[2] The process of identification occurs largely through language as one expresses similarities or affiliations with particular groups, including organizations.
[1] Other authors have defined OI as an alignment of individual and organizational values,[5] as well as the perception of oneness with and belongingness to the organization.
[7] Social identity theory has combined the cognitive elements of OI described above with affective and evaluative components.
They argued that OI arises from attraction and desire to maintain an emotionally satisfying, self-defining relationship with the organization.
[9] Organizational identification instills positive outcomes for work attitudes and behaviors including motivation, job performance and satisfaction, individual decision making, and employee interaction and retention.
[13] Third, OI is associated with a number of important organizational outcomes, including employee satisfaction, performance and retention.
Although recent research has begun to explore the potentially negative outcomes of OI, including reduced creativity and resistance to change.
[14] Finally, links have been made between OI and other organizational behaviors, including leadership, perceptions of justice and the meaning of work.
[2] Issue such as company policies, rules, communicated mission values and strategy all interplay in employee's identification.
In his meta-analysis, Riketta[9] examined the extent of the overlap between OI and affective organizational commitment across 96 independent samples.
[9] Such differences were most pronounced in studies where OI was measured by the Mael and Ashforth's scale,[21] which leaves out an emotional attachment component while focusing on employee perception of oneness with and belongingness to the organization.
[22] One of the antecedents to OI is perceived organizational support (POS), or “the extent to which individuals believe that their employing organization values their contribution and cares for their well-being”.
[28] Identity theory refers to the idea that people attach different meanings and significance to the various roles that they play in "highly differentiated societies".
Organizational identity was famously defined by Albert and Whetten as the "central, distinctive and enduring characteristic of an organization,"[29] and consisted of three principal components: ideational, definitional and phenomenological.
Organizations increase the chances of organizational identification by conveying and repeating a limited set of goals and values that employees not only identify with, but are constrained by when they make decisions.
[24] In fact, Van Dick, Grojean, Christ, and Wieseke[33] explain that through social identity individuals identify with their organization and claim its goals and vision as their own.
In other words, if perceived fairness is not evident in the organization-employee relationship, there will be a negative influence of employee perception on the company.
[24] If an organization has open organizational communication, it will serve as an effective method to give their employees information with which to identify.
If individuals find the high level of congruency between personal and organizational goals and values, they are more likely to identify with that organization rather quickly.
For example, O’Reilly and Chatman found that OI is positively related to intent to remain with an organization, decreased staff turnover, length of service, and extra-role behaviors, or “acts that are not directly specified by a job description but which are of benefit to the company”.
[36] In addition, Van Dick, Grojean, Christ, and Wieseke found that the causal relationship between extra-role behaviors and OI extended to the team level as well as customer evaluations.
For example, Umphress, Bingham, and Mitchell argued that people who have high degrees of OI may act unethically on behalf of the organization.
One insidious, almost fully unobtrusive form of control is the organization's attempt to regulate employee identity and identification.
Alvesson and Willmott[42] explore how employee identities are regulated inside of an organization so that their self-images and work processes and products line up with management goals and objectives.
So, controlling identity and identification benefits the company because it makes for more satisfied employees who stay longer and work harder.
Identity regulation by organizations can be seen through efforts to manage organizational culture through communicated values in mission and vision statements.
[46] There are various applications of OI research in the field of management, for example, individuals might sense a threat to the stability and identity of the company when a merger occurs or when organizations are constantly restructuring their psychological contract with employees to stay afloat in the economic situation.