analyze a workplace leadership situation from a social/environmental perspective.

Work Motivation and Performance: A Social Identity Perspective

Daan van Knippenberg University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands

La motivation au travail et les performances ont e te analyse es dans la per- spective de la the orie de l'identite sociale et de celle de l'auto-cate gorisation. Centrale aÁ cette analyse se trouve la relation entre l'identification organisa- tionnelle et la motivation d'exercer un effort pour le compte de la collectivite . Une analyse the orique et une revue d' e tudes empiriques relatives aux relations entre cette identification organisationnelle et la motivation et les performances conduisent aÁ la conclusion: l'identification est lie e positivement aÁ la motivation au travail, avec les performances dans la re alisation des taà ches et dans le contexte, pour autant a) que l'identite sociale soit saillante et que b) les performances e leve es soient percË ues comme e tant dans l'inte reà t du groupe ou de l'organisation.

Work motivation and performance were analysed from the perspective of social identity theory and self-categorisation theory. Central in this analysis is the relation of organisational identification with the motivation to exert effort on behalf of the collective. A theoretical analysis as well as a review of empirical studies of the relationship of organisational identification with motivation and performance leads to the conclusion that identification is positively related to work motivation, task performance, and contextual performance to the extent that (a) social identity is salient, and (b) high performance is perceived to be in the group's or organisation's interest.

INTRODUCTION

The study of work motivation and performance forms one of the key issues in research in organisational behaviour. Although a variety of motivations may affect performance, and performance may be contingent on a multitude of other factors, one of the more important factors affecting performance

________________

* Address for correspondence: Daan van Knippenberg, University of Amsterdam, Work &

Organizational Psychology, Roetersstraat 15, 1018 WB Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Email:

[email protected]

I wish to thank Alexander Haslam, Moshe Krausz, Barbara van Knippenberg, Robert

Wood, and an anonymous reviewer for their comments on previous drafts of this paper.

APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL REVIEW, 2000, 49 (3), 357±371

# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2000. Published by Blackwell Publishers, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

arguably is the motivation to perform well on the job. The present study focuses on work motivation, and analyses it from the perspective of social identity theory (Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Tajfel, 1978; Tajfel & Turner, 1986) and self-categorisation theory, which is an elaboration and extension of social identity theory (Turner, 1985; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987). In the following, the theoretical backgrounds to the social identity approach (i.e. including both social identity theory and self-categorisation theory) to motivation and performance are presented, the proposition that organisational identification affects work motivation and performance is derived from this approach, and empirical evidence in support of this proposition is discussed.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUNDS

The social identity approach outlines how membership in social groups affects the self-concept. Central to the approach is the proposition that through social identification, the perception of oneness with or belongingness to a group (see Mael & Ashforth, 1992), individuals define themselves in terms of their group membership and ascribe characteristics that are typical of the group to the self. The concept of social identity, `̀ that part of an individual's self-concept which derives from his knowledge of his membership of a group (or groups) together with the value and the emotional significance attached to the membership'' (Tajfel, 1978, p. 63), reflects this internalisation of group membership as part of `̀ who you are'' (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Haslam, in press). Identification leads individuals to perceive themselves in terms of the characteristics they share with other members of their ingroupsÐtheir shared social identityÐrather than in terms of the idiosyncratic characteristics that differentiate them from other indivi- dualsÐtheir personal identity (Turner et al., 1987). Identification thus blurs the distinction between self and group, and turns the group, psychologically, into a part of the self (Smith & Henry, 1996). This `̀ social'' or `̀ collective'' self lies at the heart of the perceptual, attitudinal, and behavioural effects of group membership. The more one conceives of oneself in terms of one's membership in a group (i.e. the more one identifies with the group), the more likely one is to act in accordance with the group's beliefs, norms, and values, and generally to act in `̀ group-typical'' ways (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Dutton, Dukerich, & Harquail, 1994; Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Turner et al., 1987). Even though identification with a group may lead individuals to act in

group-typical ways, this does not mean that individuals who identify with a group always act in accordance with the social identity based in that group membership. The influence of identification is contingent on social identity being salient or cognitively activated. That is, even if an individual identifies

358 VAN KNIPPENBERG

# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2000.

with a group, that does not mean the individual is always highly aware of this group membership, and group membership only affects attitudes and behaviour to the extent that the individual is `̀ made aware'' of the membership in the group. Although identification itself may contribute to social identity salience (Haslam, in press), contextual factors affect salience as well. Roughly speaking, any `̀ event'' that speaks to a group membership (i.e. rather than to the individual qua individual) may make the social identity based in that group membership salient. The prospect of a merger may, for instance, render organisational identity salient (van Knippenberg, van Knippenberg, Monden, & de Lima, 1999), conflict or competition between work groups may render work group identity salient (Kramer, 1991), and the addition of individuals from another ethnicity to a previously ethnicly homogenous work group may focus on ethnic identity. Identity salience may endure for longer periods of time or may change in a matter of moments, for instance when departmental identity is salient in an inter- departmental meeting, and a telephone call from home immediately after the meeting focuses on family identity (for a more elaborate discussion of the salience of social identities in organisations, see e.g. Haslam, in this issue; Hogg & Terry, 2000; Kramer, 1991).

As the group seems to be where organisational behaviour primarily takes place, and organisations themselves may, from a social psychological per- spective, be viewed as social groups, the relevance of the social identity approach to the study of organisational behaviour is readily apparent. Social identity theory has, more or less from its conception, been applied to the study of organisational behaviour (e.g. Brown, 1978), but the study of social identity processes in organisations has only gained momentum in recent years. The social identity approach has been applied in several areas of organisational behaviour research, such as intergroup relations within the organisation (Brown, Condor, Mathews, Wade, & Williams, 1986; Kramer, 1991), mergers and acquisitions (Terry & Callan, 1998; van Knippenberg et al., 1999), group cohesiveness (Hogg, 1993; Hogg, Cooper-Shaw, & Holzworth, 1993), organisational demography (Ely, 1994; Tsui, Egan, & O'Reilly, 1992), leadership (Haslam, McGarty, Brown, Eggins, Morrison, & Reynolds, 1998; Hogg, Hains, & Mason, 1998), promotion decisions (Fajak & Haslam, 1998), and turnover (Mael & Ashforth, 1995). Most relevant to the present discussion, the social identity approach also has clear implications for work motivation and performance.

IDENTIFICATION, MOTIVATION, AND PERFORMANCE

Membership in an organisation implies multiple group memberships: membership in the organisation as a whole, in one's own department, in one's own team or work unit, and so forth (see Ashforth & Mael, 1989;

IDENTIFICATION, MOTIVATION, AND PERFORMANCE 359

# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2000.

van Knippenberg & van Schie, in press; for a discussion of the multiple foci of organisational identification). An obvious question from the point of view of the social identity approach is how these identifications affect organisational behaviour, and especiallyÐgiven that this is so central to organisational lifeÐwork motivation and performance. The answer to this question is that identification motivates group members to work for the group's interests, which in turn may affect performance. These arguments are elaborated below. Identification elicits a sense of oneness with the target of identification.

This psychological oneness with the group (or organisation) induces indi- viduals to take the group's perspective and to experience the group's goals and interests as their own (see Dutton et al., 1994). Thus, identification will generally be associated with a motivation to achieve group goals and work for the group's interest. Yet, whether identification with the organisation or within-organisation subunit (i.e. team, work group) actually results in higher performance at work is contingent on a number of other factors. First, as outlined above, identification with the group or organisation will only affect attitudes and behaviour to the extent that social identity is salient. Thus, identification will only result in the motivation to exert effort on behalf of the collective to the extent that group or organisational identity is salient (see also Haslam, in this issue). Second, the relationship between identification and motivation to exert

effort on behalf of the collective may be positive (although the strength of the relationship will be contingent on social identity salience), but this does not necessarily mean that identification results in work motivation. That is, we should distinguish between the motivation to exert effort on behalf of the collective and the motivation to perform well on the job (i.e. work moti- vation). Even though identification may be associated with the willingness to exert effort on behalf of the collective, whether this results in work motivation is contingent on what the goals and interests of that collective are perceived to be. Identification may only be expected to be positively related to work motivation if high performance is perceived to be in the collective's interest. Only then will motivation to exert effort on behalf of the collective translate to motivation to perform well on the job. Performance standards may, however, not be particularly high, clear, or salient as it is not always clear in organisations or jobs what is expected or desired in terms of performance, and high performance may not be a goal. Moreover, performance standards may be different at the organisational and subunit level, as arises when the organisation advocates high performance, while informal work group norms promote minimisation of work efforts or a focus on interpersonal relations. If the primary target of identification is not perceived to have a commitment to high performance, identification is unlikely to result in striving to enhance performance.

360 VAN KNIPPENBERG

# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2000.

To the extent that identification results in work motivation (i.e. con- tingent on social identity salience and the perceived goals and interests of the target of identification) it will have a positive effect on performance. This should hold to the extent that performance is under volitional control (e.g. to the extent that performance is contingent on effort and persistence) rather than on, for example, knowledge, skills, abilities, or available resources (because this qualification is not specific for the social identity analysis, but holds for the relationship between work motivation and performance in general, it receives no further attention here).

The analysis presented above is modelled in Fig. 1. In this model, identi- fication affects the motivation to exert effort on behalf of the collective to the extent that social identity is salient, and this motivation affects work motivation to the extent that the collective's interests are perceived to be performance-related. Finally, work motivation is related to performance to the extent that performance is under volitional control. Note that whereas the relationships between identification and the motivation to exert effort on behalf of the collective, and between work motivation and performance, are assumed to be positive (although moderated by social identity salience and the extent to which performance is under volitional control, respectively), the relationship between the motivation to exert effort on behalf of the collective and work motivation may be either positive, negative, or zero contingent on the perceived goals and interests of the collective.

In the following, I review empirical studies to evaluate the model. In order to unambiguously assess the merits of the model and to avoid confusion with the effects of other concepts reflecting psychological attachment, like organisational commitment (Allen & Meyer, 1990; Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979) or dispositional group loyalty (James & Cropanzano, 1994), or with other conceptualisations of identification (e.g. O'Reilly & Chatman, 1986), this review is limited to studies that explicitly focus on identification as defined in the social identity approach. Moreover, it is limited to studies that measured work motivation or performance and does not address studies of related attitudes or behaviour (e.g. Mael & Ashforth's, 1992, study of organisational identification and support for the organisation; see Haslam, in press, for a review of studies of the relationship of identification with a broader range of work attitudes and behaviour).

Where performance is concerned, a distinction is made between `̀ task performance'' and `̀ contextual performance''. Whereas task performance refers to performance on the job that `̀ you were hired to do'', contextual performance (cf. organisational citizenship behaviour; Organ, 1997) refers to behaviour that supports the organisational, social, and psychological environment in which task performance takes place, like helping others, taking others' interests into consideration, and presenting a positive image of the organisation to outsiders (e.g. Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; Moorman &

IDENTIFICATION, MOTIVATION, AND PERFORMANCE 361

# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2000.

FIGURE 1. A social identity model of work motivation and performance.

3 6 2

V A N K N IP P E N B E R G

# In tern

a tio

n a l A sso

cia tio

n fo r A p p lied

P sy ch o lo g y , 2 0 0 0 .

Blakely, 1995; Organ, 1988). This distinction is of interest for two reasons. First, contextual performance may be assumed to be more under volitional control than task performance (Organ, 1988), because behaviours like helping others and taking others' interests into consideration are generally less contingent on skills, ability, resources, and so on, than task perform- ance. Moreover, contextual performance more or less by definition refers to behaviours that individuals are not required to perform, whereas task performance is part of job requirements. As a consequence, an employee can more easily refrain from contextual than from task behaviours. Second, task performance is more likely to benefit the self (e.g. in terms of career opportunities or bonuses) than contextual performance, and may therefore be less contingent on group-oriented motivations. These considerations suggest that the effects of identification may be more apparent on con- textual than on task performance. Moreover, contextual performance may benefit the task performance of the work unit as a whole (Podsakoff, Ahearne, & MacKenzie, 1997), even if it does not benefit the task perform- ance of the individual engaging in the contextual behaviours. Even so, it should be noted that although contextual performance may be in the collective's best interest, individuals need not perceive it as such, and may engage in contextual behaviours for other reasons than wanting to contri- bute to the collective interest (e.g. because they want to help a friend). Thus, the relationship between identification and contextual performance may not be straightforward either.

Identification andWork Motivation

To the author's knowledge, only one study has assessed the relationship between organisational identification and work motivation (van Knippen- berg & van Schie, in press). In a survey of work attitudes of the employees of a university, van Knippenberg and van Schie assessed work motivation (with Hackman & Lawler's, 1971, internal motivation scale) and both work group identification and organisational identification (with Mael and Ash- forth's, 1992, organisational identification questionnaire). In addition, the study included a measure of job involvement with items like `̀ I am always prepared to do my best'', which seems to come close to a measure of work motivation as defined here (i.e. as the willingness to exert effort to perform well). Work group identification was found to be related to work motivation (r = 0.30, P50.001) and both work group identification (r = 0.46, P50.001) and organisational identification (r = 0.27, P50.01) were related to the job involvement measure. Although only a cross-sectional study in which all data were gathered with the same questionnaire, this does corroborate the proposition that identification may be associated with the motivation to exert effort on the job.

IDENTIFICATION, MOTIVATION, AND PERFORMANCE 363

# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2000.

Identification andTask Performance

Evidence regarding the relationship between identification and task performance comes from a series of laboratory studies that all used simple tasks on which performance may be assumed to be highly dependent on effort and persistence rather than skills, knowledge, or ability. Performance on these tasks may thus be regarded as indicative of work motivation. Concerning the role of social identity salience and the perception that high performance is in the group's best interest, a study by James and Greenberg (1989) is especially relevant. James and Greenberg experimentally manipu- lated the salience of students' membership in their university by presenting half of the participants with cues that rendered their university membership salient (the university colours in the first experiment, reference to the uni- versity mascot in the second study). In addition, James and Greenberg told their participants that the performance of students from their university would be compared to the performance of students from another university, thus implicitly suggesting that high performance would be beneficial to the university's image (Experiment 1), or manipulated whether such inter- group comparison was implied or not (Experiment 2). Under these different experimental conditions, participants performed a simple anagram task. As predicted, participants in the high identification condition solved more anagrams, but only when intergroup comparison was salient. James and Greenberg did not assess identification, but Worchel, Rothgerber, Day, Hart, and Butemeyer (1998) included a measure of identification in a study that basically replicated the James and Greenberg study. Worchel et al. (Exp. 3) let participants work on an assembly task (making a chain out of strips of paper) either in the presence of another work group or not and either wearing group uniforms (same-colour lab coats) or not. Individual performance was higher when group members were wearing group uniforms (i.e. social identity was salient), but only when the other group was present. Moreover, mediation analysis indicated that the effects of the experimental manipulations were partly mediated by identification. Results of these studies support the proposition that identification results in increased work motivation and task performance, provided social identity is salient (see also Pilegge & Holtz, 1997), and high performance is seen as serving the group's interests. Evidence that identification may induce individuals to experience the

group's interest as self-interest (i.e. social self-interest rather than personal self-interest) comes from a study by van Leeuwen and van Knippenberg (1999). Van Leeuwen and van Knippenberg investigated the effects on performance of work group identification, prosocial versus proself value orientations (an individual difference variable), and expectations about other group members' effort. Participants worked on a simple group task (putting sheets of paper in envelopes). Identification with the work group

364 VAN KNIPPENBERG

# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2000.

and value orientations were measured and expectations about other group members' task effort were manipulated. Van Leeuwen and van Knippenberg predicted that identification would motivate group members to exert effort on the group task, especially for group members who were not disposi- tionally inclined to take others' interests into account (i.e. individuals with proself as compared with prosocial value orientations). Results supported these predictions. Performance (number of envelopes filled) was higher for participants who identified more with their work group, and this effect was stronger for group members with a proself rather than a prosocial orientation. Performance was also affected by expectations about the effort other group members would invest in the group task. Higher expected effort from others resulted in higher own performance, but more so for partici- pants with relatively low identification. High identifiers were motivated to perform more or less irrespective of the effort and performance they expected from their fellow group members. These results show that identi- fication is positively related to performance, even if it means exerting effort on behalf of the group while other group members are taking it easy. Moreover, and of more importance to the present discussion, the fact that identification was primarily related to performance of individuals who dispositionally focus on personal self-interest showed that identification may elicit the motivation to exert effort on behalf of the collective because it leads individuals to experience the collective's interests as self-interest, albeit social self-interest and not personal self-interest.

Identification and Contextual Performance

Only one study provides an empirical test of the relationship between identification as defined in the social identity approach and contextual performance (van Knippenberg & Sleebos, 1999). In a survey of university faculty, van Knippenberg and Sleebos measured identification (using the Mael & Ashforth scale), individualism±collectivism as an individual differ- ence variable (with Wagner & Moch's, 1986, measure), and affective commit- ment (with Allen & Meyer's, 1990, scale). Two weeks later they assessed self-reported contextual performance. This second survey focused on two dimensions: altruism, the helping of coworkers in their job when needed, and generalised compliance with norms defining `̀ what a good employee ought to do'' (Organ, 1988). Identification was found to be positively related to self-reports of both altruism and generalised compliance, although for generalised compliance this was only true for more individually oriented as compared with more collectively oriented employees.

The fact that identification was positively related to self-reports of con- textual performance obviously supports the social identity analysis of moti- vation and performance. It should, however, be noted that the relationship

IDENTIFICATION, MOTIVATION, AND PERFORMANCE 365

# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2000.

established in the van Knippenberg and Sleebos study is one between identification and self-reports of behaviour, and not between identification and actual performance (e.g. as in the previous section). Thus, this relation- ship still awaits a more conclusive test. The finding that the relationship between identification and (self-reported) contextual performance was in part moderated by individualism±collectivism is also highly relevant to the present discussion. Individualism±collectivism as an individual difference variable refers to a dimension that distinguishes individuals who consider their personal interests more important than the interests of the group (individualists) from individuals who are primarily focused on the interests of the group and would pursue group goals at the possible expense of their personal interests (collectivists). In other words, more collectivistically oriented individuals are dispositionally more inclined to exert effort on behalf of the group. Indeed, individualism±collectivism as an individual difference variable was found to be related to both task performance on group tasks (e.g. Wagner, 1995) and to contextual performance ratings (Moorman & Blakely, 1995). Analogous to van Leeuwen and van Knippenberg's (1999) reasoning concerning the interaction between identification and social value orientation, van Knippenberg and Sleebos argued that individualism± collectivism moderated the relationship between identification and perform- ance ratings, because identification leads individuals to experience the collective interest as self-interest (i.e. again, social rather than personal self- interest). This should affect individualists, who primarily focus on self- interest, to a greater extent than collectivists, for whom group interest generally prevails over personal interest. Although not directly related to the social identity analysis of motivation

and performance, one other finding from the van Knippenberg and Sleebos study is of interest here. Identification is conceptually similar to the concept of affective commitment, `̀ the employee's emotional attachment to, identi- fication with, and involvement in, the organisation'' (Allen & Meyer, 1990, p. 1; cf. Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979). In view of this conceptual simi- larity (especially the reference to identification), one may wonder whether identification as defined in the social identity approach is not just a `̀ new name for an old concept''. Addressing this issue, Ashforth and Mael (1989) argue that despite the apparent similarity, commitment and identification are different, because identification has a cognitive, self-definitional com- ponent (in addition to identification's affective component; Karasawa, 1991; Tajfel, 1978) that affective commitment has not (see also Pratt, 1998). Corroborating this conceptual distinction, Mael (1988, in Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Mael & Tetrick, 1992) showed that identification as measured by Mael and Ashforth's (1992) organisational identification questionnaire is empirically distinguishable from commitment measured with Mowday et al.'s (1979) Organisational Commitment Questionnaire. Extending these

366 VAN KNIPPENBERG

# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2000.

findings, results from Confirmatory Factor Analysis in the van Knippen- berg and Sleebos study showed that identification is also empirically dis- tinguishable from commitment as assessed with Allen and Meyer's (1990) Affective Commitment Scale. The fit of a model with two correlated factors (w2 (76) = 125.71, P50.0001, NFI = 0.850, NNFI = 0.920, CFI = 0.934) was superior to that of a model with one single identification/commitment factor (w2 (77) = 162.25, P50.001, NFI = 0.807, NNFI = 0.865, CFI = 0.886). Obviously, this is no proof that the difference between the two lies in the self-definitional aspect of identification, but it does show that identification and commitment are different concepts.

CONCLUSIONS

The number of studies of the relationship of identification with motivation and performance is as yet rather small, but these studies do yield converging evidence in support of the proposed social identity model of motivation and performance, and corroborate the conclusion that identification is positively related to work motivation, task performance, and contextual performance to the extent that (a) social identity is salient, and (b) high performance is perceived to be in the group's or organisation's interest. Even so, some of the relationships proposed by the model are not tested yet, only implicated by the results of the studies reviewed, or only established correlationally rather than experimentally. Therefore, more extensive testing of the rela- tions proposed in the model seems in order before more definite conclusions about the merits of the social identity approach to motivation and perform- ance may be drawn.

The relationship between social identity processes and performance on simple tasks (i.e. where performance is highly dependent on motivation) seems to be well established in the experimental research reviewed. As proposed in the model, but not addressed in the studies reviewed here, performance on more complex tasks (i.e. tasks on which performance is less contingent on motivation alone) may only be contingent on social identity processes to the extent that the individual possesses the necessary skills, knowledge, and so on, to render performance on the task primarily an issue of motivation. Yet, one may argue that especially on such tasks, where individuals may be more dependent on help, cooperation, and information from others, social identity processes may affect group performance through contextual performance (cf. Podsakoff et al., 1997) and interpersonal co- operation (cf. Kramer, 1991). The study of these more complex relationships would seem to be an obvious next step both from a theoretical and from an applied point of view.

Although the discussion has primarily focused on the positive effect identification may have on performance, there is a definite potential for

IDENTIFICATION, MOTIVATION, AND PERFORMANCE 367

# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2000.

social identity processes to result in lowered performance. Work groups may develop counter-productive norms, for instance as a result of a conflict with management (e.g. if the organisation is seen as exploitative, nonproductivity may be an obvious response) or because within the informal network of the work group doing as little as possible and getting away with it is regarded as an accomplishment. In such cases, increased identification and increased social identity salience may result in lowered productivity (note that, in this example, low productivity is undesirable from the organisation's point of view, but not from the point of view of the target of identification, the work group). In addition, for individuals who do not identify with the group or organisation, an emphasis on their group membership (which would enhance social identity salience) may actually elicit responses aimed at underscoring the individual's personal (i.e. as opposed to social) identity (van Prooijen & van Knippenberg, 2000) and thus engender behaviour that is incongruent with the implied social identity (e.g. nonproductivity; see Haslam, in press, for a more elaborate discussion of these issues). Thus, it would seem crucial for a proper understanding of the effects of social identity processes on motivation and performance not only to study the factors that affect organisational identifications and the salience of organ- isational identities, but also to study the factors that affect perceptions of the group's goals and interests. Factors that affect organisational identification and identity salience are

extensively discussed elsewhere (e.g. Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Dutton et al., 1994; Haslam, in press; Hogg & Terry, 2000; Pratt, 1998), and although factors that affect the extent to which high performance is perceived to be in the group's or organisation's interest have not received much attention in social identity research, they are addressed elsewhere (e.g. in research on organisational culture; cf. van Vianen, in press). A discussion of these issues is beyond the scope of the present study, and the conclusion of the previous paragraph is meant as a suggested agenda for research rather than as an issue to be resolved here. Even so, to conclude I may highlight a factor that may be especially relevant in this respect: group goal setting. A large body of evidence shows that setting clear and specific performance goals has a positive effect on the performance of individuals as well as groups (Locke & Latham, 1990; O'Leary-Kelly, Martocchio, & Frink, 1994). In a recent discussion of the effects of group goal setting, Wegge, in this issue, argues that setting group goals, especially setting group goals participatively, enhances social identity salience and increases group identification. Because group goal setting also provides a clear performance standard, Wegge's discussion implies that group goal setting may affect the three variables highlighted above: identification, identity salience, and group goals. Thus, group goal setting in particular may engender a social identity-based motivation to perform well. More definite conclusions about this proposi-

368 VAN KNIPPENBERG

# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2000.

tion, and other propositions made here, will have to await the results of future research.

REFERENCES

Allen, N.J., & Meyer, J.P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occu-

pational Psychology, 63, 1±18. Ashforth, B.E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization.

Academy of Management Review, 14, 20±39. Borman, W.C., & Motowidlo, S.J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include

elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt & W.C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 71±98). New York: Jossey-Bass.

Brown, R.J. (1978). Divided we fall: An analysis of relations between sections of a

factory workforce. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 395±429). London: Academic Press.

Brown, R., Condor, S., Mathews, A., Wade, G., & Williams, J. (1986). Explaining

intergroup differentiation in an industrial organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 59, 273±286.

Dutton, J.E., Dukerich, J.M., & Harquail, C.V. (1994). Organizational images and member identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 239±263.

Ely, R. (1994). The effects of organizational demographics and social identity on rela- tionships among professional women. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 203±238.

Fajak, A., & Haslam, S.A. (1998). Gender solidarity in hierarchical organizations.

British Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 73±94. Hackman, J.R., & Lawler, E.E. (1971). Employee reactions to job characteristics.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 55, 259±286.

Haslam, S.A. (in press). The psychology of organizations: A social identity approach. London & Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Haslam, S.A. (2000). Social identity, self-categorization and work motivation:

Rethinking the contribution of the group to positive and sustainable organiz- ational outcomes. Applied Psychology: An International Review.

Haslam, S.A., McGarty, C., Brown, P.M., Eggins, R.A., Morrison, B.E., & Reynolds, K.J. (1998). Inspecting the emperor's clothes: Evidence that random

selection of leaders can enhance group performance. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, & Practice, 2, 168±184.

Hogg, M.A. (1993). Group cohesiveness: A critical review and some new directions.

European Review of Social Psychology, 4, 85±111. Hogg, M.A., & Abrams, D. (1988). Social identifications: A social psychology of

intergroup relations and group processes. London: Routledge.

Hogg, M.A., Cooper-Shaw, L., & Holzworth, D.W. (1993). Group prototypicality and depersonalized attraction in small interactive groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 452±465.

Hogg, M.A., Hains, S.C., & Mason, I. (1998). Identification and leadership in small

groups: Salience, frame of reference, and leader stereotypicality effects on leader evaluations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1248±1263.

IDENTIFICATION, MOTIVATION, AND PERFORMANCE 369

# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2000.

Hogg, M.A., & Terry, D.J. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in

organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25, 121±140. James, K., & Cropanzano, R. (1994). Dispositional group loyalty and individual

action for the benefit of an ingroup: Experimental and correlational evidence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 60, 179±205.

James, K., & Greenberg, J. (1989). In-group salience, intergroup comparison, and individual performance and self-esteem. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15, 604±616.

Karasawa, M. (1991). Toward an assessment of social identity: The structure of group identification and its effects on in-group evaluations. British Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 293±307.

Kramer, R. (1991). Intergroup relations and organizational dilemmas. Research in Organizational Behavior, 13, 191±228.

Locke, E.A., & Latham, G.P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 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.

Mael, F., & Ashforth, B.E. (1995). Loyal from day one: Biodata, organizational identification, and turnover among newcomers. Personnel Psychology, 48, 309±333.

Mael, F.A., & Tetrick, L.E. (1992). Identifying organizational identification.

Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52, 813±824. Moorman, R.H., & Blakely, G.L. (1995). Individualism-collectivism as an individual

difference predictor of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organiza-

tional Behavior, 16, 127±142. Mowday, R.T., Steers, R.M., & Porter, L.W. (1979). The measurement of organ-

izational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224±247.

O'Leary-Kelly, A.M., Martocchio, J.J., & Frink, D.D. (1994). A review of the influence of group goals on group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1285±1301.

O'Reilly, C.A., & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psycholo-

gical attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 492±499.

Organ, D.W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome.

Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Organ, D.W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It's construct clean-up

time. Human Performance, 10, 85±97.

Pilegge, A.J., & Holtz, R. (1997). The effects of social identity on the self-set goals and task performance of high and low self-esteem individuals. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 70, 17±26.

Podsakoff, P.M., Ahearne, M., & MacKenzie, S.B. (1997). Organizational citizen-

ship behavior and the quality and quantity of work group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 262±270.

Pratt, M.G. (1998). To be or not to be? Central questions in organizational

identification. In D.A. Whetten & P.C. Godfrey (Eds.), Identity in organiz- ations: Building theory through conversations (pp. 171±207). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

370 VAN KNIPPENBERG

# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2000.

Smith, E.R., & Henry, S. (1996). An in-group becomes part of the self: Response

time evidence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 635±642. Tajfel, H. (1978). Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social

psychology of intergroup relations. London: Academic Press. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J.C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour.

In S. Worchel & W.G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (2nd edn., pp. 7±24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

Terry, D.J., & Callan, V.J. (1998). In-group bias in response to an organizational

merger. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 2, 67±81. Tsui, A., Egan, T., & O'Reilly, C. (1992). Being different: Relational demography

and organizational attachment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 549±579.

Turner, J.C. (1985). Social categorization and the self-concept: A social cognitive theory of group behavior. In E.J. Lawler (Ed.), Advances in group processes, 2 (pp. 77±122). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

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

van Knippenberg, D., & Sleebos, E. (1999). Identification, commitment, and individualism-collectivism: Their interrelations and relationship with organiza-

tional citizenship behavior. Unpublished manuscript, University of Amsterdam. van Knippenberg, D., van Knippenberg, B., Monden, L., & de Lima, F. (1999). A

social categorization perspective on mergers and acquisitions. Unpublished

manuscript, University of Amsterdam. van Knippenberg, D., & van Schie, E.C.M. (in press). Foci and correlates of organ-

izational identification. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology.

van Leeuwen, E., & van Knippenberg, D. (1999). Social value orientations and group performance: The role of expectations of other group members' effort. Un- published manuscript, Leiden University.

van Prooijen, J.W., & van Knippenberg, D. (2000). Individuation or depersonal- ization: The influence of personal status position. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 3, 63-77.

van Vianen, A. (in press). Person-organization fit: The match between newcomers'

and recruiters' preferences for organizational cultures. Personnel Psychology. Wagner, J.A. (1995). Studies of individualism-collectivism: Effects on cooperation in

groups. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 152±172.

Wagner, J.A., & Moch, M.K. (1986). Individualism-collectivism: Concept and measure. Group and Organization Studies, 11, 280±304.

Worchel, S., Rothgerber, H., Day, E.A., Hart, D., & Butemeyer, J. (1998). Social

identity and individual productivity within groups. British Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 389±413.

IDENTIFICATION, MOTIVATION, AND PERFORMANCE 371

# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2000.