The Nonprofit,That’s Us: Linking Organizational Identity and Identification in Social Mission-Based Organizations

Introduction

Nonprofits “rally, engage, and enroll workers, volunteers and donors” (Minkoff & Powell, 2006, p. 591). This is especially the case when nonprofits’ missions are based in a clearly articulated organizational identity that aligns with the members’ own beliefs and values (Cloutier & Ravasi, 2020; Dutton et al., 1994; Kouamé et al., 2022). Typical missions of nonprofits include feeding the poor, fighting for social justice, protecting our planet, helping homeless people, and providing health care. These social missions appeal to individuals who seek meaningful, prosocial work, some of whom even experience a calling (Elangovan et al., 2010; Sirris & Byrkjeflot, 2019).

The knowledge that nonprofits have this ability to attract and retain motivated individuals who develop identification with their organization has evolved over several decades but gained more focused attention in the early 2000s (Brown & Yoshioka, 2003; Leete, 2000; Light, 2002). Yet, despite an increase in the last decades in the number of published scholarly papers on organizational identity (Gioia et al., 2013; Pratt et al., 2016) and identification (Edwards, 2005; E.-S. Lee et al., 2015; Miscenko & Day, 2016; Riketta, 2005; Weisman et al., 2023), existing models are still incomplete with respect to providing an understanding of how organizational identity at the collective level influences identification at the individual level in general and in social mission-based nonprofits in particular. Studies suggest that members tend to develop identification based on both organization-level (De Roeck & Delobbe, 2012; Mael & Ashforth, 1992; Reade, 2001; Smidts et al., 2001; Yue et al., 2021) and individual-level variables (Epitropaki, 2013; Salvatore et al., 2018). Previous literatures have also highlighted the interplay between organizational identity, construed image, and organizational identification (Dutton & Dukerich, 1991) and between organizational distinctiveness and organizational identification (Mael & Ashforth, 1992), suggesting that the perceived identity of an organization holds significant potential to shape the cognitive or emotional relationship that members have with it (Albert et al., 2000). However, we do not know much about which aspects of their identities, or which central, enduring, and relatively unique features of organizations (Albert & Whetten, 1985) enable member identification, especially not in the case of social mission-based nonprofits. Even if members agree that their organization has a strong identity in a certain respect (e.g., as a government agency or nonprofit), this does not tell us much about whether they identify with it on a cognitive and emotional level. This limitation may result in inadequate theoretical frameworks but also missed opportunities for improving leadership and governance strategies in practice.

This study examines the relationship between organizational identity and identification in the context of social mission-based nonprofits. The empirical data are collected from four diaconal nonprofits, which represent a particular category of social mission-based organizations (Askeland et al., 2019). Whereas the latter can be defined as organizations that are driven by a core mission to create positive social change in society, such as reducing poverty, improving education, advancing human rights, promoting sustainability, or supporting public health, diaconal nonprofits are social mission-based organizations that differentiate from other social mission-based organizations through their faith-based platform. Specifically, they are nonprofits “whose identity and mission are self-consciously derived from [Christian] religious traditions and which operate on a voluntary, nonprofit, and independent basis to promote articulated ideas about a common good” (Askeland et al., 2019, p. 30).

Diaconal organizations represent a context where the relationship between organizational identity and organizational identification is likely to be particularly salient. Diaconal organizations typically attract employees and managers that identify with the social and diaconal aspects of the work (Askeland, 2014, 2017; Sirris, 2023; Sirris & Byrkjeflot, 2019). The social mission embedded in diaconal work is a powerful reference point for members, serving not only as an identity marker but also as an identification driver. Indeed, members’ identification with their organization could be a requirement for succeeding and surviving as a social mission-based organization, thereby representing a strategic resource in an increasingly competitive environment.

To examine the relationship between organizational identity and identification, we tested a set of hypotheses based on a sample of 456 respondents from four different diaconal social mission-based nonprofits. The findings offer the following contributions: First, the study sheds light on key aspects of organizational identity that enhance organizational identification by revealing the significance of identity category, normative identity, and institutional identity. These insights underscore the multifaceted nature of organizational identity and its impact on organizational identification, highlighting the critical roles of normative, categorical, and institutional aspects of organizational identity in fostering member identification in social mission-based nonprofits in general and diaconal organizations in particular.

Second, in contrast to much of the literature on nonprofits, we bridge theories of organizational identity and organizational identification. Our conceptualization of organizational identity follows the definition proposed by Albert and Whetten (1985) as those features of an organization that are perceived by the organization’s members as central, distinctive, and relatively enduring, whereas organizational identification is “The perception of oneness with, or belongingness to the organization” (Ashforth & Mael, 1989, p. 22). The literatures on the two constructs have largely developed in isolation from each other (Kreiner, Hollensbe, & Sheep, 2006), despite the seemingly obvious conceptual links that exist between them. By bridging the two notions, we hope to contribute to more cross-fertilization as well as new opportunities for multilevel analysis in the case of nonprofit organizations that combines organizational approaches to organizational identity with individual-level insights concerning organizational identification.

In the following, we present the theoretical background of our study and the hypotheses we seek to test. After a description of the methods used for this study, we present the findings, followed by a discussion of their theoretical and practical implications.

Theory and Hypotheses

March and Simon (1958) were some of the first to discuss the concept of organizational identification. However, with some exceptions (e.g., Hall et al., 1970; S. M. Lee, 1971; Patchen, 1970), the concept was mostly dormant until the 1980s when it began to gain prominence within the fields of organizational behavior, social psychology, and communication (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Cheney, 1983). Since then, scholars have continued to examine many important aspects of organizational identification. With inspiration from social identity theory (Tajfel, 1982), studies have suggested that the identification experienced by members with their organization encompasses affective and cognitive aspects (Haslam, 2004; Van Dick et al., 2004). Organizational identification implies “that the organizational member has linked his or her organizational membership to his or her self-concept, either cognitively (e.g., feeling a part of the organization; internalizing organizational values), emotionally (pride in membership), or both” (Riketta, 2005, p. 361). The cognitive dimension involves a perception of oneness with an organization, meaning the sharing of successes and failures of the focal organization (Ashforth & Mael, 1989), whereas the emotional dimension implies that members who identify strongly with their organization experience an affective connection with the organization and its mission.

In accordance with these studies, we conceptualize organizational identification as an emotional and cognitive bond between individuals and their organization. Existing research often models individuals’ identification with their organization as an independent variable (Cole & Bruch, 2006; Y. Liu et al., 2011; Oktug, 2013), as confirmed by a large meta-review by Greco et al. (2022), or as a mediator (Bartel, 2001; Dukerich et al., 2002; B. Liu & Perry, 2016) or moderator (Abbasi et al., 2021; De Cremer, 2005; Riketta, 2005). Our study, however, follows a large body of research that models organizational identification as the dependent variable (Weisman et al., 2023). Our review of this literature suggests that while empirical studies have examined the effects of a number of independent variables on organizational identification such as emotional culture (Yue et al., 2021), reputation and prestige (De Roeck & Delobbe, 2012; Dutton et al., 1994; Mael & Ashforth, 1992; Reade, 2001; Smidts et al., 2001), psychological contracts (Epitropaki, 2013), social and economic work freedom (Salvatore et al., 2018), and organizational culture (Schrodt, 2002), organizational identity is rarely included as an independent variable. Exceptions include a study by Kreiner and Ashforth (2004), who found no influence of organizational identity strength on organizational identification, and Foreman and Whetten (2002), who found that perceived alignment between current and ideal organizational identities positively influenced members’ relationships with their organization (defined as organizational commitment). Conceptual papers also exist: Dutton et al. (1994) presented organizational identity as a possible antecedent of organizational identification, and Albert et al. (2000) suggested a dynamic relationship between organizational identity and identification.

In the case of nonprofits, examined antecedents of organizational identification include employees’ pride and respect for leadership (Boezeman & Ellemers, 2014), material and non-material benefits (Camarero & Garrido, 2011), peer identification and identity synergy (Fombelle et al., 2012), perceived organizational support (Meyer, 2021), and behavioral and cognitive job crafting (Walk & Peterson, 2022), among others. However, the literature on employees’ identification with a nonprofit is limited [a few exceptions include Godfroid and Labie (2023) and Rho et al. (2015)]. This is despite the calls for more research on the antecedents of organizational identification in general (Albert et al., 2000; He & Brown, 2013; Weisman et al., 2023) and within the nonprofit sector context in particular (Boezeman & Ellemers, 2014; Kreutzer & Jäger, 2011; Stam et al., 2014).

Our assumption is that the degree of identification depends on the type of identity that a nonprofit has (as seen by its members), specifically, whether its features can be classified as belonging to a utilitarian or normative identity (Albert & Whetten, 1985). A utilitarian organizational identity can be defined as member beliefs that emphasize characteristics and values such as efficiency, quality, profit maximization, and performance in their conceptualization of themselves as a collective (Brickson, 2005). The typical example of an organization having a utilitarian organizational identity is the for-profit organization. By contrast, a normative organizational identity emphasizes characteristics such as shared ideology, shared values, the organization’s history and mission, and high employee commitment (Albert & Whetten, 1985). Churches, hospitals, orchestras, universities, and nonprofits typically have strong normative organizational identities (Albert & Whetten, 1985; Foreman & Whetten, 2002; Glynn, 2000; Golden-Biddle & Rao, 1997).

There is some evidence from previous research to suggest that a normative organizational identity differentially influences organizational identification among members. A study by Dukerich et al. (2002) on physician’s cooperative behaviors, for example, found that physicians identified more strongly with their organization when they perceived their health care system as having a more values-centered organizational identity rather than economic efficiency. Similarly, a study by Lipponen et al. (2008) found that value congruence with a perceived normative organizational identity was more strongly associated with identification compared to utilitarian identities. A study by Foreman and Whetten (2002) on a related construct, organizational commitment, found that commitment is influenced by the perceived congruence between an organization’s current and desired identity. The larger the gap between members’ perceptions of their organization’s current identity and what they think their organization’s identity should be, the less likely they are to feel committed to that organization. Studies have also suggested that a cognitive gap between perceived existing identity and ideal identity stimulates dis-identification (Elsbach, 1999). Thus, because our respondents are members of nonprofits, we expect them to identify more with their organization the more they perceive it to have a normative identity:

Competitive pressures have resulted in mission drift for many nonprofits (Ebrahim et al., 2014; Jones, 2007). Mission drift can be defined as the process whereby a nonprofit “los(es) sight of their social missions in their efforts to generate revenue” (Ebrahim et al., 2014, p. 82). Competitive tendering, long-term contracts, and marketization imposed on mission-based nonprofits by public authorities have promoted a stronger emphasis on utilitarian aspects at the expense of the nonprofits’ social, moral, and religious origins (Bassi & Vincenti, 2015; Maier et al., 2016; Sirris, 2020). Nonprofits have also experienced a gradual weakening of many of their defining features as a result of standardization requirements specified by public authorities (Trætteberg, 2015). Thus, the identity of the modern nonprofit has arguably shifted to a more utilitarian orientation in addition to and perhaps even at the expense of its original normative organizational identity (Jäger & Schröer, 2014). Mission drift could potentially weaken both organizational identity and organizational identification. Thus, the expected effect on organizational identification is negative because the congruence between the current organizational identity and the expected identity is far too low for any substantial emotional or cognitive bond to develop. This is to say, the more a social mission-based organization is characterized by a utilitarian organizational identity, the less its members will identify with it:

We also expect the degree of organizational identification to be influenced by identity category. An identity category can be defined as an organization’s classification within a recognized, higher-order group (e.g., nonprofit, government agency, or business) or a lower-order group within these categories (e.g., diaconal organization within the nonprofit category), which provides predictability and a shared understanding of organizational identity among both internal members and external audiences (Hsu & Elsbach, 2013; King & Whetten, 2008). According to the social actor theory of organizational identity (Whetten & Mackey, 2002), organizations are “identifiable as an organization of type x” (Glynn & Marquis, 2007, p. 26). This is in contrast to the social constructionist perspective, which holds that organizational identity is an evolving, negotiated construct that emerges through collective sensemaking processes (Gioia et al., 2013; Golden-Biddle & Rao, 1997). From the social actor perspective, however, the type of organization could be expected to make a difference with respect to organizational identification, although it is not sufficient to simply belong or claim to belong in a specific category of organizations to foster high degrees of identification among members. The category itself might actually reduce identification, as could be the case with categories associated with stigma, highly bureaucratic categories, ethically controversial categories, or high-pressure or burnout-prone categories (e.g., the tobacco industry, the adult entertainment industry, the gambling industry, investment banking). Indeed, studies have shown that employees in stigmatized industries often experience identity conflicts and may engage in various coping mechanisms including psychological distancing from their employer (Kreiner, Ashforth, & Sluss, 2006; Kvåle & Murdoch, 2022; Lai et al., 2013).

Still, certain organizational categories arguably have the potential to increase identification among members. Social mission-driven organizations such as nonprofits, charities, social enterprises, and diaconal organizations could create such cognitive and emotional attachments because their missions align with their members’ personal convictions and values (Foreman & Whetten, 2002). Given our sample of diaconal organizations, we expect this category to be able to produce strong identification with the organization among members. Thus, members who strongly categorize their organization as diaconal typically exhibit heightened organizational identification:

Finally, we want to test a hypothesis concerning the institutional identity of organizations. According to institutional theory, an institutional identity is an identity that has evolved over time and become associated with distinct features as a result of adaptation to external and internal demands (Scott & Davis, 2006; Selznick, 1957). During this process, organizational members become defenders of the organization’s mission and existence. They regard their organization as having value in its own right beyond its function and goals. This identity can be an important source of both emotional and cognitive identification for employees, as it fosters a sense of meaning and belonging and, not least, a will to secure the organization’s survival (Dutton et al., 1994). The latter could make members more willing to accept extra responsibilities and support the organization in difficult times. It is also crucial for an organization’s ability to garner commitment and loyalty from its members (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Dutton & Dukerich, 1991; Selznick, 1957). Moreover, organizational identification is especially likely if members see their organization’s identity as unique and distinct (Cole & Bruch, 2006). Thus, organizational identification strengthens when members share these perceptions of their organization.

Method

Measures

The questionnaire and its measures were developed and validated in several steps. First, we conducted literature reviews to identify previously validated measures that we could use for the purpose of our study. On the basis of this review, specifically contributions by Albert and Whetten (1985) and Foreman and Whetten (2002), we developed four organizational identity scales: normative, utilitarian, category, and institutional. For our dependent variable, we adopted the measure of organizational identification developed by Mael and Ashforth (1992).

Second, we conducted exploratory factor analyses to check the construct validity of the organizational identity scales. Factorability was assessed using Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity and the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy. Bartlett’s test (p < .001) confirmed the suitability of the dataset for factor analysis for all scales. KMO values were above 0.7 for all scales with the exception of institutional identity, whose overall MSA (measure of sampling adequacy) value was 0.59 (Table 1). Because we saw no reason to expect the items of the scales to be uncorrelated, we used the oblimin oblique rotation (Costello & Osborne, 2005) for each analysis. We used principal axis factoring as the extraction method, as recommended for exploratory factor analysis (ibid.). We expected the items of each scale to load on the same factor, given that all scales were designed to be unidimensional. Single factors emerged in all cases. Factor loadings were higher than .40, and eigenvalues were above 1.0. Cronbach’s alpha scores were above the conventional reliability expectations of 0.70 (J. Cohen, 2013) for all scales with the exception of institutional identity (Table 1).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Reliability and Construct Validity Analyses (N = 456).

Scale	Cronbach’s alpha	Overall MSA a
Normative identity	0.79	0.81
Utilitarian identity	0.84	0.76
Identity category (diaconal org.)	0.85	0.76
Institutional identity	0.56	0.59
Organizational identification	0.86	0.86

a

Measure of sampling adequacy (Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin test).

The details on the development of measures are as follows (see Appendix for a complete overview of measures).

Normative Organizational Identity

This measure was developed from a composite Likert-type scale used by Foreman and Whetten (2002) as an operationalization of the theoretical definition used by Albert and Whetten (1985). Because Foreman and Whetten developed their measure specifically for co-ops, we adapted the items of the measure to fit the context of social mission-based nonprofits. Examples of items measuring normative organizational identity are “our organization is primarily a mission-driven organization” and “our organization emphasizes social relations between employees.”

Utilitarian Organizational Identity

This scale is also based on the measure developed by Foreman and Whetten (2002), adapted to better fit the social mission-based context. Examples of items intended to measure utilitarian organizational identity are “our organization emphasizes budget control” and “our organization emphasizes user orientation.”

Identity Category

Given that all our respondents work for diaconal organizations, which is a distinct category in itself, we chose to rely on the operationalization of diaconal organization used by the Church of Norway (2020, p. 4) as a proxy for identity category. We translated the definition into five statements about organizational identity. Examples of items included in the scale are “Compassion is an important value for our organization” and “social inclusion is an important value for our organization.”

Institutional Identity

We developed a new four-item scale for this study specifically. The scale is intended to capture the extent to which members see their organization as something worth preserving and protecting (Selznick, 1957). Examples of items measuring the degree of institutional identity are “it would be a great loss if my organization changed its name” and “my organization should merge with other organizations” (reverse-coded).

Organizational Identification

Our dependent variable, organizational identification, is a six-item scale developed by Mael and Ashforth (1992). Examples of items are “when someone criticizes my organization it feels like a personal insult” and “I am very interested in what others think about our organization.”

Analysis

Hierarchical linear regression analysis based on the ordinary least square (OLS) method was used to test the hypotheses. We developed three different models to examine changes in explained variance in the dependent variable. Hierarchical linear regression analysis offers the benefit of adding different types of independent variables in succession into the model so that their effects on the dependent variable can be assessed in a step-wise process (Pedzahur, 1997). Doing so enables the possibility of comparing the predictive power of different models. Multicollinearity tests (the variance inflation factor) indicate that multicollinearity is not a concern in our models, with all factors being well below five. The Durbin–Watson tests indicate no significant autocorrelation in any of the models. To test for common method bias, we ran Harman’s single-factor test (0.347), indicating the absence of common method bias. Plots of residuals against fitted values verify homoscedasticity and the absence of patterns that could violate the Gauss–Markov assumption. Table 2 reports the means, standard deviations, and correlations among all variables.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations (Pearson’s r) of All Variables (N = 456).

	M	SD	Min	Max	Skew	Kurt	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1 Gender	0.64	0.48
2 Length of tenure	7.82	6.83	2.5	23	0.98	2.63	0.01
3 Age	47.73	11.13	22	75	−0.23	2.33	−0.16**	0.40**
4 Utilitarian organizational identity	5.76	0.98	1	7	−1.24	5.43	0.08	0.14*	0.06
5 Normative organizational identity	5.11	1.04	1.4	7	−0.58	3.40	0.06	0.01	−0.07	0.63**
6 Identity category	5.66	1.11	1	7	−1.03	4.20	0.07	0.05	0.05	0.58**	0.69**
7 Institutional identity	3.53	0.87	1	7	−0	3.71	−0.01	0.04	0.16**	0.18**	0.15**	0.19**
8 Organizational identification	4.83	1.15	1	7	−0.59	3.22	0.01	0.05	0.11**	0.37**	0.42**	0.48**	0.37**

*

p < .05. **p < .01.

Findings

Table 3 reports the results from the hierarchical linear regression analysis. In the first step of the analysis, the two forms of organizational identity proposed by Albert and Whetten (1985), utilitarian and normative, are added to the model. In this model, which explains about 20% of the variance in organizational identification, both variables have a positive, statistically significant effect on organizational identification (p < .01). As for the control variables, age has a statistically significant effect on organizational identification (p < .01) whereas gender and length of tenure do not.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 3.

Results From Hierarchical Regression Analysis (N = 456).

	Organizational identification
	(1)		(2)		(3)
	B	Beta	B	Beta	B	Beta
Constant	1.315**	4.831**	1.034**	4.822**	0.374	4.822**
Gender (male)	0.005	0.005	0.030	0.030	0.029	0.029
Age	0.013*	0.156*	0.010*	0.120*	0.006	0.066
Length of tenure	−0.004	−0.027	−0.002	−0.016	−0.0002	−0.001
Normative identity	0.365**	0.380**	0.165*	0.172*	0.157*	0.163*
Utilitarian identity	0.181**	0.178**	0.096	0.094	0.067	0.066
Identity category			0.339**	0.375**	0.307**	0.339**
Institutional identity					0.356**	0.311**
R 2	0.207		0.258		0.325
Adjusted R2	0.197		0.247		0.314
∆R2	0.193		0.051		0.067
F statistic	21.964**		24.311**		28.856**
∆F	20.010**		2.347**		4.545**

*

p < .05. **p < .01.

The addition of the identity category in Step 2 leads to a statistically significant increase in explained variance (p < .01), indicating that about 25% of the variance in organizational identification is accounted for by the model. Identity category significantly predicts organizational identification (p < .01), whereas utilitarian organizational identity no longer does. Normative organizational identity continues to significantly predict organizational identification (p < .05), albeit with a lower effect than in the previous model. Age also continues to have a statistically significant positive effect on organizational identification (p < .05).

In Step 3, institutional identity is added. Doing so significantly increases the explained variance in organizational identification (p < .01) to about 32%, giving us a final model that fits the data best. Having the second strongest standardized effect (0.311), institutional identity has a positive, statistically significant effect on organizational identification (p < .01), although this effect should be interpreted as tentative and preliminary due to the low Cronbach’s alpha value of the scale. Normative organizational identity and organizational identity category continue to significantly predict organizational identification (p < .05 and p < .01, respectively), with identity category having the strongest standardized effect of the independent variables on organizational identification (0.339). This is an important finding, as it suggests that mission drift through adaptation to competitive pressures could reduce organizational identification among members. Utilitarian organizational identity does not, as in Model 2, predict organizational identification. We also note that none of the control variables significantly predict identification.

Overall, all models confirm H1, H3, and H4, although it is important to note that H3 receives only weak support. H2 is supported in Model 1 but not in Models 2 and 3 when the other independent variables are included in the analysis. Thus, the hierarchical regression analysis offers support for three of the four hypotheses. Figure 1 shows the final effects of each independent variable on organizational identification, controlling for gender, age, and length of tenure.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Final Regression Model.

Discussion

Conclusion and Suggestions for Future Research

Organizational identification is a phenomenon of key importance for any organization, but perhaps especially for social mission-based nonprofits whose effectiveness depends on members’ personal interest in a shared purpose. Using survey data from four diaconal organizations in Norway, this study clarifies how “who are we” as an organization emotionally and cognitively affects members’ relations with that organization. Specifically, we find that members’ identification strengthens when they perceive (a) a normative organizational identity anchored in mission, values, and ideals; (b) clear membership in a meaningful identity category (here, diaconal); and (c) an institutional identity that signals an enduring entity worth preserving. In contrast, a utilitarian identity does not consistently predict identification once other identity dimensions are considered.

These findings encourage more debate and research into the important question of how to understand the relationship between organizational identity and organizational identification in the case of social mission-based organizations. Given that our sample is limited to diaconal nonprofits, future studies should seek to improve generalizability by broadening the empirical scope. Comparative, multisector designs that include secular social mission-based nonprofits, public agencies, and for-profit social enterprises could potentially offer increased insight and nuances not only into the strength of the relationship between organizational identity and organizational identity in different contexts but also the specific significance of the identity category with respect to organizational identification.

We also encourage studies that develop alternative measurement scales for the independent variables used here. For example, researchers could unpack identity category more granularly by developing category-specific instruments across different nonprofit “families” (e.g., advocacy, service provision, arts, environmental). They could also distinguish between different versions of identity category by creating category-agnostic and category-specific versions. To capture general aspects of a nonprofit organizational identity category, a core scale applicable across nonprofits could serve as a platform, supplemented by optional scales for diaconal, advocacy, health care, arts, and so on, depending on the empirical context.

In the same vein, future research could improve the measure for institutional identity tested here by developing items that incorporate other behavioral proxies than the ones we included and seek to validate these refined instruments in empirical studies. The low Cronbach’s alpha for institutional identity is counterintuitive to theoretical assumptions anchored in classic institutional theory whereby members come to see their organization as an end in itself (Selznick, 1957). With better and validated scales, the effect of institutional identity on organizational identification could be assessed in a more reliable manner.