop and maintain a positive self-concept (Tajfel, 1978). Social identification may serve other functions that also relate to affiliative concerns. For instance, social identifi- cation can address people’s need to manage uncertainty (Hogg, 2000; Hogg & Abrams, 1993), because group membership can provide a sense of security and grounding within the highly complex social worlds people must navigate, providing meaning and guidance on how one should behave toward, interact with, and relate to others (Hogg, 2000; Hogg & Abrams, 1993). If a group is to serve this function, however, group members must feel attached to it and affiliated with it. If members feel tenuous about their affiliation with the group, they are unlikely to draw meaning, security, and certainty from it.

Social identity theory leverages these insights and argues that affiliative concerns and motives will prompt conformity to group norms among highly identified group members (Terry & Hogg, 1996). Indeed, conformity is a key focus of social identity theory, perhaps due to the fact that this theory was originally developed as a model for understanding intergroup dynamics. Conformity is impor- tant for intergroup dynamics, which require that group members perceive and behave in similar, collectively coordinated (rather than dissimilar, individualistic) ways. Social identity theory accounts for the phenomenon and prevalence of conformity by positing that social identifi- cation leads people to align themselves with the group’s

S.L. Blader et al. / Research in Organizational Behavior 37 (2017) 19–34 23

distinctive characteristics and prototypes, which involves conforming to its norms (Brewer, 1991; Ellemers et al., 2004; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell,1987; Van Veelen, Eisenbeiss, & Otten, 2015). By doing so, individuals validate their identification and fulfill their drive to feel they are included, prototypical members of a group that is distinct from other groups. Therefore, when people identify with a group, they downplay their idiosyncratic, individualistic attributes and behavior in the process of taking on the group’s attributes and normative guidelines for behavior (Onorato & Turner, 2004; Turner et al., 1987). By contrast, deviant or atypical behaviors or attributes stand to undermine affiliative needs, because they can prompt individuals to question their belonging and fit to the group, as well as their sense of the unique, enduring characteristics that distinguish the group from others.

Prior research supports these insights and corroborates the linkages among identification, conformity to group prototypes and norms, and belongingness and affiliation needs (e.g., Abrams & Hogg, 1990; Hogg & Turner, 1987; Turner & Oakes,1989; Van Veelen et al., 2015). For instance, Abrams et al. (1990) find social identification enhances conformity across a range of classic influence paradigms (e.g., Asch’s paradigm). Moreover, conformity has been shown to enhance positive affect among highly identified members because it satisfies individuals’ belongingness and affiliation needs (Christensen, Rothgerber, Wood, & Matz, 2004). The link between conformity and affiliation is further reflected in the association people sometimes draw between conformity and loyalty (an index of affiliation; Hornsey & Jetten, 2004), suggesting that conformity is viewed as a key element of what being loyal to, and thus affiliated with, a group means. Notably, the conformity displayed by strongly identified group members can reflect genuine deindividuation (in which an individual complete- ly merges his or her sense of self with the collective) (Hogg, 2001; Turner et al., 1987) or, instead, may reflect more superficial, strategic efforts to claim and validate one’s group membership (Abrams, 1990, 1994; Emler, 1990; Reicher, Spears, & Postmes, 1995). In both instances, however, affiliative motives are involved because affilia- tion is inherent to deindividuation and is also likely the proximal motive behind strongly identified members’ strategic efforts to validate group membership through conformity.

Conformity not only affirms membership to oneself, but also signals membership to others. That is, conformity addresses the need to not only feel affiliated with the group but to also be accepted by others. Evidence of observers’ negative reactions to deviance validates the perceived value of conformity for signaling affiliation with others. As Hogg (2001) notes, a group member’s conformity to group prototypes and norms is “a critical and highly salient yardstick of group life,” a standard used to reward conformists with centrality and influence and to censure deviants. Indeed, “black sheep” can experience strong rejection by their groups (Marques, 1990) because their deviance from group prototypes is perceived as a threat to the integrity of the group itself (Branscombe, Wann, Noel, & Coleman, 1993). As such, the psychological dynamics that underlie normative conformity and behavioral

consistency in groups are not purely intrapsychic process- es that serve personal psychological needs. Rather, the dynamics of conformity also reflect the social reality of intragroup dynamics. As such, the psychology of group membership and the dynamics of intragroup relations combine to create a cycle of internal and external pressures that further tighten the linkages among identification, affiliative concerns, and conformity.

In sum, social identity theory emphasizes that affiliative concerns and motives lie at the heart of why people identify with groups and conform to group norms. Affiliative motives prompt identification in the first place and shape how people behave within their group once they are strongly identified with it, leading them to behave in ways that support feeling included and a sense of belonging to the group. More specifically, affiliative concerns prompt conformist behaviors, because confor- mity is both an expression and an affirmation of people’s group membership. By contrast, deviance (i.e., non- conformity) may threaten or undermine people’s affilia- tion goals by highlighting their differentiation from the group. Across group members, these dynamics may be key to the convergence that is often seen among group members’ thoughts, feelings, behaviors, and self-defini- tions.

Our focus on social identity theory thus far is consistent with the central role this theoretical perspective has played within organizational identification research. The preceding insights are prominent within organizational research, and they come together to predict employees will choose to identify with work organizations that fulfill their affiliative concerns and facilitate a strong sense of inclusion and belongingness. And once employees have identified with their work organization, their affiliative concerns and motivations will orient them to behave in ways that express and maintain a sense of inclusion and belongingness. Notably, this impact may be especially pronounced when employees sense a threat to their affiliation with the organization (Ellemers et al., 2004), further corroborating the argument that strongly identi- fied employees’ affiliative motives shape their work behavior. These dynamics play a key role in organizational life, given that conformity is often essential to coordination and aligning individual behavior with collective goals. Indeed, the affiliative motives that underlie identification may be a critical element that makes organizational life possible (Haslam & Ellemers, 2005; Haslam et al., 2003).

Organizational-welfare motivational orientation

The second motivational orientation we propose focuses on highly identified employees’ concerns about their organization’s welfare. We propose this motivational orientation leads employees to monitor, assess, and work toward the achievement of organizational interests, goals, and performance. This motivational orientation is distinct from the affiliative motivational orientation just discussed, because it reflects a focus on the organization’s success rather than on one’s membership and inclusion in it. Although organizational-welfare (or, more broadly, group- welfare) motives have not been extensively considered in

24 S.L. Blader et al. / Research in Organizational Behavior 37 (2017) 19–34

traditional social identity research, they are supported by social psychological research that examines collective identification from theoretical perspectives other than social identity theory. Moreover, although prior organiza- tional identification research has discussed the impact of an organizational-welfare drive (this work is reviewed below), it has not been extensively distinguished or theorized as a distinct motive apart from other motives that also underlie organizational identification.

The conceptual basis for an organizational-welfare motivational orientation can be understood by recognizing that (a) organizational membership has a significant influence on how highly identified employees think and feel about themselves (Ashforth & Mael, 1989) and (b) people are fundamentally motivated to feel positively about themselves (i.e., people are fundamentally driven by self-enhancement motives) (Ashforth et al., 2008). These premises suggest highly identified employees will be deeply concerned about their organization’s welfare, because their feelings and thoughts about themselves are shaped by their organization’s successes and failures. Put another way, because identification reflects a cognitive overlap between the self and the organization, organiza- tional interests may become internalized as self-interests and organizational success become tantamount to indi- vidual success (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Blader & Tyler, 2009; Dukerich et al., 2002; Kramer, Hanna, Su, & Wei, 2001; Lee et al., 2015). These dynamics should motivate highly identified employees to focus on, and work to advance, their organization’s interests and success.

Organizational-welfare motives will, under certain circumstances, prompt different work behaviors as com- pared to affiliative motives. As discussed above, affiliative motives lead employees to conform to organizational norms, giving rise to collective work behavior (i.e., to behavioral convergence). By contrast, we theorize organi- zational-welfare concerns will motivate employees to assess and monitor progress toward organizational goals and performance, motivating them to behave in ways they regard as the most conducive to achieving those goals and to enhancing organizational performance. This process is somewhat individualistic because employees may differ in how they assess their organizational performance as well as in their sense of the work behaviors most critical to achieving organizational goals.1 When an employee views prevailing organizational norms and practices as subopti- mal, we predict organizational-welfare motives may prompt individualistic work behaviors that deviate from those norms and practices. Moreover, their work behaviors

may well deviate from what others view as necessary or optimal. In other words, primacy of an organizational- welfare motivational orientation can prompt behavioral divergence within an organization, because this orienta- tion will motivate highly identified employees to engage in behaviors they regard as optimal for enhancing organiza- tional success, regardless of whether those behaviors are in accord with the status quo or others’ views.

An emphasis on individualized assessments, discretion, and behavioral divergence among highly identified indi- viduals departs somewhat from the logic and key tenets of social identity theory outlined above. This departure reflects a broader shift in the focus of identification research, which traditionally focused on the analysis of intergroup dynamics but has recently transitioned to analysis of intragroup dynamics and behavior (Bran- scombe, Spears, Ellemers, & Doosje, 2002; Spears, Ellemers, Doosje, & Branscombe, 2006; Tyler & Blader, 2000). This shift has prompted recognition that deperson- alization may not be an inevitable or absolute consequence of identification; that is, that identified members may not entirely lose themselves in their group (Deaux, 1993; Postmes & Jetten, 2006; Simon, 2004; Spears, 2001; Swann, Jetten, Gómez, Whitehouse, & Bastian, 2012). Rather, when interacting within their group, highly identified members may still be influenced by their individual selves (i.e., the part of their self-concept that relates to their idiosyncratic attributes and identity) (Brewer, 1991). This perspective conceptualizes identifica- tion as a more complex phenomenon than the more traditional notion that identification causes a shift from “me” to “we” (e.g., Ashforth & Mael, 1989). Instead, identification, and the behaviors that follow from it, may reflect a complex interplay between one’s collective and personal identities (Postmes, Spears, Lee, & Novak, 2005; Sedikides & Brewer, 2001; Swann et al., 2012; Van Veelen et al., 2015).

The insight that the individual self remains salient and influential among highly identified employees provides the conceptual foundation necessary to theorize that highly identified employees’ work behavior will be shaped by concerns about organizational viability and success (Ashforth et al., 2008; Michel & Jehn, 2003) in addition to, and distinct from, affiliation and conformity concerns. This insight suggests highly identified employees will not invariantly internalize organizational norms, nor will they inherently deem those norms to be appropriate. Rather, they may independently evaluate the suitability, effective- ness, and legitimacy of organizational norms and practices (Packer, 2008; Packer & Miners, 2015). In other words, highly identified employees may develop their own sense of what is optimal for the organization and, in some situations, this tendency may prompt them to engage in work behaviors that deviate from organizational norms and expectations. Such deviant organization-serving behaviors are a manifestation of highly identified employ- ees’ intrinsic motivation to help the organization succeed (i.e., their organizational-welfare motive), and can thus be distinguished from strategic efforts to gain status by positively differentiating oneself or efforts to otherwise enhance one’s self-interest.

1 We posit that highly identified employees are relatively less likely to differ in their sense of organizational goals and interests. This is because organizational goals tend to be an overriding aspect of the organization’s identity, reflecting the organization’s vision, mission, and strategy (Carton, Murphy, & Clark, 2014). Although norms and practices are also an important component of an organization’s identity, they may be regarded as the means to achieve organizational goals; that is, they may be regarded as a relatively subordinate and less inherent characteristic of the organization, at least as compared to organizational goals. Therefore, we argue organizational members are more likely to diverge in judgments of the functionality of organizational norms and practices as compared to their overall sense of organizational goals and interests.

S.L. Blader et al. / Research in Organizational Behavior 37 (2017) 19–34 25

Prior social psychological theorizing and research supports our conceptualization of a distinct organization- al-welfare motivational orientation among highly identi- fied employees. For instance, research on identity fusion by Swann and his colleagues (e.g., Swann, Gómez, Dovidio, Hart, & Jetten, 2010; Swann et al., 2012) supports the notion that identification can involve the co-activation of individual and collective selves. Identity fusion refers to identification in which individual and collective identities are aligned and coactivated, such that the individual self contributes motivational force while the collective self determines how that motivation is directed. For fused individuals, individual agency is harnessed to the goals of the collective, enhancing their persistence and their likelihood of engaging in relatively more extreme forms of group-serving behavior (as compared to those who are identifying, but not fused, with the group). Consistent with our reasoning, identity-fusion theorizing emphasizes affili- ative concerns and conformist behaviors are not the sole correlates of organizational identification. However, our approach is distinctbecausewe conceptualize the individual self as contributing more than motivational agency. In addition, we theorize that a salient and operative individual self will prompt distinct individual judgments about the functionality of organizational norms and optimal work behaviors. As such, an organizational-welfare motivational orientation reflects synergistic input from both individual and collective aspects of the self-concept, and together they shape how one prioritizes between organizational interests, assesses organizational progress in achieving those inter- ests, and chooses the work behaviors in which one ultimately engages. Overall, whereas identity-fusion theo- rizing emphasizes extreme effort devoted to normative organization-serving behaviors, our organization-welfare motivational orientationprompts awider range of behaviors that may include deviating from and perhaps even challenging organizational norms.

Organizational-welfare motives are also supported by Leach et al.’s (2008) model of collective identification, which conceptualizes collective identification as compris- ing two critical yet separable dimensions. The first dimension relates to self-definition, which captures the extent to which group members define themselves according to their group’s attributes (i.e., depersonaliza- tion, Turner et al., 1987) and perceive their group as homogeneous and distinct from other groups. The second dimension refers to self-investment, or the extent to which members have positive feelings about their group and regard it as an important and salient entity to which they feel connected. Self-investment is reflected in members’ sense of satisfaction, solidarity (i.e., commitment), and centrality (i.e., importance) toward their group. We propose that the self-definition and self-investment dimensions of identification are not only distinct, but can also be mapped onto the two motivational orientations we associate with identification. Specifically, we propose that an affiliative motivational orientation may be the motivational analog of Leach et al.’s (2008) self-definition dimension, because the extent to which employees rely on their organizational membership to fulfill their self- definition and distinctiveness needs shapes the

importance they place on feeling affiliated and included. Second, an organizational-welfare motivational orienta- tion may be the motivational analog of the self-investment dimension, because the extent to which employees feel their organizational membership is satisfying and impor- tant to them shapes the extent to which they will be concerned about organizational viability and success.

Our reasoning suggests that when an employee’s organizational identification is based primarily on self- definition, he or she will be somewhat complacent about shortcomings in the organization’s performance and suc- cess, because these shortcomings do not threaten that employee’s concerns about feeling affiliated with and included in the organization. By contrast, when an employ- ee’s organizational identification is based primarily on self- investment, we predict he or she will react quite differently. Specifically, we predict this employee will be highly concerned about the organization’s viability and prosperity, and thus threats to the organization’s performance will be viewed as threats to the satisfaction the individual enjoys from organizational membership. Such threats will evoke loyalty and commitment, spurring him or her to defend the organization against these threats. These predictions are particularly intriguing in relation to prior organizational identification research, which has tended to conceptualize organizational identification solely in terms of self-defini- tion (e.g., emphasizing the cognitive intermingling of self and organization) but has examined work behaviors (e.g., extra role behaviors, voice behaviors, etc.) that relate more closely to the self-investment dimension’s emphasis on the importance and satisfaction of group membership.

Other advances and frameworks within social psychol- ogy likewise substantiate the dual motivational orienta- tions we propose. For instance, Roccas, Sagiv, Schwartz, Halevy, and Eidelson (2008) distinguish between four “modes” or types of identification (importance, commit- ment, superiority, and deference). Their model, like Leach et al.’s (2008), highlights that the meaning and conse- quences of identification will differ depending on an individual’s configuration of these modes. In relation to Roccas et al.’s (2008) theorizing, we regard two of their types of identification (the “importance” and “deference” modes) as corresponding to our affiliative motivational orientation, whereas their “commitment” mode reflects our organization-welfare motivational orientation. Roccas et al.’s (2008) discussion of the parallels between their modes of identification and the distinction they note between blind patriotism (i.e., identification based on importance and deference) and constructive patriotism (i.e., identification based on commitment) support these proposed linkages. Blind patriotism reflects unbridled support, regardless of the actions of one’s country, whereas constructive patriotism (much like our organizational- welfare motivational orientation) can be manifest in criticizing and working to change one’s country for the better (Schatz, Staub, & Lavine, 1999). Similarly, Ashmore, Deaux, and McLaughlin-Volpe’s (2004) work also con- ceptualizes collective identification as a complex, multidi- mensional phenomenon, and various elements of collective identification within their model have clear linkages to our affiliative (e.g., self-categorization,

26 S.L. Blader et al. / Research in Organizational Behavior 37 (2017) 19–34

attachment, interdependence) and organizational-welfare (e.g., evaluation, importance) motivational orientations.

Therefore, overall, prior theorizing and conceptual frameworks on collective identification highlight that identification is a complex, multi-faceted construct. In accordance with social identity theory, some aspects of collective identification involve affiliative needs to feel a sense of attachment, belongingness, and prototypicality. These concerns propel members to monitor and affirm their connectedness and acceptance. However, other aspects of collective identification emphasize appreciation of and concern for the group itself (and not only one’s membership in it). Prior research on the behavioral consequences of collective identification corroborates these insights. For instance, prior work finds the effect of identification on group-serving contributions is en- hanced when one’s group has previously failed rather than succeeded (DeCremer & Van Dijk, 2002) and when the status of one’s group is under threat (Spears, Doosje, & Ellemers, 1997), reflecting a tendency to step up and contribute to the group’s welfare when support is needed most. Relatedly, prior research finds strongly identifying members are either the most conformist or the strongest dissenters within a group, depending on the extent to which they view the group’s interests as under threat or not. Specifically, the normative conflict model of dissent (Packer, 2008) predicts and finds that although strongly identifying group members are often more attuned to and compliant with group norms, they are also quite capable of evaluating the merits (e.g., efficacy, morality) of group norms. And when they perceive group norms as harmful to collective interests, they are likely to challenge those norms and seek to change the group for the better (Packer, 2008; Packer & Chasteen, 2010).

Organizational context & observers’ evaluations

Our reasoning thus far emphasizes that organizational identification can produce quite distinct patterns of organization-serving work behaviors. Our analysis high- lights that organizational identification does not have a singular impact on work behavior. Rather, the specific type of impact will vary depending on an employee’s primary motivational orientation at the time of the behavior. This insight can be extended to analyze how other organiza- tional members—for example, managers, colleagues, and subordinates—will evaluate and react to the distinct behavioral consequences of strong organizational identifi- cation. We propose that fellow organizational members (whom, for parsimony, we collectively refer to as “observers” in the remainder of our chapter) will vary in how they evaluate work behaviors, including those behaviors that will follow from organizational identifica- tion. Specifically, we propose that particular features of the organizational context will determine whether observers positively evaluate and reward (or, alternately, negatively evaluate and punish) work behaviors that conform to, or deviate from, organizational norms. More fundamentally, we argue the organizational context will determine the work behaviors that observers associate with high organizational identification and as serving organizational

interests. These perceived associations can lead observers to misconstrue an actor’s intentions and organizational identification. Examining this issue is important because these mistaken evaluations can be the basis for a wide range of important consequences, such as performance appraisals, reward allocations, promotion decisions, status conferral, and patterns of influence. As a result, strongly identifying employees’ well-intentioned, organization- serving work behaviors may elicit significant penalties rather than the appreciation, rewards, and prominence that might be expected.

Prior organizational identification research has not clearly separated actor versus observer perspectives. Instead, prior work has generally conceptualized the organization-serving nature of the work behaviors that follow from identification as if it were an objective property, rather than a subjective evaluation, of those work behaviors. Our notion that actors’ intentions may be misaligned with observers’ evaluations suggests a different perspective, highlighting that evaluations of the behavioral consequences of organizational identification are perhaps not as clear-cut as previously suggested. For instance, a strongly identifying employee’s supervisors and coworkers may view that employee’s efforts to advance organiza- tional goals by deviating from organizational norms as self-interested, out-of-line, and disloyal. Alternately, a strongly identifying employee’s efforts to affirm his or her affiliation by conforming to organizational norms may, in some cases, lead others to view him or her as complacent and disengaged. Although prior research has not exten- sively considered such discrepancies between actors’ intentions and observers’ evaluations in relation to organizational identification in particular, these dynamics have been illustrated outside the organizational and psychological realm. For instance, the scholarly literature on patriotism emphasizes that although patriotism is an antecedent of either unbridled support for one’s country or fierce criticism of one’s country (Roccas et al., 2008; Schatz et al., 1999), observers tend to associate it with only one of these outcomes. As a result, observers who associate patriotism with unbridled support will regard people who express criticism as disloyal and, at the extreme, traitors.

Means-focused vs. ends-focused organizational contexts

Although many organizational characteristics may shape how organization-serving behavior is defined and evaluated, we currently focus on one particular dimension. Specifically, we draw upon prior theorizing that character- izes organizations according to their focus on means versus ends (e.g., Hofstede et al., 1990; O’Reilly et al., 1991; Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983; Woolley, 2009), because this dimension is especially relevant to our desire to under- stand how observers evaluate conformist versus deviant work behavior. Means-focused organizations emphasize normative processes and approaches to work behavior, coordination, problem-solving, interpersonal conduct, and so on. By contrast, ends-focused organizations are oriented toward outcomes and results, with relatively less concern about how those outcomes are achieved. In other words, means-oriented organizational contexts focus on the

S.L. Blader et al. / Research in Organizational Behavior 37 (2017) 19–34 27

approaches reflected in employees’ work behavior (i.e., a focus on “how we do things”), whereas ends-oriented contexts are dominated by a focus on the results of employees’ work behavior (i.e., a focus on “what we are achieving”). These distinct foci can permeate an organiza- tion and will be reflected in both informal (i.e., organiza- tional culture, norms, and social cues) and formal (i.e., performance evaluation systems, resource allocations, and structural features) characteristics (Hofstede et al., 1990; O’Reilly et al., 1991; Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983).

A wide range of organizational theories and frame- works feature the distinction between means-focused and ends-focused organizational contexts. For instance, Wool- ley (2009) investigated the origins and performance implications of teams’ relative focus on means versus ends. The distinction between means-focused and ends- focused organizations is also a prominent feature of the organizational culture research literature. For instance, O’Reilly et al. (1991) and Hofstede et al. (1990) conceptu- alize process versus outcome orientation as a fundamental dimension in their respective models of organizational culture, and this distinction has also been described as an essential element of the difference between mechanistic and organic culture types (Burns & Stalker, 1994). Furthermore, the means versus ends distinction has also been emphasized in the scholarly literature on organiza- tional effectiveness. This literature conceptualizes the means versus ends distinction as a fundamental dimension for characterizing the values of an organization, and one that has significant implications for assessing organiza- tional effectiveness (Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983; see also Georgopoulos & Tannenbaum, 1957; Katz & Kahn, 1978).

The means versus ends distinction is also related to, but different from, other conceptual dimensions that have been theorized to be useful for characterizing and distinguishing organizational contexts. For instance, it differs from the distinction between organizational stability and change (Farjoun, 2010; March, 1996; March & Simon, 1958; Thompson, 1967; Weick, 1979) and the relatively more recent distinction between cultural tight- ness and looseness (Gelfand, Nishii, & Raver, 2006; Gelfand et al., 2011). Although a means-focused orientation may connote stability and cultural tightness and an ends- focused orientation may connote change (but, notably, not cultural looseness), these parallels are not absolute. For instance, an innovative organization may strive for constant change while having strong norms and cultural expectations about the processes by which innovation should be pursued. As such, a means-focused organization can, in certain configurations, produce steady change. Similarly, ends-focused organizations may have tight cultures characterized by strong, chronic normative expectations that dictate all members should focus on ends in their thinking, interactions, and work behavior.2

For this reason, the means versus ends distinction should not be equated with these related dimensions for

characterizing organizational contexts, and we emphasize the means-focus versus ends-focus dimension because it is directly related to our emphasis on conformist versus deviant organization-serving work behaviors.

Implications for observers’ evaluations of work behavior

We predict that an organization’s relative focus on means versus ends will differentially impact observers’ evaluations of the two distinct types of organization- serving work behaviors we associate with high organiza- tional identification. Our predictions are presented in Fig.1. First, consider how an organization’s means- versus ends- focus may influence evaluations of normative work behaviors. As described in the previous section, we predict normative work behaviors are likely among (a) highly identified employees with an affiliative motivational orientation and (b) highly identified employees with an organizational-welfare motivational orientation that re- gard organizational norms as conducive to organizational interests and success. We predict observers in means- focused organizational contexts will evaluate these nor- mative behaviors positively and will regard employees engaging in these behaviors as good organizational citizens that fit the organization’s prototype of a highly identified organizational member—a prototype character- ized by allegiance to organizational norms, processes, procedures, traditions, and so on (see Fig. 1, Boxes A and D). Notably, observers will draw these inferences even when an actor’s primary motivational orientation is actually misaligned with this prototype (i.e., Fig. 1, Box D, when an organizational-welfare motivational orientation is prima- ry). Also note that observers may positively evaluate normative behaviors that are, in an objective sense, unhelpful and perhaps even dysfunctional for organiza- tional success (e.g., in dynamic environments that require frequent innovation and change), because observers in means-focused organizations will prioritize normative approaches over outcomes and results. Therefore, in means-focused organizations, individuals who act norma- tively will be viewed as strongly identifying, and thus will be evaluated more positively and bestowed with benefits (e.g., reward, influence, promotions), even though their work behaviors may not actually enhance organizational performance.

By contrast, in an ends-focused organization, observers’ evaluations of normative behaviors will be more variable and complex. When observers in ends-focused organiza- tions view normative behavior as conducive to organiza- tional interests and goals (Fig. 1, Boxes C and F), they will evaluate the behavior positively and will perceive the employee that enacts the behavior as a good, highly identified organizational citizen. However, observers will not always regard normative behavior as suitable for achieving organizational goals. Indeed, even in ends- focused organizations, prevailing norms or perspectives may become outdated or may not be inadequate for particular situations. In this case, observers will evaluate normative behaviors (i.e., doing what has been done before) negatively, and are likely to regard the employee as a well-intentioned but overly “complacent soldier” or, in

2 In this sense, organizational focus is itself a type of “meta-norm,” prescribing the extent to which work behavior ought to be guided by normative patterns versus a focus on organizational outcomes.

28 S.L. Blader et al. / Research in Organizational Behavior 37 (2017) 19–34

some cases, as unmotivated and uncreative (Fig. 1, Boxes B and E). In the former case, the employee’s identification will not be questioned as strongly, but his or her value to the organization will be. In the latter case, both the employee’s identification and value to the organization will be questioned.

Second, consider how these predictions may change in regard to deviant organization-serving work behaviors. As a reminder, we predict that highly identified employees with an organizational-welfare motivational orientation will engage in work behaviors that are inconsistent with organizational norms when they believe such deviance will achieve organizational interests. How will observers within the organization evaluate these behaviors? In means-focused organizations, we predict such deviant behaviors—and those enacting them—will be evaluated negatively (Fig. 1, Box G), because standard practices and norms are likely to become institutionalized and taken- for-granted expectations of behavior (Feldman & March, 1981), especially in means-focused organizations. As such, deviant behaviors will be perceived as inappropriate and those enacting such behaviors will be critiqued as out of step with what is right and as violating the prototype of a valued, highly identified organizational member. In other words, observers in means-focused organizations will not associate deviance with high identification and organiza- tion-serving intentions, and will view those who deviate from normative boundaries of behavior as misfits, incompetent, selfish, and perhaps disloyal.

By contrast, we predict observers in ends-focused organizations will be far more tolerant of deviant behavior (Fig. 1, Boxes H and I), open to the possibility that deviance is constructive and reflects organization-serving inten- tions. To the extent that observers view one’s deviant behavior as constructive and conducive to organizational goals, they will evaluate the behavior positively and may seek to learn from the behavior (Fig. 1, Box H). They will also be likely to value and support the employee who enacts such deviance, recognizing that individual as advancing group interests (Morton, Postmes, & Jetten, 2007). Moreover, we also anticipate that even when observers view deviant behavior as somewhat less functional and helpful than normative behavior (Fig. 1, Box I), they may take a more benevolent lens toward those who enact such deviance and may be less likely to question the actor’s loyalty and intentions, because the organiza- tional culture is generally more open and receptive to deviance and experimentation.

Integration: Individual motivations & organizational context

Our proposed framework (see Fig. 1) focuses on both (a) the types of behaviors that follow from high organizational identification and (b) how observers evaluate those behaviors and the employees enacting them. Our goal in developing this framework is to bring greater attention to the complexity that surrounds the behavioral consequen- ces of organizational identification—highlighting that the behaviors that follow from organizational identification, as well as the evaluation of those behaviors, are not as

unidimensional or as straightforward as often suggested in prior research. Thus far, our discussion has focused on describing the key elements of our framework and the dynamics that relate to each of the four combinations that result from crossing the dual motivational orientations and organizational foci we highlight. To complete our analysis, however, it is important to consider the interrelationship between our two dimensions.

Specifically, we wish to emphasize three types of interrelationships between our dimensions. First, individ- uals’ motivational orientations are, of course, not the sole predictor of work behavior, and organizational focus will be an important influence on behavior in its own right. Second, organizational focus likely influences individuals’ motivational orientations. Although this relationship may not be dominant at the individual level, in the aggregate and over time, it is likely to exert important effects on organizational functioning. Third, organizational focus is likely to shape the selection, promotion, and retention of employees who are either affiliation or organizational- welfare oriented. We consider each of these below.

Our theorizing emphasizes that an organization’s relative focus on means versus ends will determine observers’ evaluations of the work behaviors that follow from organizational identification. However, the nature of an organization’s focus is also likely to affect an employee’s work behavior in the first place, because an organization’s focus on means versus ends is likely to shape actors’ sense of the baseline normative work behaviors in that organization. Employees in means-focused organizational contexts may feel strong pressures to avoid engaging in deviant work behaviors, regardless of their own motiva- tional orientation. This tendency will create a hurdle for employees whose organizational-welfare motivational orientation is primary, since their motivational drive must be strong enough to override those pressures. Indeed, observers’ reactions play an important role in reinforcing and shaping future behavior (Haslam et al., 2013).

However, an organization’s focus does not have an absolute or inevitable influence on its members’ work behaviors. For instance, in means-focused organizations, organizational-welfare motivations may prompt employ- ees to see dysfunction in current organizational norms and practices and spur a drive to take corrective actions. Although the organizational context may prompt ambiva- lence and reluctance toward acting on that drive, these inhibitors may be overcome. Similarly, in ends-focused organizations, employees who hold strong affiliative motivations may feel ambivalent and reluctant about appearing overly conformist. The behavioral latitude an ends-focused organization provides should not be con- fused with complete suspension of behavioral expect- ations and, indeed, may make those expectations more complex. Reluctance to appear conformist may present a hurdle to acting on one’s affiliative motivations, albeit a hurdle that can also be overcome. Overall, obstacles may arise when an organization’s focus prescribes normative work behaviors that are inconsistent with the work behaviors suggested by an individual’s motivational orientation (Vogel, Rodell, & Lynch, 2016). Whether these obstacles are overcome—and, thus, whether an employee’s

S.L. Blader et al. / Research in Organizational Behavior 37 (2017) 19–34 29

identification-related motivations animate his or her work behavior—will likely depend on the perceived costs and benefits of conforming versus violating organizational norms and practices (Packer, 2010). However, over time, these obstacles may undermine an employee’s organiza- tional identification (i.e., when a chronic mismatch exists between the organization’s focus and an employee’s motivational orientation), a point to which we will return below.

As noted, an organization’s means versus ends focus may also influence employees’ primary motivational orientations in the first place. Overall, we would expect affiliative motives to be more prominent among employees of means-focused organizations, and organizational-wel- fare motives to be more prominent among employees of ends-focused organizations. However, we also predict an asymmetry, such that whereas affiliation-motivated employees are likely to adopt behavioral patterns consis- tent with the focus of the organization to which they belong, organizational-welfare-oriented employees are likely to be more immune to the influence of organiza- tional focus. Whereas an ends-focused organization is more congruent with a welfare-oriented individual’s motives, the employee’s motivational orientation is endogenous to it and, moreover, this employee is unlikely to shift his or her motivational orientation simply to fit in even if he or she were to be employed in a means-focused organization. By contrast, an affiliation-oriented employee may adopt behavioral patterns consistent with either a means- or an ends-focused organization because organi- zational focus serves as a type of meta-norm that prescribes “how we think and make decisions around here” (see footnote 2).

Critically, organizational focus is also only one of several influences on employees’ motivational orientation, and motivational primacy is likely to vary—across organi- zational members and across situations—due to internally or externally induced concerns, as well as needs at the individual and the organizational level. Thus, even employees whose motivational orientations are generally aligned with their organization’s means versus ends focus may experience occasions in which they experience a discrepancy between the work behaviors they are moti- vated to perform and the work behaviors others will value.

In a broader sense, this discussion highlights the need to understand the determinants that shape whether one motivational orientation is relatively stronger than the other. Yet prior research and theorizing provides relatively little basis for identifying these factors. More generally, little progress has been made toward understanding the antecedents of the various subcomponents and dimen- sions of collective identification (e.g., Leach et al., 2008; Roccas et al., 2008). Nevertheless, we can speculate about some of the antecedents that may shape the relative salience and importance of affiliative or organizational- welfare motives at a given point in time.

At the individual level, individuals’ dispositions and chronic goals will likely influence motivational primacy. Although we do not conceptualize our motivational orientations as chronic dispositional characteristics, indi- vidual dispositions likely influence their relative

activation. Strongly identifying employees who are high in need for belonging, collectivism (Goncalo & Staw, 2006), or anxious group-attachment style (Smith, Murphy, & Coats, 1999) will likely have a propensity to prioritize an affiliative motivational orientation. By contrast, an organi- zational-welfare motivational orientation may tend to be primary among highly identified employees who are high in both openness to experience and conscientiousness (because they may be more willing to deviate from norms (Packer, 2010)), prone to self-regulation based on a sense of duty and responsibility (Schaumberg & Flynn, 2012) (at least when their sense of obligation is focused on the organization), or high in individualism (and who may feel less pressure to conform to organizational norms; Hornsey & Jetten, 2004; Lee et al., 2015).

Beyond these dispositional characteristics, highly identified employees’ standing in their organizations may also affect the relative strength of their motivational orientations. For instance, Ellemers and Jetten (2013) suggest highly identified but marginal members may engage in constructive deviance, as long as these members are comfortable with their marginal status. These individ- uals are unlikely to experience strong affiliative concerns or subsequent conformity pressures, enabling them to prioritize organizational-welfare motivations. However, among those who are unsatisfied with their marginal status and among those who are more central in the organization, affiliative motives will be more salient and will increase conformity.

Situational circumstances that activate the disposition- al needs noted above or that affect one’s standing in the organization (e.g., threats to one’s inclusion in the organization) will also likely influence the relative primacy of affiliative versus organizational-welfare motivational orientations. For instance, organizations that lead employ- ees to feel their standing, or their very future, in the organization is tenuous or under threat will likely prioritize affiliative motives and thus will be likely to engage in conformist behaviors that may secure affiliation with the organization (Molden, Lucas, Gardner, Dean, & Knowles, 2009). Organizations foster these feelings when they are dominated by highly competitive norms or when they signal the organization is constantly seeking to “weed out” employees. Organizational contexts that prompt other forms of self-threat may likewise enhance members’ affiliative drives and thus behavioral conformity (e.g., Griskevicius, Goldstein, Mortensen, Cialdini & Kenrick, 2006; Pyszczynski, Greenberg, & Solomon, 1997). By contrast, organizations that foster a sense that one’s membership and standing are secure and stable—through, for instance, procedural justice, psychological safety, or voice climate—may attenuate their members’ affiliative drives and instead enhance primacy of an organizational- welfare motivational orientation. Therefore, whereas prior research finds competitive norms increase the work performance of highly identified employees (Chen, Zhu, & Zhou, 2015), our analysis highlights that the specific nature of this enhanced performance will be highly conformist unless steps are taken to assure employees of their membership and standing in the organization. By contrast, external threats to the organization’s viability and

30 S.L. Blader et al. / Research in Organizational Behavior 37 (2017) 19–34

success may accentuate organizational-welfare motiva- tions and thus make constructive deviance more likely (Dupuis, Wohl, Packer, & Tabri, 2016).

In sum, an organization’s means focus versus ends focus is likely to affect the motivational orientation that is primary among the employees of an organization as well as the impact of their motivational orientation on their actual work behavior. However, a wide range of additional factors may also influence employees’ motivational orientations, and thus the two dimensions of our framework are distinct from one another. Put differently, many factors can lead highly identified employees in means-focused organiza- tions to prioritize an organizational-welfare motivational orientation and to engage in work behaviors that deviate from organizational norms, despite internal and external factors that may undermine that deviance. Similarly, highly identified employees in ends-focused organizations may prioritize an affiliative motivational orientation and engage in relatively conformist and unproductive work behaviors, despite their organization’s general receptivity to deviance.

That said, over time and in the aggregate, organizational focus may exert a strong influence on employees’ work behaviors by shaping the selection, promotion, and, especially, retention of individuals who are either affilia- tion or welfare oriented. This is because, as discussed, organizational focus shapes how organizational members evaluate and react to one another. Observers in means- focused organizations generally reward behaviors consis- tent with an affiliative motivational state and punish deviant behaviors that may arise from organizational- welfare motives. Observers in ends-focused organizations generally reward and punish in the opposite pattern. As a result, affiliation-oriented employees are more likely to succeed, be promoted, and choose to stay in means- focused organizations where their coworkers and bosses appreciate and value their behavioral patterns. By contrast, organizational-welfare-oriented employees are more like- ly to thrive, rise through the ranks, and be retained in ends- focused organizations where their style is appreciated and valued. Over time, through a combination of selection and self-selection processes, organizations are likely to reap what they sow: building a work force whose motivational orientations are broadly congruent with the organization’s focus. Notably, these temporal processes are illuminated by the current framework’s clear distinction between the motives that animate strongly identifying employees’ behaviors and observers’ evaluations of, and reactions to, those behaviors.

Implications

Organizational scholarship has tended to rely on the premises of social identity theory to theorize about organizational identification’s impact on work behavior. However, as we have emphasized, much of this organiza- tional research reflects an overly simplified and general- ized adaptation of social identity theory. Social identity theory primarily supports a link between organizational identification and work behavior that conforms to organizational norms. However, organizational research

has drawn upon social identity theory to theorize identification shapes all forms of organization-serving work behaviors. Although some of these work behaviors reflect conformity to organizational norms, others do not. This finding suggests additional theoretical development is needed to account for these latter findings. Although insights from other social psychological models and approaches to the study of collective identification (beyond social identity theory) can support such theoreti- cal development, organizational scholars have yet to sufficiently draw upon those insights.

As one example, prior research finds organizational identification enhances extra-role behavior (e.g., Bartel, 2001; Bergami & Bagozzi, 2000; Blader & Tyler, 2009; Dukerich et al., 2002; Johnson, Morgeson, & Hekman, 2012; Olkkonen & Lipponen, 2006; Van Dick, Grojean, Christ, & Wieseke, 2006), and is perhaps especially influential in relation to proactive forms of extra role- behavior (Grant & Parker, 2009). Extra-role behavior is an appealing and intuitive behavioral outcome to examine in relation to organizational identification, because, as compared to other forms of work performance, it is more discretionary and is less affected by other sources of motivation. As such, extra-role behaviors provide a clearer barometer of an employee’s intrinsic motivation and, in the case of organizational identification, one’s inherent desire to enhance workgroup and organization performance. However, theorizing about the impact of organizational identification on extra-role behavior typically draws on premises from social identity theory that do not clearly support a reliable link between them. Extra-role behaviors are neither prescribed nor expected as part of one’s organizational role and, moreover, certain forms of extra- role behavior (e.g., voice behaviors) may be inconsistent with organizational norms and practices. Therefore, extra- role behaviors may be inconsistent with an affiliative motivational orientation—the motive most closely linked to social identity theory—because affiliative motives encourage employees to focus on, and conform to, prescribed organizational norms and practices. Prior research has not acknowledged or explored these tensions, suggesting that theorizing on how identification prompts extra-role behavior remains underdeveloped. Our theoriz- ing about the distinct role of organizational-welfare motives provides one approach that may help resolve these tensions.

A second example of the value of our framework relates to its relevance for understanding creativity and innova- tion. Our framework suggests strong identifiers may either be the most, or least, creative and innovative members of their organization. Specifically, strong identifiers with an affiliative motivational orientation are unlikely to be creative if organizational norms do not encourage creativ- ity, yet they may be especially creative if organizational norms prescribe creativity (Adarves-Yorno, Postmes, & Haslam, 2007; Haslam, Adarves-Yorno, Postmes, & Jans, 2013; Hirst, van Dick, & van Knippenberg, 2009). By contrast, creativity norms may be unimportant for eliciting creativity from highly identified organizational members with a strong organizational-welfare orientation. These individuals are likely to be creative and to innovate when

S.L. Blader et al. / Research in Organizational Behavior 37 (2017) 19–34 31

they regard these behaviors as important to organizational interests, even if organizational norms do not prescribe, or perhaps even discourage, creativity. This insight is signifi- cant because the most valuable forms of creativity are typically those that cannot be anticipated and that diverge from what is normative. In addition, identification may also enhance creativity in ends-focused organizations, which will be more receptive to creativity that stands to enhance organizational outcomes.

A third example of the potential value of our theorizing and proposed framework relates to research on pro- organizational unethical behaviors (i.e., unethical behav- iors that advance organizational rather than individual interests), another work behavior that has been linked to organizational identification (e.g., Umphress, Bingham, & Mitchell, 2010). The theorizing in this literature generally refers to organizational-welfare motives (e.g., Chen, Chen, & Sheldon, 2016; Umphress & Bingham, 2011; Umphress et al., 2010), but justifies that focus by drawing upon theories and conceptualizations of identification that are actually more consistent with affiliative motivations. Inattention to the distinction between affiliative and organizational-welfare motives impedes efforts to under- stand the link between organizational identification and pro-organizational unethical behavior (particularly be- cause affiliative concerns are likely to be a key antecedent of these behaviors (Thau, Derfler-Rozin, Pitesa, Mitchell, & Pillutla, 2015)). For instance, affiliative (rather than organizational-welfare) motives are likely to only prompt pro-organizational unethical behaviors when organiza- tional norms prescribe such behaviors, and may actually diminish unethical behaviors when organizational norms prohibit them (or even, perhaps, if norms are ambiguous about the appropriateness of such behaviors; Hildreth, Gino, & Bazerman, 2016). Yet the singular focus on organizational-welfare motives has precluded extensive consideration of the moderating impact of organizational norms. More generally, greater precision regarding under- lying motives and mechanisms may deepen our under- standing of the antecedents, mechanisms, and moderators that link organizational identification to unethical pro- organizational behaviors. This analysis is likely to reveal that unethical behavior may be a consequence of the fundamental motives that underlie organizational identi- fication and not just extreme or atypical forms of identification (Dukerich et al., 1998; Vadera & Pratt, 2013).

Additionally, our framework can inform the distinct but related research literatures on voice and organizational change. For instance, our theorizing about the dual motivations associated with identification suggests highly identified employees may either be more likely than others to engage in voice behaviors (as shown in prior research, e.g., Morrison, 2014; Morrison, Wheeler-Smith, & Kamdar, 2011; Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2008) or less likely than others to engage in voice behaviors (if their affiliative motivational orientation is primary). The same logic would apply to particularly extreme instances of voice, such as whistleblowing behavior (Miceli, Near, & Morehead- Dworkin, 2008). Our framework also suggests a novel perspective on how voice climate serves to enhance the impact of identification on voice (Morrison et al., 2011).

Specifically, our framework suggests voice climate may enhance the link between identification and voice behav- ior for different reasons: by redefining organizational norms for those with an affiliative motivational orientation or by diminishing the perceived risks and costs of voice (Morrison et al., 2011) among those with an organization- al-welfare orientation. In terms of organizational change, we posit that strong identification may not only produce resistance to change (Ashforth, 2016; Haslam et al., 2006; Rotondi, 1975), but may also prompt strongly identifying employees with an organizational-welfare orientation to be change agents. Yet the prognosis for their success will depend on their organization’s context, because highly identified, organizational-welfare-oriented employees who perceive a need for change, and who act accordingly, may be viewed with great suspicion in means-focused organizations (see also Packer, Miners, & Ungson, in press).

Finally, although we have focused on the different types of work behaviors that follow from affiliative versus organizational-welfare motivational orientations, these orientations can also affect the persistence and drive with which a highly identified employee enacts this same precise work behavior. When an affiliative motivational orientation is primary, employees’ persistence at a behavior will be determined by organizational norms and their need to signal prototypicality and loyalty. As a result, their efforts may either fall short of or exceed the effort needed to realize the tangible benefits of the behavior. Regardless, once one has securely signaled his or her prototypicality, the energy he or she devotes to the work behavior is likely to diminish. By contrast, when an organizational-welfare motivational orientation is prima- ry, employees’ persistence will be determined by whether the work behavior has achieved its intended results. Overall, different factors depending on one’s primary motivational orientation will determine an employee’s behavioral persistence: employees driven by affiliative motives will persist until they have clearly signaled they are prototypical members in good standing, whereas those driven by organizational-welfare motives will persist until they have done all they can to advance organizational interests.

Conclusion

Organizational identification is a powerful concept. It reshapes the psychology of organizational membership, binding employees to their organizations in ways that would not be achievable through other means and consequently enhancing their work performance. This insight is widely recognized and has been the inspiration for a great deal of organizational identification research. However, greater precision is needed in order to achieve a deeper theoretical understanding of the behavioral con- sequences of organizational identification and a greater appreciation of the practical value of identification for enhancing employee performance. Indeed, the full range of positive organizational behaviors that follow from identi- fication do not represent a unitary construct: high organizational identification can lead employees to either be good organizational soldiers who staunchly protect

32 S.L. Blader et al. / Research in Organizational Behavior 37 (2017) 19–34

existing organizational norms and practices, or good organizational citizens who pursue organizational goals and interests by all means necessary. Moreover, observers’ evaluations of these behaviors are neither objective nor based solely on the actor’s strong identification and subsequent good intentions.

Further development of these insights can broaden scholars’ and practitioners’ abilities to recognize, foster, and leverage the full potential of organizational identifi- cation for enhancing organizational productivity and performance. Moreover, one of the reasons organizational identification has captured such extensive scholarly attention is that it has the potential to inform a wide range of other organizational phenomena. But to realize the full potential of organizational identification in this regard, we must deepen our understanding of the underlying psychological motives that relate to it. Doing so will likely reveal new insights and fruitful avenues for future research, as well as additional complexities and paradoxes regarding the dynamics of identification in organizations.

References

Abrams, D. (1990). An integration of social identity and self-awareness theories. In M. Hogg, & D. Abrams (Eds.), Social identity theory: Constructive and critical advances (pp. 89–112). London: Pearson.

Abrams, D. (1994). Political distinctiveness: An identity optimizing approach. European Journal of Social Psychology, 24, 357–365.

Abrams, D., Ando, K., & Hinkle, S. (1998). Psychological attachment to the group: Cross-cultural differences in organizational identification and subjective norms as predictors of workers’ turnover intentions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 1027–1039.

Abrams, D., & Hogg, M. A. (1990). Social identification, self-categorization and social influence. European Review of Social Psychology, 1, 195–228.

Abrams, D., Wetherell, M., Cochrane, S., Hogg, M. A., & Turner, J. C. (1990). Knowing what to think by knowing who you are: Self-categorization and the nature of norm formation, conformity and group polarization. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 97–119.

Adarves-Yorno, I., Postmes, T., & Haslam, S. A. (2007). Creative innovation or crazy irrelevance? The contribution of group norms and social identity to creative behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 410–416.

Aronson, E. (1992). The return of the repressed: Dissonance theory makes a comeback. Psychological Inquiry, 3, 303–311.

Ashforth, B. E. (2016). Exploring identity and identification in organiza- tions: Time for some course corrections. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 23, 361–373.

Ashforth, B. E., Harrison, S. H., & Corley, K. G. (2008). Identification in organizations: An examination of four fundamental questions. Journal of Management, 34, 325–374.

Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14, 20–39.

Ashmore, R. D., Deaux, K., & McLaughlin-Volpe, T. (2004). An organizing framework for collective identity: Articulation and significance of multidimensionality. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 80–114.

Bartel, C. A. (2001). Social comparisons in boundary-spanning work: Effects of community outreach on members’ organizational identity and identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 379–413.

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motive. Psycho- logical Bulletin, 117, 497–529.

Bergami, M., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2000). Self-categorization, affective commitment and group self-esteem as aspects of social identity in the organization. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 555–577.

Blader, S. L., & Tyler, T. R. (2009). Testing and extending the group engagement model: Linkages between social identity, procedural justice, economic outcomes, and extrarole behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 445.

Branscombe, N. R., Wann, D. L., Noel, J. G., & Coleman, J. (1993). In-group or out-group extremity: Importance of the threatened social identity.

Branscombe, N. R., Spears, R., Ellemers, N., & Doosje, B. (2002). Intragroup and intergroup evaluation effects on group behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 744–753.

Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 475–482.

Brief, A. P., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1986). Prosocial organizational behaviors. Academy of Management Review, 11, 710–725.

Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1994). The management of innovation. Oxford University Press.

Carton, A. M., Murphy, C., & Clark, J. R. (2014). A (blurry) vision of the future: How leader rhetoric about ultimate goals influences perfor- mance. Academy of Management Journal, 57, 1544–1570.

Chen, Z., Zhu, J., & Zhou, M. (2015). How does a servant leader fuel the service fire? A multilevel model of servant leadership, individual self identity, group competition climate, and customer service perfor- mance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 511–521.

Chen, M., Chen, C. C., & Sheldon, O. J. (2016). Relaxing moral reasoning to win: How organizational identification relates to unethical pro- organizational behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(8), 1082.

Christensen, P. N., Rothgerber, H., Wood, W., & Matz, D. C. (2004). Social norms and identity relevance: A motivational approach to normative behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1295–1309.

DeCremer, D., & Van Dijk, E. (2002). Reactions to group success and failure as a function of identification level: A test of the goal-transformation hypothesis in social dilemmas. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 435–442.

Deaux, K. (1993). Restructuring social identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 4–12.

Dukerich, J. M., Kramer, R., & Parks, J. M. (1998). The dark side of organizational identification. In D. A. Whetten, & P. Godfrey (Eds.), Identity in organizations: Building theory through conversations (pp. 245–256). London, England: Sage.

Dukerich, J. M., Golden, B. R., & Shortell, S. M. (2002). Beauty is in the eye of the beholder: The impact of organizational identification, identity, and image on the cooperative behaviors of physicians. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 507–533.

Dupuis, D. R., Wohl, M. J., Packer, D. J., & Tabri, N. (2016). To dissent and protect: Stronger collective identification increases willingness to dissent when group norms evoke collective angst. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 19, 694–710.

Ellemers, N., de Gilder, D., & Haslam, A. (2004). Motivating individuals and groups at work: A social identity perspective on leadership and group performance. Academy of Management Review, 29, 459–478.

Ellemers, N., & Jetten, J. (2013). The many ways to be marginal in a group. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17, 3–21.

Emler, N. (1990). A social psychology of reputation. European Review of Social Psychology, 1, 171–193.

Farjoun, M. (2010). Beyond dualism: Stability and change as a duality. Academy of Management Review, 35, 202–225.

Feldman, M. S., & March, J. G. (1981). Information in organizations as signal and symbol. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 171–186.

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, 815– 846.

Galvin, B. M., Lange, D., & Ashforth, B. E. (2015). Narcissistic organizational identification: Seeing oneself as central to the organization's identity. Academy of Management Review, 40, 163–181.

Gelfand, M. J., Nishii, L. H., & Raver, J. L. (2006). On the nature and importance of cultural tightness-looseness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1225.

Gelfand, M. J., Raver, J. L., Nishii, L., Leslie, L. M., Lun, J., Lim, B. C., et al. (2011). Differences between tight and loose cultures: A 33-nation study. Science, 332, 1100–1104.

Georgopoulos, B. S., & Tannenbaum, A. S. (1957). A study of organizational effectiveness. American Sociological Review, 22, 534–540.

Goncalo, J. A., & Staw, B. M. (2006). Individualism–collectivism and group creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100, 96–109.

Grant, A. M., & Parker, S. K. (2009). Redesigning work design theories: The rise of relational and proactive perspectives. Academy of Management Annals, 3, 317–375.

Griskevicius, V., Goldstein, N., Mortensen, C., Cialdini, R., & Kenrick, D. (2006). Going along versus going alone: When fundamental motives facilitate strategic (non) conformity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 281–294.

Haslam, S. A. (2004). Psychology in organizations: The social identity

approach. London: Sage.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 381–388.

S.L. Blader et al. / Research in Organizational Behavior 37 (2017) 19–34 33

Haslam, S. A., Adarves-Yorno, I., Postmes, T., & Jans, L. (2013). The collective origins of valued originality: A social identity approach to creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17, 384–401.

Haslam, S. A., & Ellemers, N. (2005). Social identity in industrial and organizational psychology: Concepts, controversies and contribu- tions. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 20, 39–118.

Haslam, S. A., Postmes, T., & Ellemers, N. (2003). More than a metaphor: Organizational identity makes organizational life possible. British Journal of Management, 14, 357–369.

Haslam, S. A., Ryan, M. K., Postmes, T., Spears, R., Jetten, J., & Webley, P. (2006). Sticking to our guns: Social identity as a basis for the maintenance of commitment to faltering organizational projects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 607–628.

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, 3–35.

Hildreth, J. A. D., Gino, F., & Bazerman, M. (2016). Blind loyalty? When group loyalty makes us see evil or engage in it. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 132, 16–36.

Hirschman, A. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to declines in firms, organizations, and states. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Hirst, G., van Dick, R., & van Knippenberg, D. (2009). A social identity perspective on leadership and employee creativity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 963–982.

Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B., Ohayv, D. D., & Sanders, G. (1990). Measuring organizational cultures: A qualitative and quantitative study across twenty cases. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 286–316.

Hogg, M. A. (2000). Subjective uncertainty reduction through self- categorization: A motivational theory of social identity processes. European Review of Social Psychology, 11, 223–255.

Hogg, M. A. (2001). Social categorization, depersonalization, and group behavior. Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Group Processes (pp. 56–85).

Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1993). Towards a single-process uncertainty- reduction model of social motivation in groups. In M. Hogg & D. Abrams (Eds.) Group motivation: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 173–190).

Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25, 121–140.

Hogg, M. A., & Turner, J. C. (1987). Intergroup behavior, self-stereotyping and the salience of social categories. British Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 325–340.

Hornsey, M. J., & Jetten, J. (2004). The individual within the group: Balancing the need to belong with the need to be different. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 248–264.

Hornstein, H. A. (1986). Managerial courage. New York: Wiley. Johnson, M. D., Morgeson, F. P., & Hekman, D. R. (2012). Cognitive and

affective identification: Exploring the links between different forms of social identification and personality with work attitudes and behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 1142–1167.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations. Wiley. Kramer, R. M., Hanna, B. A., Su, S., & Wei, J. (2001). Collective identity,

collective trust and social capital: Linking group identification and group cooperation. In M. E. Turner (Ed.), Groups at work: Theory and research (pp. 173–196). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Leach, C. W., Van Zomeren, M., Zebel, S., Vliek, M. L., Pennekamp, S. F., Doosje, B., et al. (2008). Group-level self-definition and self- investment: a hierarchical (multicomponent) model of in-group identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 144.

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, 1049–1080.

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, 103–123.

March, J. G. (1996). Continuity and change in theories of organizational action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 278–287.

March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. Wiley. Marques, J. M. (1990). The black sheep effect: Outgroup homogeneity in

social comparison settings. In D. Abrams, & M. Hogg (Eds.), Social identity theory: Constructive and critical advances (pp. 131–151). New York: Springer.

Miceli, M. P., Near, J. P., & Morehead-Dworkin, T. M. (2008). Whistle- blowing in organizations. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.

Michel, A. A., & Jehn, K. E. (2003). The dark side of identification: Overcoming identification-induced performance impediments. Re- search on Managing Groups and Teams, 5, 189–219.

Molden, D. C., Lucas, G. M., Gardner, W. L., Dean, K., & Knowles, M. L. (2009). Motivations for prevention or promotion following social exclusion: Being rejected versus being ignored. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 415.

Morrison, E. W. (2014). Employee voice and silence. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology, 1, 173–197.

Morrison, E. W., & Phelps, C. C. (1999). Taking charge at work: Extrarole efforts to initiate workplace change. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 403–419.

Morrison, E. W., Wheeler-Smith, S. L., & Kamdar, D. (2011). Speaking up in groups: A cross-level study of group voice climate and voice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 183.

Morton, T. A., Postmes, T., & Jetten, J. (2007). Playing the game: When group success is more important than downgrading deviants. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 599–616.

O’Reilly, C. A., Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D. F. (1991). People and organizational culture: A profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 487–516.

Olkkonen, M. E., & Lipponen, J. (2006). Relationships between organiza- tional justice, identification with organization and work unit, and group-related outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100, 202–215.

Onorato, R. S., & Turner, J. C. (2004). Fluidity in the self-concept: The shift from personal to social identity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 257–278.

Packer, D. J. (2008). On being both with us and against us: A normative conflict model of dissent in social groups. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12, 50–72.

Packer, D. J. (2010). The interactive influence of conscientiousness and openness to experience on dissent. Social Influence, 5, 202–219.

Packer, D. J., & Chasteen, A. L. (2010). Loyal deviance: Testing the normative conflict model of dissent in social groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 5–18.

Packer, D. J., & Miners, C. T. H. (2015). Tough love: The normative conflict model of dissent. Social Personality and Psychology Compass, 8, 354– 373.

Packer, D. J., Miners, C. T. H., & Ungson, N. D. (in press) Benefitting from diversity: How groups’ coordinating mechanisms affect opportunities for marginalized individuals to lead. Journal of Social Issues.

Postmes, T., & Jetten, J. (2006). Individuality and the group. London: Sage. Postmes, T., Spears, R., Lee, A. T., & Novak, R. J. (2005). Individuality and

social influence in groups: Inductive and deductive routes to group identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 747.

Pyszczynski, T., Greenberg, J., & Solomon, S. (1997). Why do we need what we need? A terror management perspective on the roots of human social motivation. Psychological Inquiry, 8, 1–20.

Quinn, R. E., & Rohrbaugh, J. (1983). A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: Towards a competing values approach to organizational analysis. Management Science, 29, 363–377.

Reicher, S. D., Spears, R., & Postmes, T. (1995). A social identity model of deindividuation phenomena. European Review of Social Psychology, 6, 161–198.

Riketta, M. (2005). Organizational identification: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 358–384.

Roccas, S., Sagiv, L., Schwartz, S., Halevy, N., & Eidelson, R. (2008). Toward a unifying model of identification with groups: Integrating theoretical perspectives. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12, 280–306.

Rotondi, T. (1975). Organizational identification: Issues and implications. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 95–109.

Schatz, R. T., Staub, E., & Lavine, H. (1999). On the varieties of national attachment: Blind versus constructive patriotism. Political Psychology, 20, 151–174.

Schaumberg, R. L., & Flynn, F. J. (2012). Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown: The link between guilt proneness and leadership. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 327.

Schein, E. H. (1990). Organizational culture. American Psychologist, 45, 109–119.

Sedikides, C., & Brewer, M. (2001). Individual self, relational self, collective self. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.

Simon, B. (2004). Identity in modern society: A social psychological perspective. John Wiley & Sons.

Smith, E. R., Murphy, J., & Coats, S. (1999). Attachment to groups: Theory and management. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 94.

Spears, R. (2001). The interaction between the individual and the collective self: Self-categorization in context. In C. Sedikides, & M. Brewer (Eds.), Individual self, relational self, collective self: Partners, opponents, or strangers? (pp. 171–198). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.

34 S.L. Blader et al. / Research in Organizational Behavior 37 (2017) 19–34

Spears, R., Doosje, B., & Ellemers, N. (1997). Self-stereotyping in the face of threats to group status and distinctiveness: The role of group identification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 538–553.

Spears, R., Ellemers, N., Doosje, B., & Branscombe, N. (2006). The individual within the group: Respect! In T. Postmes & J. Jetten (Eds.), Individuality and the group (pp. 175–195). London: Sage.

Staw, B. M., & Boettger, R. D. (1990). Task revision: A neglected form of work performance. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 534–559.

Swann, W. B., Gómez, Á., Dovidio, J. F., Hart, S., & Jetten, J. (2010). Dying and killing for one’s group identity fusion moderates responses to intergroup versions of the trolley problem. Psychological Science, 21, 1176–1183.

Swann, W. B. Jr, Jetten, J., Gómez, A., Whitehouse, H., & Bastian, B. (2012). When group membership gets personal: A theory of identity fusion. Psychological Review, 119, 441.

Tajfel, H. (1978). Differentiation between social groups. London: Academic Press.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. Austin, & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks.

Tangirala, S., & Ramanujam, R. (2008). Exploring nonlinearity in employee voice: The effects of personal control and organizational identifica- tion. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 1189–1203.

Terry, D. J., & Hogg, M. A. (1996). Group norms and the attitude-behavior relationship: A role for group identification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 776–793.

Thau, S., Derfler-Rozin, R., Pitesa, M., Mitchell, M. S., & Pillutla, M. M. (2015). Unethical for the sake of the group: Risk of social exclusion and pro-group unethical behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 98.

Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action: Social science bases of administrative theory. Transaction Publishers.

Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.

Turner, J. C., & Oakes, P. J. (1989). Self-categorization theory and social influence, In P. Paulus (Ed.), Psychology of group influence (pp. 233– 275). (2nd ed.) Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,Inc.

Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2000). Cooperation in groups: Procedural justice, social identity, and behavioral engagement. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.

Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2003). The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior. Person- ality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 349–361.

Umphress, E. E., & Bingham, J. B. (2011). When employees do bad things for good reasons: Examining unethical pro-organizational behaviors. Organization Science, 22, 621–640.

Umphress, E. E., Bingham, J. B., & Mitchell, M. S. (2010). Unethical behavior in the name of the company: The moderating effect of organizational identification and positive reciprocity beliefs on unethical pro- organizational behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 769.

Vadera, A., & Pratt, M. (2013). Love, hate, ambivalence, or indifference? A conceptual examination of workplace crimes and organizational identification. Organization Science, 24, 172–188.

Van Dick, R., Grojean, M. W., Christ, O., & Wieseke, J. (2006). Identity and the extra mile: Relationships between organizational identification and organizational citizenship behavior. British Journal of Manage- ment, 17, 283–301.

Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. L., & Parks, J. M. (1995). Extra-role behaviors: In pursuit of construct and definitional clarity. In L. L. Cummings, & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior: (Vol. 17. pp. 215– 285).Research in organizational behavior, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 215–285.

Van Knippenberg, D. (2000). Work motivation and performance: A social identity perspective. Applied psychology, 49, 357–371.

Van Veelen, R., Otten, S., Cadinu, M., & Hansen, N. (2015). An integrative model of social identification self-stereotyping and self-anchoring as two cognitive pathways. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 20, 3–26.

Vogel, R. M., Rodell, J. B., & Lynch, J. W. (2016). Engaged and productive misfits: How job crafting and leisure activity mitigate the negative effects of value incongruence. Academy of Management Journal, 59, 1561–1584.

Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., & Zhu, W. (2008). How transformational leadership weaves its influence on individual job performance: The role of identification and efficacy beliefs. Personnel Psychology, 61, 793–825.

Weick, K. E. (1979). Cognitive processes in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 1, 41–74.

Woolley, A. W. (2009). Means vs. ends: Implications of process and outcome focus for team adaptation and performance. Organization Science, 20, 500–515.