organizational identification: extending our understanding of social

Journal of Organizational Behavior

J. Organiz. Behav. (2010)

Published online in Wiley InterScience

(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/job.694

*Correspondence to:Bristol, RI 02809, U.SyAuthorship is listed a

Copyright # 2010

Organizational identification: Extendingour understanding of social identitiesthrough social networksy

CANDACE JONES1 AND ELIZABETH HAMILTON VOLPE2*1Carroll School of Management, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts, USA2Gabelli School of Business, Roger Williams University, Bristol, Rhode Island, USA

Summary Although organizational identification is founded on social identity and symbolic interac-tionist theories, current theories emphasize a social identity whereby organizational memberscategorize themselves and others based on roles and membership in an organization or workunit. In contrast symbolic interactionism, which resides in interpersonal relationships, is rarelytheorized or empirically assessed in studies of organizational identification. We use surveydata collected at an academic institution to explore how the strength and structure of anindividual’s social network both directly influences organizational identification as well asmoderates the relation between social identity, or categorical, antecedents and organizationalidentification. Our results show that the size of an individual’s network as well as theinteraction between relationship strength and prestige better explain organizational identifi-cation than do antecedents based solely on categorization and social comparison processes.Thus networks of relationships, which have been a foundational but much neglected premiseand process for organizational identification, are brought back into a theory of organizationalidentification. Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Introduction

Organizational identification—the perception of oneness with or belongingness to an organization

(Mael & Ashforth, 1992)—among members is essential to the success of many organizations (Pratt,

1998). For example, alumni identification with their alma mater generates financial contributions and

disseminates information to potential students about the institution (Mael & Ashforth, 1992). In

Direct Selling Organizations (DSOs) such as Amway Corporation, Mary Kay, and the Longaberger

Company, employee identification translates into how they represent products and services to others

(Biggart, 1989; Pratt, 2000). Consumer product firms such as Procter & Gamble draw upon both

current and ex-employee identification to serve as sources of innovations, referrals, and recruitment

(Ellison, 2003). Organizational identification is positively related to individuals’ affective organiz-

ational commitment, job and organizational satisfaction, job involvement, organizational loyalty,

Elizabeth Hamilton Volpe, Gabelli School of Business, Roger Williams University, One Old Ferry Road,.A. E-mail: [email protected] and reflects the equal contribution of both authors to the paper.

John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 16 January 2007Revised 14 January 2010

Accepted 15 February 2010

C. JONES AND E. H. VOLPE

occupational and work group attachment and extra-role behavior, and negatively related to

individuals’ intent to leave the organization (Adler & Adler, 1988; O’Reily & Chatman, 1986; Riketta,

2005; Riketta & Van Dick, 2005). Therefore, extending our understanding of the antecedents to and

processes for engendering identification among organization members is an important area for further

study.

Current research in organizational identification is anchored in and builds upon social identity

theory whereby individuals classify themselves and others into various social categories such

as organizational membership, gender, race, age cohort, or religious affiliation and view their

membership in particular groups based on social roles and role relationships (Hogg, Terry, & White,

1995; Stryker & Burke, 2000; Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Scholars have made significant contributions

to organizational identification by illuminating different identity orientations that link an

individual’s identity with others: self (e.g., I belong to a prestigious organization), relational

(e.g., my boss develops his/her employees) and collective (e.g., my organization improves its

community) (Brewer & Gardner, 1996; Brickson, 2005; Flynn, 2005; Kreiner & Ashforth, 2004;

Sluss & Ashforth, 2007).

Although scholars acknowledge the ‘‘personal bonds of attachment’’ in constructing identity, and

thus highlight the importance of social relations in organizational identification (Brickson, 2005; Sluss

& Ashforth, 2007), these relations remain, by and large, an act of abstract categorization by individuals

in their studies, suggesting that ‘‘identification can exist in the absence of interpersonal interaction and

group cohesion’’ (Cardador & Pratt, 2006: p. 175; Friedkin, 2004: p. 414). Even if studies focus on

relationships, they often use fictional vignettes and focus on roles such as supplier and customer rather

than measuring interpersonal relationships (Andersen & Chen, 2002; Brewer & Gardner, 1996;

Brickson, 2005). Few contemporary studies examine the social relations that shape and re-shape the

self through communication and feedback (important exceptions include Flynn (2005), Pratt (2000),

and Smidts, Pruyn, & van Riel [2001]). The dearth of research examining social relations is particularly

puzzling because the earliest scholarly explorations of organizational identification emphasized

the importance of communication and feedback among individuals (e.g., Burke, 1950/1969; Cheney,

1983a, 1983b; Kauffman, 1960; Simon, 1945/1976; Simon & March, 1958). Since few scholars

measure the dyadic and network properties of social relationships and how these influence individuals’

organizational identification, the role of social relations remains an important black box in

organizational identification.

Our goal and contribution is to examine the social relationships that surround an individual. More

specifically, we assess how dyadic and structural properties of social networks directly influence an

individual’s level of organizational identification as well as whether these network properties moderate

the relationship between categorical antecedents and organizational identification. By introducing a

social networks perspective, we extend our understanding of categorical antecedents to better predict


Social Identity and Social Network Perspectives on OrganizationalIdentification

Social identity theory highlights the categorization and comparison processes that guide individuals’

perception of the organization, such as its prestige or distinctiveness, and stimulate identification

(Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Pratt, 1998; Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Thus, the individual is the level of

analysis and focus of measurement. A social network perspective highlights the structure of social

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. (2010)

DOI: 10.1002/job

ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTIFICATION

relations that surround an individual (or node), providing communication, information, and feedback to

shape an individual’s attitudes and behaviors1

Social identities: Organizational identification through categorization andmembership

Although numerous antecedents to organizational identification have been explored (see Elsbach, 1999

for review), existing research suggests that individuals’ perception of their organization as distinctive

and prestigious are key criteria (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Carmeli, Gilat, & Weisberg, 2006; Mael &

Ashforth, 1992; Simon, 1945/1976). Since we seek to extend understanding of categorical perspectives

on organizational identification by including social networks, we use a replication approach and

provide hypotheses about categorization processes to make our assumptions explicit and compare

empirically the effects of categorization and social network antecedents on organizational

identification. A replication approach is central to establishing the validity and generalizability of

prior research findings (Hubbard, Vetter, & Little, 1998).

Organizational distinctivenessOrganizational distinctiveness taps into individuals’ need to be unique and do so through memberships

in distinctive categories (Brewer, 1991). When an organization becomes ‘‘infused with value’’

(Selznick, 1957), its distinctiveness generates strong loyalties whereby members replace or expand

their individual preferences and goals to include those of the organization. These loyalties restrict

members’ focus of attention and guide decision making (Kauffman, 1960; Simon, 1945/1976; Simon&

March, 1958). For example, Clark (1970) examined three ‘‘distinctive’’ colleges—Antioch, Reed, and

Swarthmore—which were founded on charismatic leaders, a unique curriculum, a loyal social base

that provided resources (money, students, moral support, and affection) and the creation of an

organizational ideology. When organizational leaders make salient and reinforce individuals’

membership in and relationship to a unique group, they often spark strong levels of organizational

identification (Dutton, Dukerich, & Harquail, 1994; Mael & Ashforth, 1992). Therefore,

H1a: Individuals’ perception of their organization as distinctive is positively related to the strength

of their organizational identification.

Organizational prestige

Individuals identify with groups or organizations partly to enhance their own self-esteem (Abrams

& Hogg, 1988; Mael & Ashforth, 1992). Thus, organizational prestige aligns individual and

organizational identities through a focus on self (Brickson, 2005), allowing individuals to bask in the

reflected glory (Cialdini, Borden, Thorne, Walker, Freeman, & Sloan, 1976). Several studies have

found organizational prestige to predict members’ organizational identification for a college (Mael &

Ashforth, 1992), art museum (Bhattacharya, Rao, & Glynn, 1995), law firms, electronics and media

organizations (Carmeli et al., 2006), non-profit, bank, and utility firms (Smidts et al., 2001).

Individuals’ perceptions of their organization’s prestige is enhanced and verified through the media

(Deephouse, 2000). For U.S. higher educational institutions, the social comparison process is highly

1Cardador and Pratt (2006: p. 177) label these as ‘‘impersonal’’, which means that ‘‘identification is not due to social cohesion orstrong interpersonal bonds’’ versus ‘‘personal’’, which derives from social interactions. We use the term structural rather thanpersonal because network theorists argue the natural unit of analysis is not the individual but the social network or dyadic tiessurrounding the individual (Erickson, 1988; Rice & Aydin, 1991; Wellman, 1983).


DOI: 10.1002/job


formalized with numerous ranking and rating guides for applicants, which compare, describe, and

rate educational institutions on a variety of dimensions (e.g., U.S. News & World Report, Business

Week, Barron’s). When these rankings highlight an organization as among elite providers of

uncertain and difficult services, such as education, this referent group signals quality and status

through affiliation (Podolny, 1993), enhancing potential and current members’ organizational

identification. Therefore,

H1b: Individuals’ perception of their organization as prestigious is positively related to the strength

of their organizational identification.

Social networks: Organizational identification through relationship strength andstructure

The few existing studies that examine the effect of social networks on organizational identification

focus on centrality and tend to use qualitative research (see Bullis & Bach, 1991; Kuhn & Nelson,

2002). Social network research has been found to effect attitudes, social cohesion, knowledge transfer,

and job performance. Network scholars may focus on either centrality of an actor, examining

egonetworks, or the overall structure, examining whole networks (Borgatti & Foster, 2003). We are

interested in individuals’ organizational identification and thus focus on egonetworks, using measures

important for egonetworks: network size (also called range), relationship strength and density (also

called embeddedness) (Borgatti, Jones, & Everett, 1998; Burt, 2000; Granovetter, 1982).

Network size

An individual’s centrality in a social network is measured by the size of their network, or the number of

others with which that person interacts, tapping into communication activity (Marsden, 1990: p. 454)

and indicating that the individual is ‘‘in the thick of things’’ (Freeman, 1979). An individual with a

larger organizational network is in the center of ‘‘organizational or identity group affiliation’’ (Alderfer,

1987; Ibarra, 1993: p. 60). Research has shown that an individual’s centrality in an organization is

associated with increased identification with peers, work group and division (Kuhn & Nelson, 2002).

Since organizational ties are voluntary, the presence of ties to insiders anchors individuals in

attachment, whereas ties to outsiders make other identities more salient and increases exit from the

group (McPherson, Popielarz, & Drobnic, 1992). For example, Pratt (2000) found that Amway

distributors who dis-identified were more likely to maintain their relations with non-supportive family

members and friends, whereas those most committed to Amway focused on relationships that were

positive toward Amway. Since larger networks also increase the diversity of attitudes, people, and

behaviors (Reagans & McEvily, 2003), it is an individual’s increased claiming of organizational

membership and granting of that claim (Bartel & Dutton, 2001; Morrison, 2002), rather than the

similarity of attitudes among one’s social network, that strengthens an individual’s identification with

an organization. Therefore,

H2a: The size of an individual’s organizationally affiliated network is positively related to the

strength of their organizational identification.

Relationship strength

Relationship strength is defined by frequency of interaction, duration, and closeness (Granovetter,

1973) and is best indicated by closeness, which measures the emotional intensity of a tie


DOI: 10.1002/job


(Marsden & Campbell, 1984). Tie strength among social actors is a good proxy for and highly

correlated with communication (Brass, Butterfield, & Skaggs, 1998; Friedkin, 2004; Reagans,

Zuckerman, & McEvily, 2004), connecting the symbolic interactionists’ focus on communication

with those of strong ties. In his study of Amway, Pratt (2000: p. 479) highlighted how those

distributors with strong mentor-protege ties tended to have stronger identification with Amway,

whereas those distributors who dis-identified ‘‘had, at best, distant, or infrequent interaction

with their upline [sponsor];’’ thus stronger affective interpersonal relationships formed with

organization-affiliated peers are likely to strengthen an individual’s organizational identification.

Therefore,

H2b: The strength of an individual’s relationships with organizationally affiliated peers is positively

related to the strength of their organizational identification.

Network density

Network density refers to the extent that people in a network know one another (Ibarra, 1996) and

reveals how embedded or interconnected an individual’s social network is. Network density

facilitates communication, trust, and social support among individuals and reinforces attitudes and

perceptions (Bott, 1977; Coleman, 1988; Erickson, 1988; Feld & Carter, 1998; Krackhardt & Porter,

1985). For example, Amway distributors create ‘‘family trees’’ whereby distributors are related to

common sponsors who then form, and often substitute for, one’s familial and social relations (Pratt,

2000). Bott (1977) showed how conjugal attitudes were most similar among those who had

more closure in their social networks. Networks displaying high closure and cohesiveness are

conducive to facilitating a clear social identity (Podolny & Baron, 1997) because that social identity

is more easily discerned and individuals who do not conform to it are ‘‘corrected’’ to adapt to

the groups’ shared attitude (Bienenstock, Bonacich, & Oliver, 1990). Thus, research suggests

that individuals are more likely to adopt and reflect the attitudes of those around them when they

have interconnected or dense relations (Bott, 1977; Erickson, 1988; Krackhardt & Porter, 1985).

Therefore,

H2c: The density of individuals’ network relationships is positively related to the strength of their


Interaction of categorical and structural antecedents to organizationalidentification

Recently, some organizational scholars have explored theoretically how social structures

and categorizations interact to shape actions and construct identities, yet these ideas have

not been empirically tested (e.g., Rao, Davis, & Ward, 2000; Scott & Lane, 2000; White, 1992).

We seek to examine and compare whether network size, relationship strength and network

density moderate the relationship between categorical antecedents and organizational

identification.

Network size

Network size may moderate the relationship between the categorical antecedents of organizational

distinctiveness and organizational prestige with organizational identification because the act of

publicly identifying with an organization (e.g., I am a student at X) with a larger number of


DOI: 10.1002/job


others creates commitment (Salancik, 1977). To reduce cognitive dissonance, the person aligns public

espousal and private beliefs. Therefore,

H3a: The size of an individual’s organizationally affiliated network moderates the relationship

between categorical antecedents of organizational distinctiveness and organizational prestige with

organizational identification, strengthening a positive relationship.


Relationship strength may moderate the relationship between organizational distinctiveness and

organizational prestige with organizational identification because strong relationship ties show greater

potential for persuasion and influence (Granovetter, 1982; Krackhardt, 1992; Rogers & Kincaid, 1981).

As Cardador and Pratt (2006: p. 180) point out, strong ties influence behavior because ‘‘liking is a

powerful base of persuasion. . .[and] these social bonds increase the likelihood that organizationally

relevant behaviors will continue and that identification will be facilitated.’’ Therefore,

H3b: The strength of an individual’s organizationally affiliated network moderates the relationship

between categorical antecedents of organizational distinctiveness and organizational prestige with

organizational identification, strengthening a positive relationship.

Network density

Network density may moderate the relationship between organizational distinctiveness and

organizational prestige with organizational identification because density or embeddedness reinforces

the opinions, perceptions, and attitudes among these social actors through commonly held relationships

(e.g., A’s opinion is shared with B through actor C who also knows A). For example, Scott and Lane

(2000) cite members of Harley Owners Group (H.O.G.) as being embedded in a ‘‘subculture of

consumption,’’ which amplifies these individuals’ identification with Harley-Davidson because dense

networks restrict and define with whom members socially compare themselves. Since social actors

experience cognitive dissonancewhen they hold opinions different from those who surround them, they

are more likely to bring their attitudes and perceptions into alignment with others (Heider, 1958). In

addition, a third party reinforces attitudes and reduces the freedom of a social actor to act and believe in

ways contrary to other members (Krackhardt, 1998). Therefore,

H3c: The density of an individual’s network moderates the relationship between categorical

antecedents of organizational distinctiveness and organizational prestige with organizational

identification, strengthening a positive relationship.

Methods

Research site

We used an egonetwork approach to survey and ‘‘enumerate’’ the local networks (Marsden, 1990: p.

438) surrounding a sample of undergraduate students at a Jesuit institution in the Northeastern United

States. The institution has over 8000 undergraduate students, making a roster approach used with whole

networks infeasible. In addition, an enumeration method captures the strong ties of emotional closeness

and communication that shape identification processes. The institution’s culture and mission focuses

on a commitment to intellectual, personal, ethical, and religious development of students, faculty, and

staff; uniting academic achievement with service to others. Our collective years of experience on


DOI: 10.1002/job


university wide task forces, strategic planning and activities involving students, administrators, and

faculty from various departments led us to conclude that this is a ‘‘holographic organization,’’ where

organization members across subunits share a common identity (Albert & Whetten, 1985; Mael &

Ashforth, 1992). Since seminal work on organizational identification has been conducted at academic

institutions (see Mael & Ashforth, 1992), a college setting was appropriate.

Research sample

We began with a pilot questionnaire soliciting information on social networks and activity involvement

from a class of seventeen undergraduate students. Seven of the senior students were purposively

selected for the pilot interviews based on school (three from management, two from arts and sciences,

two from education) and high versus low involvement at the college. During the interview process, we

discovered that six of the seven students were legacies, having a parent or sibling who had also attended

the college. We used these pilot surveys and interviews to refine a survey instrument.

We distributed self-report questionnaires to 401 undergraduate students; this type of survey is a

primary data collection method for social networks (Marsden, 1990). Participation in the study was

voluntary and not tied to students’ grade for a course. Survey recipients were assured confidentiality

and told that the survey was designed to ‘‘gather information related to different aspects of students’

experiences with (Name of College).’’ A total of 215 surveys were returned, of which 140 were usable,

representing a sample response rate of 34.9 percent. We conducted t-tests on organizational

identification to see if those students who completely and accurately filled out the survey differed from

those students who did not; there were no significant differences in the organizational identification

between these two groups (t¼ 0.38, p¼ 0.71). The student respondents reflected an approximately

equal distribution of gender (53 percent male; 47 percent female) and tenure in the organization

(24 percent freshmen; 26 percent sophomores; 28 percent juniors; 22 percent seniors), but an unequal

distribution across schools (83 percent management versus 17 percent arts and sciences or education).

Thus, we use school as a control variable in our analysis.

Variable measures

Organizational identification

Organizational identification, the dependent variable, was measured with a six-item Likert-type scale

previously used byMael and Ashforth (1992) (see Appendix 1). The coefficient a of 0.79 is respectable

(DeVellis, 1991).

Social identity antecedents

We examined two categorical antecedents of organizational identification derived from social identity

theory: organizational distinctiveness and organizational prestige.

Organizational distinctiveness

Organizational distinctiveness was measured by a seven-item Likert-type scale developed for this study

(see Appendix 1). Since the organizational distinctiveness scale used in Mael and Ashforth (1992) was

created in relation to a specific organization, Dr. Fred Mael advised the authors to develop a

distinctiveness scale fitting the institution under current study (personal communication). The scale

items were devised through preliminary interviews with, and pilot tested on, a small sample of students

at the institution. This scale assessed respondents’ perceptions regarding the uniqueness of the college’s

program offerings, service to others, religion and development of the whole person in comparison to


DOI: 10.1002/job


other schools considered to be most competitive. Thus, organizational distinctiveness corresponds with

Brickson’s (2005) notion of a collective identity (serving others and the community). The coefficient a

was 0.74 which is respectable (DeVellis, 1991).

Organizational prestige

Organizational prestige, indicating the ‘‘degree to which the institution is well regarded both in

absolute and comparative terms,’’ was measured by selecting six relevant items from a perceived

organizational prestige scale used by Mael and Ashforth (1992) (see Appendix 1). The coefficient a

was 0.68, which is considered acceptable (DeVellis, 1991). Previous research exploring the relationship

between organizational prestige and identification has reported a comparable organizational prestige

scale a of 0.69 (Bhattacharya et al., 1995).

To ensure sufficient distinction among the dependent and categorical variables, we used LISREL

8.80 (Joreskog & Sobom, 2006) to conduct a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on organizational

identification, organizational distinctiveness, and organizational prestige.We hypothesized and tested a

three-factor model where the indicator and latent variables were set to correlate at 1.0. Stemming from

our theoretical understanding of the indicator variables and suggestion by the LISREL program, we

added error covariance terms to three pairs of organizational distinctiveness errors. Specifically, a focus

on school-specific programs and religion creates a common shared variance with these unmeasured

sub-dimensions that supports the inclusion of error covariance terms. Fit indices suggest that our

revised hypothesized model fit the data well (x2¼ 192.23, df¼ 146, p< 0.01; CFI¼ 0.96;

RMSEA¼ 0.04). These fit indices conform to acceptable standards (Hu & Bentler, 1999; Taylor &

Pastor, 2007; Yukl, Chavez, & Seifert, 2005), and therefore present evidence for the discriminant

validity among organizational identification, organizational distinctiveness, and organizational

prestige constructs.

Social network antecedents

We examined two general network characteristics, network size and density, and one aspect of dyadic

relations, relationship strength.

Network size

Network size, also called range or degree centrality, is the total number of college-affiliated alters listed

in a student’s network (Campbell, Marsden, & Hurlbert, 1986; Ibarra, 1995). Three name-generator

questions were used to help respondents identify members of their advice, friendship, and

developmental networks. More specifically, respondents were asked to identify: ‘‘the people with whom

you have discussed important work or academic matters,’’ ‘‘closest friends. . .those people with whom

you most like to spend your free time or with whom you would be most likely to discuss a personal

dilemma,’’ and ‘‘those people who have contributed most significantly to your personal development

during your college years.’’ Network size was determined by aggregating all network alters that

attended, were an alumnus of, or worked at the college attended by the student. As typical in network

studies, we combined these dimensions into one measure because the measures of centrality across

types of networks are highly correlated (Mossholder, Settoon, & Henagan, 2005).


Relationship strength examined the closeness of organizationally affiliated peer ties between ego and

each alter, using a one-item Likert-type scale. Closeness serves as a more accurate indicator of tie

strength than either duration of relationship or frequency of contact with alter (Ibarra, 1996; Marsden &

Campbell, 1984). Specifically, for each person identified as part of respondents’ advice, friendship, and

developmental networks, respondents were asked to ‘‘indicate the closeness of your relationship with


DOI: 10.1002/job


them by placing an ‘‘X’’ in one of the boxes marked Very Close, Close, Not Very Close, Distant.’’ The

average closeness between each respondent and his or her organizationally affiliated peers was

calculated and used.

Network density

Network density represents the extent to which people in a network know one another or are

interconnected (Ibarra, 1996) and the respondent was asked to identify which alters they listed knew

one another. We calculated density by dividing the number of actual relationships among alters by

the maximum number of possible relationships among alters (Ibarra, 1996; Marsden, 1990). For

dichotomous relationships, density represented the proportion of connections present relative to those

possible (Marsden, 1990).

Control variables

Legacy status, choice, gender, tenure, and school were the control variables in this study.

Legacy statusLegacy status captures the overlap of familial ties and organizational ties for an individual.

Respondents were asked to ‘‘Please list each relative that has attended (Name of College) (ex. father,

mother, sister, brother, uncle, aunt, cousin, grandparent).’’ The variable was coded 1 if the respondent

had/has any family members who attended the college, and coded 0 for no family members that

attended the college.

Choice

Choice tapped into how free students were in choosing the college they attended. Research indicates

that individuals who have more freedom to choose and make their choices public are more likely to

identify with and be committed toward their choice (Salancik, 1977). Students were asked to respond to

the statement ‘‘It was completely my decision to attend (Name of College)’’ using a five-point Likert

scale identifying strong disagreement to strong agreement.

Gender

Gender, a dichotomous variable, was included as a control because of the differing importance that men

and women place on relationships with others (Brown & Gilligan, 1992). We found no differences

between our sample and the university’s population (x2 1.08 with 1df, p¼ 0.25).

Tenure

Tenure controlled for the amount of time a student was actively involved with the organization, which

serves as a positive antecedent to organizational identification (Mael & Ashforth, 1992). Tenure was

measured on a four-point scale where a score of one indicated freshman standing and a score of four

indicated senior standing.We tested for differences between our sample and the university’s population

and found no significant differences (x2 0.81 with 3 df, p¼ 0.25).

School

School was a dichotomous variable assessing management versus non-management school since we

sampled more management students relative to the student population; however, we found no

difference between management and non-management students on their level of organizational

identification using t-tests with unequal samples sizes (t¼�0.50, p¼ 0.62).

We coded our measures to follow the same direction, where 1 is the lowest value (very weak, distant,

strongly disagree) and 5 the highest value (very strong, very close, strongly agree).


DOI: 10.1002/job

Table 1. University senior survey: Select items

Year 2001 2003 2005 2007

Response rate 94% 95.1% 79.8% 77.1%Number of respondents 2009 2054 1741 1693

SatisfactionGenerally or very satisfied with education 89.5% 90.1% 91.3% 88.3%Generally or very dissatisfied with education 10.5% 9.9% 8.7% 11.7%

Total: 100% 100% 100% 100%ChoiceWould choose institution again:� Definitely would/Probably would 69.1% 72.8% 87.8% 83.8%

Would choose institution again:� Definitely not/ Probably not 14.2% 12.9% 9.3% 13.2%

Would choose institution again:� Maybe 16.7% 14.3% 3.9% 3.0%

Total: 100% 100% 100% 100%Career considerations: essential/very importantSocial recognition and status 29% 32.6% NA NAStable, secure future 86% 84% NA NACreativity and initiative 79.8% 79.8% NA NAInteresting daily work 93.5% 93.2% NA NA


Assessing social perceptions toward institution: Senior surveys

We collected additional data from University administrators to assess the social perceptions of students

toward the institution: were they positive or negative? This helps to ensure that our interpretations of

the statistical results accurately capture the dynamics of the students’ relationship to the university and

their collective values and attitudes. The university performs senior surveys each year and generously

granted us access to these surveys for the time immediately before and after our study: 2001, 2003,

2005, and 2007. This extensive survey has a very high participation rate and asks a myriad of questions

about the students’ attitudes toward and perceptions of their experience at the university. The survey

data suggests that assuming a positive attitude toward the University in dense relations is reasonable.

We summarize the key data relevant to aiding us in interpreting our results in Table 1.

Results

Table 2 displays the means, standard deviations, and correlations for the variables used in this study.

Coefficient as are shown on the diagonal for each multiple-item measure.

We tested our hypotheses using hierarchical multiple regression analysis (see Table 3) and tested for

multicollinearity using Tolerance and VIF statistics. The interaction of distinctiveness and relationship

strength had a tolerance of 0.362 and VIF of 2.77; tolerances below 0.40 and VIFs above 2.5 may be

problematic (Allison, 1999). Since the results did not change substantially with the interaction term

included (e.g., without the interaction term the coefficient of the interaction of prestige and network

density becomes �0.83 and is significant at p¼ 0.08), we included it. Following Cohen, Cohen, West,

and Aiken (2003), we centered all social identity and social network predictor variables prior to

including them in the regression model.


DOI: 10.1002/job

Table

2.Means,standarddeviations,andcorrelationsbetweenstudyvariablesa

Variable

Mean

SD

12

34

56

78

910

Dependentvariable

1.Org.identification

3.81

0.63

(0.79)

Controlvariables

2.Choice

4.43

0.76

0.10

3.Gender

0.54

0.50

0.09

0.09

4.Tenure

2.48

1.09

�0.05

�0.04

�0.13

5.School

0.83

0.38

�0.04

0.05

0.09

�0.15

6.Legacystatus

0.30

0.46

�0.03

�0.02

0.03

0.12

�0.05

Social

identity

predictors

7.Org.distinctiveness

3.63

0.53

0.42��

0.16

0.06

�0.16

�0.02

0.05

(0.74)

8.Org.prestige

4.03

0.53

0.12

0.07

�0.08

0.21�

�0.17�

0.16

0.21�

(0.68)

Social

network

predictors

9.Network

size

7.23

3.29

0.27��

�0.01

�0.02

0.17�

�0.08

0.29��

0.17�

0.14

10.Relationship

strength

3.30

0.74

0.18�

0.04

�0.09

0.21�

�0.04

0.15

0.16

0.06

0.26��

11.Network

density

0.50

0.21

�0.08

�0.06

�0.02

0.09

�0.08

0.06

�0.13

0.04

�0.24��

�0.05

aCronbach’s

aisin

parentheses

onthediagonal

foreach

multiple-item

measure;n¼136.� p

<0.05(2-tailed);

��p<0.01(2-tailed).


DOI: 10.1002/job


Table

3.Hierarchical

regressionanalysisoforganizational

identificationonsocial

identity

andsocial

network

antecedents

a,b

Model

12

34

56

78

Constant

3.56��

�(0.38)

3.72��

�(0.35)

3.71��

�(0.36)

3.80��

�(0.34)

3.84��

�(0.34)

3.60��

�(0.33)

3.81��

�(0.34)

3.63��

�(0.33)

Controlvariables

Choice

0.08(0.07)

0.02(0.07)

0.07(0.07)

0.03(0.07)

0.02(0.07)

0.06(0.06)

0.04(0.07)

0.05(0.06)

Gender

0.10(0.11)

0.09(0.10)

0.11(0.11)

0.10(0.10)

0.13(0.10)

0.13(0.09)

0.09(0.10)

0.11(0.10)

Tenure

�0.03(0.05)

0.01(0.05)

�0.07(0.05)

�0.03(0.05)

�0.03(0.05)

�0.02(0.05)

�0.03(0.05)

�0.02(0.05)

School

�0.11(0.15)

�0.06(0.14)

�0.08(0.14)

�0.04(0.13)

�0.05(0.13)

0.02(0.13)

�0.08(0.13)

0.01(0.13)

Legacy

�0.04(0.12)

�0.09(0.11)

�0.17(0.12)

�0.19(0.11)

�0.22þ(0.11)�0.21þ(0.11)�0.20þ(0.11)�0.22�(0.11)

Social

identity

predictors

Distinctiveness

0.49��

�(0.10)

0.42��

�(0.10)

0.41��

�(0.11)

0.34��

�(0.10)

0.38��

�(0.10)

0.39��

�(0.10)

Prestige

0.05(0.10)

0.05(0.10)

0.06(0.10)

0.11(0.10)

0.04(0.10)

0.05(0.10)

Social

network

predictors

Size

0.06��

(0.02)

0.05��

(0.02)

0.05��

(0.02)

0.05��

(0.02)

0.05��

(0.02)

0.05��

�(0.02)

Relationship

Strength

0.13þ(0.08)

0.08(0.07)

0.08(0.08)

�0.01(0.08)

0.01(0.08)

0.00(0.08)

Density

0.06(0.27)

0.12(0.25)

0.14(0.25)

0.41þ(0.25)

0.19(0.25)

0.37(0.25)

Interaction

Distinctiveness�Network

size

�0.01(0.04)

0.07þ(0.04)

Prestige�Network

size

0.05�(0.03)

0.01(0.03)

Distinctiveness�Relationship

strength

�0.16þ(0.09)

�0.19(0.12)

Prestige�Relationship

strength

0.55��

�(0.16)

0.56��

�(0.17)

Distinctiveness�Network

density

0.93�(0.43)

0.30(0.51)

Prestige�Network

density

�0.76(0.47)

�0.65(0.47)

R2

0.02

0.19

0.13

0.25

0.28

0.35

0.29

0.38

Adjusted

R2

�0.02

0.15

0.08

0.19

0.20

0.29

0.22

0.30

DR2(From

Model

1)

0.17

0.11

0.23

0.25

0.33

0.26

0.36

F0.59

4.29��

�2.42�

4.14��

�3.89��

�5.51��

�4.11��

�4.58��

�

DF(from

Model

1)

13.26��

�5.36��

7.54��

�6.13��

�8.85��

�6.50��

�6.28��

�

DF(from

Model

2)

3.26�

DF(from

Model

4)

2.23

9.56��

�3.24�

4.25��

�

a,bUnstandardized

bcoefficients;standarderrorsin

parentheses.In

Models2–8allsocialidentity,socialnetwork,andinteractionpredictorshavebeencentered.þp<0.10;� p

<0.05;

��p<0.01;�� p

<0.001.


DOI: 10.1002/job



Model 1 tested the effects of the control variables choice, gender, tenure, school, and legacy status on

organizational identification. These controls explain little variance and are non-significant.Model 2 tested

the effects of social identity antecedents—organizational distinctiveness and organizational prestige—

on organizational identification, explaining a significant amount of variance in organizational

identification beyond the controls (0.19 R2, DF¼ 13.26, p< 0.001). Model 3 tested the predictive

effects of the social network antecedents—network size, relationship strength, and network density—on

organizational identification, which explained a significant amount of variance in organizational

identification beyond the control variables (0.13 R2, DF¼ 5.36, p< 0.01). Model 4 tested the combined

effects of social identity and social network antecedents on organizational identification. As shown in

Table 3, the change in F fromModel 2 is significant (DF¼ 3.26, p< 0.05), indicating that social network

predictors added to categorical antecedents of social identity for explaining organizational identification.

Models 5 through 7 test each social network variable as moderating the relationship between categorical

antecedents and organizational identification. Only moderating effects of relationship strength and

network density add explained variance beyond the direct effects of categorical and network antecedents

(DF from Model 4, 9.56, p< 0.001 and 3.24, p< 0.05 respectively, see Table 3).

We use model 8, which is significant (0.38 R2, DF from model 1¼ 6.28, p< 0.001), to test our

hypotheses. Organizational distinctiveness was a predictor of organizational identification (b¼ 0.39,

p< 0.001), whereas organizational prestige was not (b¼ 0.05, n.s.); therefore Hypothesis 1a was

supported and 1b was not supported. Network size was a predictor of organizational identification

(b¼ 0.05, p< 0.001), whereas relationship strength (b¼ 0.00, n.s.) and network density (b¼ 0.37, n.s.)

were not; therefore Hypothesis 2a was supported and hypotheses 2b and 2c were not supported.

Network size did not moderate the relationship between the categorical antecedents of distinctiveness

and prestige (b¼ 0.07, p< 0.10 and b¼ 0.01, n.s respectively); therefore hypothesis 3a was not

supported. Relationship strength moderated the relationship between organizational prestige and

organizational identification (b¼ 0.56, p< 0.001), but not the relationship between organizational

distinctiveness and organizational identification (b¼�0.19, n.s.); therefore hypothesis 3b is partially

supported. Network density did not moderate the relationships between organizational distinctiveness

and organizational prestige with organizational identification (b¼ 0.30, n.s. and b¼�0.65, n.s.

respectively); therefore hypothesis 3c is not supported.

Discussion

Our goal was to examine the social relationships that surround an individual and assess whether dyadic

and structural properties of social networks directly influenced and moderated the relationship between

categorical antecedents and organizational identification. Our results showed that in addition to

perceptions of organizational distinctiveness, organizationally affiliated network size positively

influenced the strength of individuals’ organizational identification by promoting communication with

others as a process of identity interpretation and enactment (Humphreys & Brown, 2002). Through

repetitive claiming of organizational membership with multiple organizationally affiliated others,

individuals reinforce and strengthen their commitment to identification with an organization (Bartel &

Dutton, 2001; Stryker & Burke, 2000). Furthermore, we found that relationship strength amplified

the effect of organizational prestige on organizational identification; organizational prestige had no

direct effect on organizational identification for this sample. Our findings suggest that adding a

social networks perspective extends scholars’ and managers’ ability to better understand and predict



DOI: 10.1002/job


Our study contributes to the extant research on organizational identification. We illuminate the type

and structure of specific relationships that influence an individual’s organizational identification.

Although organizational identification scholars have begun to focus on a ‘‘relational’’ perspective,

which recognizes that identification can be an interpersonal or social achievement (Andersen & Chen,

2002; Bartel & Dutton, 2001), they have not yet tested these insights. Current research highlights the

interpersonal level by examining identification with a particular role-relationship, such as coworker–

coworker or supervisor–subordinate (Brewer & Gardner, 1996; Sluss & Ashforth, 2007), rather than

identification with specific others with whom one interacts and therefore cannot assess which aspects of

relationships breed identification. Social networks provide the structural context through which

individuals are proximate to the opinions, information, and behaviors of salient others. Our findings

highlight the insights of symbolic interactionismwhich advocate a relational approach to understanding

social order and posit that feedback and communication provide self-understanding about who we are

(Blumer, 1966; Cooley, 1902; Fine & Kleinman, 1983; Mead, 1934). Identity theorists argue that the self

is a product of society and it is in concrete social interactions that selves are produced (Stryker, 1987: p.

91). Yet, most empirical studies of organizational identification have focused on categorization and social

comparison processes and suggested that identification at the collective level is ‘‘depersonalized’’

(Brewer & Gardner, 1996: p. 83) and can exist in the absence of interpersonal interaction or cohesion. By

using a social network perspective, we illuminate that organizational identification is actively shaped

through interaction—the structure and strength of relationships with others. Our findings highlight that

both categorization and relational processes are at play, and that relationship strength amplifies

categorizations of prestige to shape organizational identification.

Our findings also suggest new avenues for social network research. Most research in social networks,

particularly on size, is based on social exchange theory and thus focuses on how size generates tangible

benefits such as access to resources and information or enhanced socioeconomic status (Burt, 2000;

Campbell et al., 1986; Morrison, 2002; Podolny & Baron, 1997). In contrast, only limited research has

examined the impact of network size on more intangible outcomes such as attitudes, beliefs, and value

systems. As Ibarra, Kilduff, and Tsai (2005: p. 362) assert in their review of network research:

‘‘Although networks have been thoroughly studied as conduits for information and resources, we still

know little about the role they play in creating and shaping identities.’’ Our finding provides insight into

how networks may shape identities and identification and lends credence to symbolic interactionists’

claim that commitment to an identity may well be based on the number of others to whom one is

connected by that identity (Stryker & Burke, 2000: p. 289). In essence, social networks generate

meaning and identities that underpin identification processes.

Interestingly, our findings showed that strong ties did not have a direct effect. Longitudinal survey

research by Bullis and Bach (1991: p. 184) on students’ identification with their university found that

individuals make a distinction between their ‘‘particular dyadic relationships and relationships with the

organization,’’ they found that ‘‘strong mentor ties did not link newcomers to organizations.’’ In

contrast, Pratt (2000) identified strong ties as central to Amway distributors’ organizational

identification. It may be that dyadic ties are more important in DSOs which have high turnover, lacking

the established set of relations of a permanent organization structure.

Contrary to previous research (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Bhattacharya et al., 1995; Mael & Ashforth,

1992; Smidts et al., 2001), organizational prestige was not significantly associated with identification

except when moderated by strong relationships. This was a surprising finding considering that, since

1995, this Northeastern Jesuit Institution has been routinely ranked among the top 50 best

undergraduate colleges and universities in America by media outlets such as US News and World

Report. Therefore, we expected that a social comparison group had been established by the media and

that the extensive media exposure would lead to a positive influence of prestige on organizational

identification.


DOI: 10.1002/job


We provide three possible explanations for this unexpected finding. First, prestige may not prompt

categorization processes when competitors are of equivalent prestige. In elite educational institutions,

such as the one we studied, student selectivity is so competitive that most students had opportunities at

other prestigious colleges. For example, eight of the ten closest competitor peers (e.g., those schools

with which this institution shares 30–70 percent of enrollees) are all ranked in the top 24 to 50 of US

colleges, whereas only one of these schools has a religious affiliation (e.g., Brandeis) (private

communication from the Associate Dean of Enrollment). Thus prestige did not provide a basis for in-

group versus out-group categorization, whereas a school’s religious mission was more likely to trigger

categorization processes based on membership. Second, given the strong sense of organizational

distinctiveness for the educational institution based on its programs and collective identity to improve

the local and worldwide community by serving others, the pursuit of prestige, which is an individual

identity orientation (Brickson, 2005), may be counter-normative and needs to be supported by strong

relationships. For example, the senior survey results in Table 1 reveal that prestige or status was

consistently ranked the lowest of all ten items compared to other attributes students sought in social

organizations such as creativity or interesting work. Carmeli, Gilat, and Waldman (2007) found that

prestige based on corporate social responsibility predicted organizational identification, whereas

prestige based on market and financial perceptions did not. Their findings may help explain our results.

Corporate social responsibility may be more closely aligned to the Jesuit mission of social justice,

which forms the basis for the institution’s distinctiveness. Future research can tease apart whether

corporate social responsibility and a collective identity orientation of social justice generates perceived

organizational prestige or organizational distinctiveness that drives organizational identification. It

may be that doing well by doing good generates both organizational distinctiveness and organizational

prestige; however, since doing good is a collective identity orientation, whereas organizational prestige

is an individual identity orientation (Brickson, 2005), this combination may be a hybrid identity that

produces organizational tensions and challenges. Third, the heightened media exposure may alter

social comparison processes. When social comparison is not mediated by the media, institutions can

claim more prestige than is actually deserved; whereas a public ranking of schools by external media

outlets reveals more clearly an educational institution’s level of prestige (Elsbach &Kramer, 1996). All

the prior studies that found prestige to be a strong predictor of organizational identification (e.g.,

Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Bhattacharya et al., 1985; Carmeli et al., 2006; Carmeli et al., 2007; Mael &

Ashforth, 1992; Smidts et al., 2001) were for organizations not ranked and rated by external media

outlets. Therefore, comparison groups were more likely to be established by the institution’s leaders

and members rather than imposed on the institution by external constituents. Future research should

address the impact that internally constructed versus externally imposed social comparison groups have

on organization members’ perceptions of and identification with their organization.

The findings of this study also have practical implications for college and university

administrators. Today, most colleges and universities focus on enhancing their institutional prestige

rather than distinctiveness, as suggested by the importance placed on a school’s position in college

rankings. However, our findings showed that organizational prestige engendered organizational

identification for a publicly ranked institution only when supported by strong relational ties with

organization members. Furthermore, we found that an organization’s distinctiveness engendered a

direct effect on identification among organization members. Previous research (Mael & Ashforth,

1992) has shown that organizational identification is important for individual alumni when making

decisions about financial contributions to the school. If colleges and universities focus on enhancing

prestige, particularly when their closest competitors are of equivalent prestige and they do not

cultivate strong relational ties to support identification with a particular organization, rather than

on cultivating a unique identity in the marketplace, they may be disadvantaging themselves in the

future in terms of alumni giving.


DOI: 10.1002/job


In addition to the academic setting, our findings offer practical implications for the organizational

workplace. Previous research has shown that organizational identification is related to important work-

related attitudes and behaviors. More specifically, organizational identification is positively related to

individuals’ affective organizational commitment, job and organizational satisfaction, job involve-

ment, organizational loyalty, occupational and work group attachment and extra-role behavior, and

negatively related to individuals’ intent to leave the organization (Adler & Adler, 1988; O’Reily &

Chatman, 1986; Riketta, 2005; Riketta &Van Dick, 2005). Thus, by facilitating opportunities for social

interactions and relationship development at work, organizations can assist employees in expanding

their network of relationships with others in the organization and thereby help promote stronger

organizational identification among employees. These insights may apply to current as well as former

employees. For example, consumer product firms such as Procter & Gamble recognize the value of

these ex-employees, or ‘‘alumni,’’ as sources of innovations, referrals, and recruitment (Ellison, 2003)

and consulting firms are also starting to focus on their ‘‘alumni’’ of ex-employees.

Our study also has limitations. A first limitation is the cross-sectional design of this study. Collecting

data at a single point in time precludes the ability to make statements about causal relationships. Future

research should focus on longitudinal studies to disentangle the causality among categorization and

comparative processes, the structure of relationships, and organizational identification. It also limits the

generalizability of our study’s findings. Empirical data gathered from undergraduate students at a single

institution committed to intra and interpersonal development among students, faculty, and staff raises a

potential question as to whether these findings are idiosyncratic to the institution studied. Although

foundational work on identification has been conducted at academic institutions (see Mael & Ashforth,

1992), this potential limitation can only be addressed through replication in other types of organizations.

A second limitation is that the study analyzed self-reported data provided by respondents. Therefore,

the possibility that our findings are influenced by common method variance must be acknowledged.

However, based on our use of procedural controls, the necessity of self-report data due to the experiential

and perceptual nature of our survey questions, and the frequent overstatement of common method

variance in scholarly research, we have confidence that our findings are valid and not contaminated by

shared variance attributable to the self-report nature of the study (Chan, 2009; Podsakoff, MacKenzie,

Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Future research on social identities and social networks would benefit from

including a broader set of research methods to allow for triangulation of results.

A third limitation is that we do not control or test for the effects of personality on social networks.

Although some scholars find that extraverted individuals have larger networks (e.g., Forret &

Dougherty, 2001; Wanberg, Kanfer, & Banas, 2000), other studies find negative effects (Lee & Tsang,

2001) or no effect (Bozionelos, 2003). In addition, the research on personality and psychological

collectivism, a measure similar to organizational identification, shows no consistent significant findings

related to the relationship between dispositional variables and psychological collectivism (Jackson,

Colquitt, Wesson, & Zapata-Phelan, 2006). Thus, the relationship between personality variables with

psychological collectivism, organizational identification, and social networks is an important avenue

for future research.

Conclusion

Our study extends previous work on organizational identification by examining the influence of

social networks on identification processes. Social interactions and their influence on identity and

identification processes are explicit in the writings of identity theorists, particularly those drawing on


DOI: 10.1002/job


symbolic interactionism. Society is defined as the durable patterns of interactions and relationships

(Stryker & Burke, 2000: p. 285) and the self is produced in ‘‘concrete networks of social interaction’’

(Stryker, 1987: p. 91); yet, social interactions and social structures that form the durable patterns of

relationships are rarely examined or measured. Thus, their influence on identity and identification

has remained a black box. Our findings open up that black box. We show the direct effects of the size

of social networks on generating organizational identification through claiming, as well as how

strong relationships moderate the relationship between organizational prestige and organizational

identification. Thus, we gain important insights into how and when an individual is more likely to

identify with an organization.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Jaqueline Coyle-Shapiro, Editor, and three anonymous reviewers for their help in

improving the manuscript. We appreciate feedback from Judith Gordon, Massimo Maoret, Sharon

McKechnie, Fabrizio Montanari, Davide Ravasi, Silviya Svejenova, and three anonymous Academy of

Management reviewers on previous versions of this paper. We thank Steve Lacey for his statistical

help. An earlier version of this work was presented at the Academy of Management, 2005.

Author biographies

Candace Jones is an Associate Professor of Management in the Organization Studies Department at

Boston College. Her research expertise is in networks, institutional theory, professions and creative

industries. Her current research focuses on language, networks and cultural understandings in

professions. She has forthcoming articles in Administrative Science Quarterly on institutional logics

in medicine and Journal of Organizational Behavior on the role of social and symbolic networks in

career outcomes in architecture. She has published in Organization Science, Academy of Management

Review, Organization Studies, Management Learning and Journal of Organizational Behavior.

Elizabeth Hamilton Volpe is an Assistant Professor of Management at Roger Williams University.

She received her Ph.D. in Organization Studies from Boston College. Her research focuses on

relationships in organizations with a primary interest in understanding the impact workplace friend-

ships have for individuals and organizations, women’s work and career choices, identity and

identification, and issues surrounding the work-life interface.

References

Abrams, D., & Hogg, M. A. (1988). Comments on the motivational status of self-esteem in social identity andintergroup discrimination. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 317–334.

Adler, P. A., & Adler, P. (1988). Intense loyalty in organizations: A case study of college athletics. AdministrativeScience Quarterly, 33, 401–417.

Albert, S., &Whetten, D. A. (1985). Organizational identity. In L. L. Cummings, & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research inorganizational behavior (Vol. 7, pp. 263–295). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Alderfer, C. P. (1987). An intergroup perspective on group dynamics. In J. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook oforganizational behavior (pp. 190–222). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Allison, P. D. (1999). Multiple regression: A primer. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.


DOI: 10.1002/job


Andersen, S. M., & Chen, S. (2002). The relational self: An interpersonal social-cognitive theory. PsychologicalReview, 109, 619–645.

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

Bartel, C., & Dutton, J. (2001). Ambiguous organizational memberships: Constructing organizational identities ininteractions with others. InM. A. Hogg, &D. J. Terry (Eds.), Social identity processes in organizational contexts(pp. 115–130.). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.

Bhattacharya, C. B., Rao, H., & Glynn, M. A. (1995). Understanding the bond of identification: An investigation ofits correlates among art museum members. Journal of Marketing, 59, 46–57.

Biggart, N. W. (1989). Charismatic capitalism: Direct selling organizations in America. Chicago, IL: TheUniversity of Chicago Press.

Bienenstock, E. J., Bonacich, P., & Oliver, M. (1990). The effect of network density and homogeneity on attitudepolarization. Social Networks, 12, 153–172.

Blumer, H. (1966). Sociological implications of the thought of George Herbert Mead. American Journal ofSociology, 71, 535–548.

Borgatti, S. P., & Foster, P. C. (2003). The network paradigm in organizational research: A review and typology.Journal of Management, 29, 991–1013.

Borgatti, S. P., Jones, C., & Everett, M. (1998). Network measures of social capital. Connections, 21, 27–36.Bott, E. (1977). Urban families: Conjugal roles and social networks. In S. Leinhardt (Ed.), Social networks: Adeveloping paradigm (pp. 253–292.). New York: Academic Press, Inc.

Bozionelos, N. (2003). Intra-organizational network resources: Relation to career success and personality.International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 11, 41–66.

Brass, D. J., Butterfield, K. D., & Skaggs, B. C. (1998). Relationships and unethical behavior: A social networkperspective. Academy of Management Review, 23, 14–31.

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

Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this ‘‘we’’? Levels of collective identity and self representations.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 83–93.

Brickson, S. L. (2005). Organizational identity orientation: Forging a link between organizational identity andorganizations’ relations with stakeholders. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 576–609.

Brown, L. M., & Gilligan, C. (1992). Meeting at the crossroads: Women’s psychology and girls’ development.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bullis, C., & Bach, B. W. (1991). An explication and test of communication network content and multiplexity aspredictors of organizational identification. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 55, 180–197.

Burke, K. (1950/1969) A rhetoric of motives. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Burt, R. S. (2000). The network structure of social capital. Research in Organizational Behavior, 22, 345–423.Campbell, K. E., Marsden, P. V., & Hurlbert, J. S. (1986). Social resources and socioeconomic status. SocialNetworks, 8, 97–117.

Cardador, M. T., & Pratt, M. G. (2006). Identification management and its bases: Bridging management andmarketing perspectives through a focus on affiliation dimensions. Journal of the Academy of MarketingSciences, 34, 174–184.

Carmeli, A., Gilat, G., & Waldman, D. A. (2007). The role of perceived organizational performance inorganizational identification, adjustment and job performance. Journal of Management Studies, 44, 972–992.

Carmeli, A., Gilat, G., & Weisberg, J. (2006). Perceived external prestige, organizational identification andaffective commitment: A stakeholder approach. Corporate Reputation Review, 9, 92–104.

Chan, D. (2009). So why ask me? Are self-report data really that bad? In C. E. Lance, & R. J. Vandenberg (Eds.),Statistical and methodological myths and urban legends (pp. 309–336.). New York: Routledge.

Cheney, G. (1983a). The rhetoric of identification and the study of organizational communication. QuarterlyJournal of Speech, 69, 143–158.

Cheney, G. (1983b). On the various and changing meanings of organizational membership: A field study oforganizational identification. Communication Monographs, 50, 342–362.

Cialdini, R. B., Borden, R. J., Thorne, A., Walker, M. R., Freeman, S., & Sloan, L. R. (1976). Basking in reflectedglory: Three (football) field studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 366–375.

Clark, B. R. (1970). The distinctive college: Antioch, Reed and Swarthmore. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co.Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for thebehavioral sciences (3rd ed.) Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum.


DOI: 10.1002/job


Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94,S95–S120.

Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human nature and the social order. New York: Scribner’s.Deephouse, D. L. (2000). Media reputation as a strategic resource: An integration of mass communication andresource-based theories. Journal of Management, 26, 1091–1112.

DeVellis, R. F. (1991). Scale development: Theory and applications. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V. (1994). Organizational images and member identification.Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 239–263.

Ellison, S. (2003). In switch, P&G reaches out to alumni stars. The Wall Street Journal. April 28: B1Elsbach, K. D. (1999). An expanded model of organizational identification. Research in Organizational Behavior,21, 163–200.

Elsbach, K. D., & Kramer, R. M. (1996). Members’ responses to organizational identity threats: Encountering andcountering the Business Week rankings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 442–476.

Erickson, B. (1988). The relational basis of attitudes. In B.Wellman, & S. D. Berkowitz (Eds.), Social structures: Anetwork approach (pp. 99–121.). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Feld, S. L., & Carter, W. C. (1998). Foci of activity as changing contexts for friendship. In R. G. Adams, &G. Allan(Eds.), Placing friendship in context (pp. 136–152.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Fine, G. A., & Kleinman, S. (1983). Network and meaning: An interactionist approach to structure. SymbolicInteraction, 6, 97–110.

Flynn, F. J. (2005). Identity orientations and forms of social exchange in organizations. Academy of ManagementReview, 30, 737–750.

Forret, M. L., & Dougherty, T. W. (2001). Correlates of networking behavior for managerial and professionalemployees. Group and Organization Management, 26, 283–311.

Freeman, L. C. (1979). Centrality in social networks: Conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1, 215–239.Friedkin, N. E. (2004). Social cohesion. Annual Review of Sociology, 30, 409–425.Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360–1380.Granovetter, M. (1982). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. In P. V. Marsden, & N. Lin (Eds.),Social structure and network analysis (pp. 105–130.). Beverly Hills: Sage.

Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Hogg, M. A., Terry, D. J., & White, K. M. (1995). A tale of two theories: A critical comparison of identity theorywith social identity theory. Social Psychological Quarterly, 58, 255–269.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analyses: Conventional criteriaversus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.

Hubbard, R., Vetter, D. E., & Little, E. L. (1998). Replication in strategic management: Scientific testing forvalidity. Generalizability, and Usefulness. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 243–254.

Humphreys, M., & Brown, A. D. (2002). Narratives of organizational identity and identification: A case study ofhegemony and resistance. Organization Studies, 23, 421–447.

Ibarra, H. (1993). Personal networks of women and minorities in management: A conceptual framework. Academyof Management Review, 18, 56–87.

Ibarra, H. (1995). Race, opportunity, and diversity of social circles in managerial networks. Academy ofManagement Journal, 38, 673–703.

Ibarra, H. (1996). Network assessment exercise: Abridged MBA version. Harvard Business School Note 9-497-002: 1–6.

Ibarra, H., Kilduff, M., & Tsai, W. (2005). Zooming in and out: Connecting individuals and collectivities at thefrontiers of organizational network research. Organization Science, 16, 359–371.

Jackson, C. L., Colquitt, J. A., Wesson, M. J., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2006). Psychological collectivism: Ameasurement validation and linkage to group member performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91,884–899.

Joreskog, K. G., & Sobom, D. (2006). LISREL Version 8.8. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software Inter-national, Inc.

Kauffman, H. (1960). The forest ranger: A study in administrative behavior. Baltimore: John Hopkins Press.Krackhardt, D. (1992). The strength of strong ties: The importance of philos in organizations. In N. Nohria, & R. G.Eccles (Eds.), Networks and organizations: Structure, form, and action (pp. 216–239.). Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.

Krackhardt, D. (1998). Simmelian ties: Super strong and sticky. In R. Kramer, & M. Neale (Eds.), Power andinfluence in organizations (pp. 21–38.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.


DOI: 10.1002/job


Krackhardt, D., & Porter, L. W. (1985). When friends leave: A structural analysis of the relationships betweenturnover and stayers’ attitudes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 242–261.

Kreiner, G. K., & Ashforth, B. E. (2004). Evidence toward an expanded model of organizational identification.Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 1–27.

Kuhn, T., & Nelson, N. (2002). Reengineering identity: A case study of multiplicity and duality in organizationalidentification. Management Communication, 16, 5–38.

Lee, D. Y., & Tsang, E. W. K. (2001). The effects of entrepreneurial personality, background and network activitieson venture growth. Journal of Management Studies, 38, 583–602.

Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model oforganizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 103–123.

Marsden, P. V., (1990). Network data and measurement. Annual Review of Sociology, 16, 435–463.Marsden, P. V., & Campbell, K. E. (1984). Measuring tie strength. Social Forces, 63, 482–501.Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.McPherson, J. M., Popielarz, P. A., & Drobnic, S. (1992). Social networks and organizational dynamics. AmericanSociological Review, 57, 153–170.

Morrison, E. W. (2002). Newcomers’ relationships: The role of social network ties during socialization. Academyof Management Journal, 45, 1149–1160.

Mossholder, K. W., Settoon, R. P., & Henagan, S. C. (2005). A relational perspective on turnover: Examiningstructural, attitudinal and behavioral predictors. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 607–616.

O’Reily, C., & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The effectsof compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71,492–499.

Podolny, J. M. (1993). A status-based model of market competition. American Journal of Sociology, 98, 829–872.Podolny, J. M., & Baron, J. N. (1997). Resources and relationships: Social networks and mobility in the workplace.American Sociological Review, 62, 673–693.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioralresearch: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88,879–903.

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 organizations: Developing theory through conversations (pp. 171–207). ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Pratt, M. G. (2000). The good, the bad, and the ambivalent: Managing identification among Amway distributors.Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 456–493.

Rao, H., Davis, G. F., & Ward, A. (2000). Embeddedness, social identity and mobility: Why firms leave theNASDAQ and join the New York Stock Exchange. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 268–292.

Reagans, R., & McEvily, B. (2003). Network structure and knowledge transfer: The effects of cohesion and range.Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 240–267.

Reagans, R., Zuckerman, E., & McEvily, B. (2004). How to make the team: Social networks as criteria fordesigning effective teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49, 101–133.

Rice, R. E., & Aydin, C. (1991). Attitudes toward new organizational technology: Network proximity as amechanism for social information processing. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 219–244.

Riketta, M. (2005). Organizational identification: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 358–384.Riketta, M., & Van Dick, R. (2005). Foci of attachment in organizations: A meta-analytic comparison ofthe strength and correlates of workgroup versus organizational identification and commitment. Journal ofVocational Behavior, 67, 490–510.

Rogers, E. M., & Kincaid, L. D. (1981). Communication networks. New York: Free Press.Salancik, G. R. (1977). Commitment and control of organizational behavior and belief. In B. M. Staw, & G. R.Salancik (Eds.), New directions in organizational behavior (pp. 1–54). Chicago: St. Clair Press.

Scott, S. G., & Lane, V. R. (2000). A stakeholder approach to organizational identity. Academy of ManagementReview, 25, 43–62.

Selznick, P. (1957). Leadership in administration. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Simon, H. A. (1945/1976) Administrative behavior: A study in decision-making processes in administrativeorganization (3rd ed.) New York: Free Press.

Simon, H. A., & March, J. G. (1958). Organizations. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Sluss, D. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (2007). Relational identity and identification: Defining ourselves through workrelationships. Academy of Management Review, 32, 9–32.


DOI: 10.1002/job


Smidts, A., Pruyn, A. T., & van Riel, C. B. M. (2001). The impact of employee communication and perceivedexternal prestige on organizational identification. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 1051–1062.

Stryker, S. (1987). The vitalization of symbolic interactionism. Social Psychological Quarterly, 50, 83–94.Stryker, S., & Burke, P. J. (2000). The past, present and future of identity theory. Social Psychological Quarterly,63, 284–297.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel, &W. G. Austin(Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (2nd edn. pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

Taylor, M. A., & Pastor, D. A. (2007). A confirmatory factor analysis of the student adaptation to collegequestionnaire. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 67, 1002–1018.

Wanberg, C. R., Kanfer, R., & Banas, J. T. (2000). Predictors and outcomes of networking intensity amongunemployed job seekers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 491–503.

Wellman, B. (1983). Network analysis: Some basic principles. In R. Colins (Ed.), Sociological theory (pp. 155–200.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

White, H. C. (1992). Identity and control. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Yukl, G., Chavez, C., & Seifert, C. F. (2005). Assessing the construct validity and utility of two new influencetactics. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 705–725.


DOI: 10.1002/job


Appendix 1. Organizational Identification, Distinctiveness, andPrestige Scale Items

Organizational Identification Scale (a¼ 0.79)

Measured on a five-point Likert-type scale where 1¼Very Weak and 5¼Very Strong

(1) W

Cop

hen someone criticizes (Name of School), it feels like a personal insult.

(2) I
am very interested in what others think about (Name of School).
(3) W
hen I talk about this school, I usually say ‘‘we’’ rather than ‘‘they.’’
(4) T
his school’s successes are my successes.
(5) W
hen someone praises this school, it feels like a personal compliment.
(6) I
f a story in the media criticized this school, I would feel embarrassed.
Organizational Distinctiveness Scale (a¼ 0.74)


(1) W
hen I think about (Name of School), the availability of service programs such as Appalachia and
4 (Name of City) seems unique from other schools considered to be most competitive.

(2) (
Name of School) programs such as PULSE, Capstone courses, and the Faith, Peace, and Justice
minor are unique compared to programs available at other schools considered to be most

competitive.

(3) (
Name of School) is unique compared to other schools considered to be most competitive.
(4) T
he presence of Jesuits as some professors at (Name of School) seems unique from the faculty at
other schools considered to be most competitive.

(5) T
he theology requirement at (Name of School) makes it unique from other schools considered to be
most competitive.

(6) (
Name of School’s) mission of developing the whole person (integrating intellectual, personal,
ethical, and religious formation) is unique from the mission of other schools considered to be most

competitive.

(7) (
Name of School) has unique characteristics compared to other most competitive schools.
Organizational Prestige Scale (a¼ 0.68)


(1) (
Name of School) is considered one of the best schools that I applied to.
(2) P
eople from other schools that I applied to look down at (Name of School). (R)
(3) A
lumni of all schools that I applied to would be proud to have their children attend (Name of
School).

(4) (
Name of School) does not have a good reputation in my community. (R)
(5) A
person seeking to advance his/her career in their chosen industry should downplay his/her
association with (Name of School). (R)

(6) W
hen other organizations are recruiting new employees, they would not want students from (Name
of School). (R)

yright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. (2010)

DOI: 10.1002/job

organizational identification: extending our understanding of social

Documents