Résumés
Abstract
Considerable theory and research has revealed that organizational identification (OID) benefits individuals and groups and that OID facilitates the development of long-term commitment and support towards an organization. Prior studies have highlighted the importance of an identification mechanism in the workplace, i.e., how employees define their self-concepts vis-à-vis their connections with their organizations. In contrast to previous research, we explore the process by which employees divorce their identity from that of their organization, i.e., defining who they are by what they are not. Interestingly, how individuals dis-identify themselves from the organization still remains unclear, and the concept of dis-identification in organization (DiO) has not drawn much academic attention. The paucity of research in this area leaves theories under-developed; thus, our research seeks to shed new light on the concept of DiO and understand its importance at work.
An anonymous questionnaire survey was conducted, recruiting 304 employees across eight organizations in Taiwan. Different from prior studies, this research stated that OID and DiO were neither heterogeneous nor independent constructs. Statistical evidence affirmed this statement further and explained that OID and DiO were inter-related constructs. Moreover, two DiO antecedents were discovered, including: person-organization fit and abusive supervision. Unlike in previous studies, DiO was not correlated with poor employee performance; rather, it was correlated with workplace deviance, an intention of quitting the job, and voice-extra-role-behaviour.
Organizations are complex entities by their very nature. Whether an organization can continue, function and succeed may depend upon a series of organizational characteristics. An organization is like a social arrangement that pursues collective goals, controls its own performance, and has a boundary separating it from its environment. One such organizational characteristic is identification. With a better understanding of OID/DiO, managers and HR practitioners can better observe the influence of OID/DiO and develop policies to increase employees’ identification and decrease dis-identification. Ultimately, employers, employees and society will enjoy the benefits of better organizations, e.g., higher working morale, more performance output, stronger membership/cohesion, and lower turnover.
Keywords:
- behaviour,
- deviance,
- dis-identification,
- identification,
- organization
Résumé
De nombreuses théories et recherches ont montré que l’identification organisationnelle (IO) bénéficie à la fois aux individus et aux groupes, et qu’elle facilite le développement de l’engagement à long terme et du soutien envers l’organisation. Des études antérieures ont mis en évidence l’importance d’un mécanisme d’identification au travail, c’est-à-dire la façon dont les salariés définissent leur concept de soi vis-à-vis leur organisation. Contrairement à ces études, nous avons exploré le processus par lequel les salariés dissocient leur identité de celle de leur organisation, c’est-à-dire en définissant qui ils sont par ce qu’ils ne sont pas. Il est intéressant de noter que la façon dont les individus se dés-identifient de l’organisation reste peu claire et que le concept de dés-identification organisationnelle (DIO) n’a, pour l’instant, fait l’objet que de peu de recherches, il y a donc peu de théories à ce sujet. La présente étude propose ainsi une nouvelle lecture du concept de DIO et de son importance au travail.
Une enquête par questionnaires anonymes a été conduite auprès de 304 salariés de huit organisations à Taiwan. Contrairement aux études antérieures, la présente recherche postule que les construits IO et DIO ne sont pas hétérogènes, ni indépendants. De fait, les preuves statistiques vont dans ce sens et montrent que IO et DIO sont des construits interreliés. De plus, deux antécédents de la DIO ont été mis en évidence, à savoir, l’adéquation personne-organisation et la supervision abusive. Contrairement aux études précédentes, la DIO n’est pas corrélée à une faible performance du salarié; de plus, elle est corrélée à la déviance au travail, à l’intention de quitter son emploi et aux comportements oraux hors-rôle.
Les organisations sont des entités complexes par nature. Le fait qu’une organisation puisse se maintenir, fonctionner et avoir du succès dépend d’un certain nombre de caractéristiques organisationnelles car l’organisation est une sorte d’arrangement social qui poursuit des buts collectifs, contrôle sa propre performance et a des frontières la séparant de son environnement. L’une de ces caractéristiques organisationnelles est l’identification. Une meilleure compréhension des concepts de IO et DIO permettra aux gestionnaires et aux spécialistes des RH de mieux observer leur influence et d’élaborer des politiques visant à accroitre l’identification des salariés et à diminuer leur dés-identification. Enfin, les employeurs, les salariés et la société profiteront tous des bénéfices de meilleures organisations, par exemple, par l’intermédiaire d’un meilleur moral au travail, de meilleures performances, d’une adhésion/cohésion plus forte ainsi que d’un roulement de personnel réduit.
Mots-clés :
- comportements,
- déviance,
- dés-identification,
- identification,
- organisation
Resumen
Una teoría de envergadura y la investigación ha revelado que la identificación organizacional (OID) beneficia a individuos y grupos y que la OID facilita el desarrollo del compromiso y del apoyo de largo plazo con respecto a una organización. Estudios anteriores han resaltado la importancia de un mecanismo de identificación en el lugar de trabajo, por ejemplo, la manera cómo los empleados definen sus propios conceptos respecto a sus conexiones con sus organizaciones. En oposición a las investigaciones precedentes, nosotros exploramos el proceso mediante el cual los empleados separan su identidad de la identidad de su organización, por ejemplo, definiéndose por lo que no son. Es interesante de notar que la manera cómo los individuos se des-identifican ellos mismos de la organización queda todavía poco clara, y el concepto de des-identificación de la organización (DiO) no ha obtenido mucha atención académica. La escasez de investigaciones en esta área deja teorías subdesarrolladas; así, nuestra investigación pretende aportar un nuevo esclarecimiento sobre el concepto de DiO y comprender su importancia en el trabajo.
Una encuesta mediante cuestionario anónimo fue realizada con 304 empleados reclutados en ocho organizaciones en Taiwán. A diferencia de los estudios precedentes, esta investigación afirma que la OID y la DiO no son construcciones heterogéneas ni independientes. Las evidencias estadísticas confirmaron esta conclusión y explicaron que OID y DiO son construcciones interrelacionadas. Es más, se descubrieron dos antecedentes de la DiO, incluyendo el ajuste persona – organización y la supervisión abusiva. A diferencia de estudios previos, la DiO no aparece en correlación con el bajo rendimiento laboral, y se encuentra más bien en correlación con comportamientos delincuentes en el lugar de trabajo, con la intención de dejar el empleo y con comportamientos orales fuera de contexto.
Las organizaciones son entidades complejas en su real naturaleza. Que una organización pueda continuar, funcione y tenga éxito, puede depender de una serie de características organizacionales. Una organización es como un acuerdo social que persigue objetivos colectivos, controla su propio rendimiento y tiene fronteras que la separan de su entorno. Una de dichas características es la identificación. Con una mejor comprensión de la OID / DiO, los directivos y responsables de recursos humanos pueden observar mejor la influencia de la OID / DiO y desarrollar políticas para aumentar la identificación de los empleados y disminuir la des-identificación. En última instancia, empleadores, empleados y sociedad disfrutaran de los beneficios de mejores organizaciones, por ejemplo, mejor moral de trabajo, mejor rendimiento, sentimiento de pertenencia / cohesión más fuerte y nivel más bajo de rotación de personal.
Palabras clave:
- comportamiento,
- desviación,
- des-identificación,
- identificación,
- organización
Parties annexes
References
- Abrams, D. 1996. “Social Identity, Self as Structure and Self as Process.” Social Groups and Identities: Developing the Legacy of Henry Tajfel. P. Robinson, ed. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 143-169.
- Aiken, L. S., and S. G. West. 1991. Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions. Newbury: Sage.
- Ando, K. 1999. “Social Identification and A Solution to Social Dilemmas.” Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 2, 227-235.
- Ashforth, B. E. 2001. Role Transitions in Organizational Life: An Identity-Based Perspective. Mahwah: Erlbaum.
- Ashforth, B. E., and F. A. Mael. 1998. “The Power of Resistance: Sustaining Valued Identities.” Power and Influence in Organizations. R. M. Kramer and M. A. Neale, eds. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 89-119.
- Ashforth, B. E., and S. A. Johnson. 2001. “Which Hat to Wear? The Relative Salience of Multiple Identities in Organizational Contexts.” Social Identity Processes in Organizational Contexts. M. A. T. Hogg and D. J. Terry, eds. Philadelphia: Psychology Press, 31-48.
- Bartel, C. A. 2001. “Social Comparisons in Boundary-Spanning Work: Effects of Community Outreach on Members’ Organisational Identity and Identification.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 379-413.
- Bennett, R. J., and S. L. Robinson. 2000. Development of a Measure of Workplace Deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3), 349-360.
- Bowen, D. E., G. E. Ledford and B. R. Nathan. 1991. “Hiring for the Organisation, Not the Job.” Academy of Management Execute, 5 (4), 35-51.
- Brewer, M. B. 1991. “The Social Self: On Being the Same and Different at the Same Time.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 475-482.
- Cable, D. M., and D. S. DeRue. 2002. “The Convergent and Discriminant Validity of Subjective fit Perceptions.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 87 (5), 875-884.
- Cardador, M. T., and M. G. Pratt. 2006. “Identification Management and its Bases: Bridging Management and Marketing Perspectives through A Focus on Affiliation Dimensions.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34, 174-184.
- Chang, K. 2010. “Community Cohesion after Natural Disaster.” Disaster, 34 (2), 289-302.
- Chang, K., and L. Lu. 2009. “The Influence of Occupation on Stressors and Work Behaviours.” International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20 (3), 591-605.
- Chang, K., K. T. Cheng and I. L. Lee. 2011. “Situational Analysis on the Association between Membership Criticality and Group Dynamics.” Journal of Social Sciences and Philosophy, 23 (2), 37-71.
- Cole, M. S., and H. Bruch. 2006. “Organizational Identity Strength, Identification, and Commitment and their Relationships to Turnover Intention: Does Organizational Hierarchy Matter?” Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 585-605.
- Costas, J., and P. Fleming. 2009. “Beyond Dis-identification: Towards a Discursive Approach to Self-Alienation in Contemporary Organizations.” Human Relations, 62 (3), 353-378.
- Deluga, R. J. 1998. “Leader-Member Exchange Quality and Effectiveness Ratings: The Role of Subordinate-Supervisor Conscientiousness Similarity.” Group and Organization Management, 23 (2), 189-216.
- Dukerich, J. M., R. Kramer and J. M. Parks. 1998. “The Dark Side of Organizational Identification.” Identity in Organizations: Building Theory through Conversations. D. A. Whetten and P. C. Godfrey, eds. London: Sage Publications, 245-256.
- Ellemers, N., R. Spears and B. Doosje. 1999. Social Identity. Oxford: Blackwell.
- Elsbach, K. D. 1999. “An Expanded Model of Organizational Identification.” Research in Organizational Behaviour. B. M. Staw and R. I. Sutton, eds., 21, 163-200.
- Elsbach, K. D. 2001. “Coping with Hybrid Organizational Identities: Evidence from California Legislative Staff.” Advances in Qualitative Organization Research, 3, 59-90.
- Elsbach, K. D., and C. B. Bhattacharya. 2001. “Defining Who You Are By What You’re Not: Organizational Disidentification and the National Rifle Association.” Organization Science, 12, 393-413.
- Gautam, T., R. van Dick and U. Wagner. 2004. “Organizational Identification and Organizational Commitment: Distinct Aspects of Two Related Concepts.” Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 7 (3), 301-315.
- Grice, T., N. Paulsen and L. Jones. 2002. “Multiple Targets of Organisational Identification: The Role of Identification Congruency.” Journal of Articles in Support of the Null Hypothesis, 2 (2), 22-31.
- Griffeth, R. W., P. W. Hom and S. Gaertner. 2000. “A Meta-Analysis of Antecedents and Correlates of Employee Turnover: Update, Moderator Tests, and Research Implications for the Next Millennium.” Journal of Management, 26, 463-488.
- He, H., and Y. Baruch. 2010. “Organisational Identity and Legitimacy under Major Environmental Changes: Tales of Two UK Building Societies.” British Journal of Management, 21 (1), 44-62.
- Hom, P. W., and R. W. Griffeth. 1995. Employee Turnover. Cincinnati: South-Western College Publishing.
- Hu, L., and P. M. Bentler. 1999. “Cut-off Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria versus New Alternative.” Structure Equation Modelling, 6 (1), 1-55.
- Ikegami, T., and Y. Ishida. 2007. “Status Hierarchy and the Role of Dis-Identification in Discriminatory Perception of Outgroups.” Japanese Psychological Research, 49 (2), 136-147.
- Karreman, D., and A. Spicer. 2007. “Dis-Identification in Organisation.” Nordic Academy of Management Conference (9 August 2007). Bergen, Norway.
- Kreiner, G. E., and B. E. Ashforth. 2004. “Evidence toward an Expanded Model of Organisational Identification.” Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 25, 1-27.
- Kristof, A. L. 1996. “Person-Organisation Fit: An Integrative Review of its Conceptualisations, Measurement and Implication.” Personnel Psychology, 49 (19), 1-49.
- Lee, T. W., T. R. Mitchell, B. C. Holthom, L. S. McDaniel, and J. W. Hill. 1999. “The Unfolding Model of Voluntary Turnover: A Replication and Extension.” Academy of Management Journal, 42, 450-462.
- Levine, J. M., and R. L. Moreland. 1990. “Progress in Small Group Research.” Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 585-634.
- Mael, F. A., and B. E. Ashforth. 1995. “Loyal from Day One: Biodata, Organisational Identification, and Turnover among Newcomers.” Personnel Psychology, 48 (2), 309-334.
- McCulloch, M. C., and T. A. Silverhart. 2000. “Assessing Person-Organisation Fit to Reduce Turnover.” 24th Annual IPMAAC Conference on Personnel Assessment (3 June 2000). Washington, USA.
- McDonald, R. P., and M. R. Ho. 2002. “Principles and Practice in Reporting Structural Equation Analysis.” Psychological Methods, 7, 64-82.
- Michel, A. A., and K. E. Jehn. 2003. “The Dark Side of Identification: Overcoming Identification-Induced Performance Impediments.” Research on Managing Groups and Teams, 5, 189-219.
- Ongori, H. 2007. “A Review of the Literature on Employee Turnover.” African Journal of Business Management, 1 (3), 049-054.
- Ouwerkerk, J. W., D. de Gilder and N. K. de Vries. 2000. “When the Going Gets Tough, the Tough Get Going: Social Identification and Individual Effort in Intergroup Competition.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26 (12), 1550-1559.
- Patchen, M. 1970. Participation, Achievement, and Involvement on the Job. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
- Platow, M. J., F. Filardo, L. Troselj, D. M. Grace, and M. K. Ryan. 2006. “Non-Instrumental Voice and Extra-Role Behaviour.” European Journal of Social Psychology, 36 (1), 135-146.
- Podsakoff, P. M., and D. W. Organ. 1986. “Self-Reports in Organisational Research: Problems and Prospects.” Journal of Management, 12, 69-82.
- Podsakoff, P. M., S. B. MacKenzie, J. Y. Lee and N. P. Podsakoff. 2003. “Common Method Biases in Behavioural Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (5), 879-903.
- Reynolds, W. M. 1982. “Development of Reliable and Valid Short Forms of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale.” Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38, 119-125.
- Riketta, M. 2005. “Organisational Identification: A Meta-Analysis.” Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 66, 358-384.
- Russo, T. C. 1998. “Organisational and Professional Identification: A Case of Newspaper Journalists.” Management Communication Quarterly, 12 (1), 77-111.
- Tajfel, H., and J. C. Turner. 1986. “The Social Identity Theory of Inter-group Behavior.” Psychology of Intergroup Relations. S. Worchel and L. W. Austin, eds. Chigago: Nelson-Hall, 2-24.
- Tepper, B. J. 2000. “Consequences of Abusive Supervision.” Academy of Management Journal, 43 (2), 178-190.
- Tyler, T. R., and R. Dawes. 1993. “Justice in Organised Groups: Comparing the Self-interest and Social Identity Perspectives.” Distributive Justice. B. Mellers, ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 87-108.
- Vadera, A. K., and M. G. Pratt. 2013. “Love, Hate, Ambivalence, or Indifference: A Conceptual Examination of Workplace Crimes and Organisational Identification.” Organization Science, 24 (1), 172-188.
- Van Dick, R. 2004. “My Job is my Castle: Identification in Organisational Contexts.” International Review of Industrial and Organisational Psychology, 19, 171-203.
- Van Dick, R., O. Christ, J. Stellmacher, U. Wagner, O. Ahlswede, C. Grubba, M. Hauptmeier, C. Hohfeld, K. Moltzen and P. A. Tissington. 2004. “Should I Stay or Should I Go: Explaining Turnover Intentions with Organisational Identification and Job Satisfaction.” British Journal of Management, 15, 351-360.
- Van Dyne, L., and J. A. LePine. 1998. “Helping and Voice Extra-role Behaviors: Evidence of Construct and Predictive Validity.” Academy of Management Journal, 41 (1), 108-119.
- Van Knippenberg, D., and E. Sleebos. 2006. “Organisational Identification versus Organisational Commitment: Self Definition, Social Exchange, and Job Attitudes.” Journal of Organisational Behavior, 27, 571-584.
- Van Vugt, M., and C. Hart. 2004. “Social Identity as Social Glue: The Origins of Group Loyalty.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86 (4), 585-598.
- Zellars, K. L., B. J. Tepper and M. K. Duffy. 2002. “Abusive Supervision and Subordinates’ Organisational Citizenship Behaviour.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 87 (6), 1068-1076.
- Zoghbi Manrique de Lara, P. 2006. “Fear in Organizations: Does Intimidation by Formal Punishment Mediate the Relationship between Interactional Justice and Workplace Internet Deviance.” Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21 (6), 580-592.