Organizational Identity and Organizational Identification

Abstract

Scholarly research directed toward the analysis of organizational identity and organizational identification is fragmented along disciplinary and subdisciplinary fault lines that mirror the current intellectual and social organization of the management and organization studies field. Adopting a critical realist design science perspective, the author challenges researchers to set aside their own identity concerns to embark on an ambitious program of work that capitalizes on the strengths of the alternative perspectives in play, with a view to generating insights that are truly greater than the sum of the parts. The imperative for doing so, at this critical juncture, is the need to address the pressing challenges that threaten to harm beyond repair the social harmony that is the bedrock of the world economy and society.

Keywords

critical realism design science organizational identification organizational identity

Introducing this Special Issue, the Guest Editors identify four perspectives (functionalist, social constructionist, psychodynamic, and postmodern) that presently dominate organizational identity research in the management and organization studies (MOS) field (He & Brown, 2013). As they so eloquently demonstrate, each of the four perspectives has something of value to contribute to the analysis of human behavior in the workplace. It is unfortunate, therefore, that MOS researchers, for the most part, continue to operate in disciplinary silos that serve to maintain rigid barriers between the four perspectives. Accordingly, in this concluding article, I offer some brief provocative remarks, in the hope that they will begin to open up a series of deeper conversations between the exponents of the four perspectives in question, with a view to stimulating the cross-fertilization of ideas required to develop and exploit more fully the potential synergies between them. Before doing so, however, I have a confession to make. Like the four sets of authors whose articles form the core of this special issue (Hameed, Roques, & Arain, 2013; Marique, Stinglhamber, Desmette, & Caesens, 2013; Peters, Haslam, Ryan, & Fonseca, 2013; Zhu, Wang, Zheng, Liu, & Miao, 2013), my own natural predilection is toward accounts of identity processes emanating from the mainstream, functionalist orthodoxy of experimental social psychology (see for example, Hodgkinson & Healey, 2008a, 2008b, 2011; Peters, Daniels, Hodgkinson, & Haslam, in press).

Over a third of a century has elapsed since Tajfel and Turner (1979) published their initial formulation of social identity theory, an account that continues to enjoy widespread prominence across the full spectrum of social science disciplines. The MOS field has been, and continues to be, a prime beneficiary of this seminal work. However, many writers, including the Guest Editors and several of the other contributors to this special issue, employ social identity theory, where, strictly speaking, the social identity approach, a term that arose in an attempt to mitigate the tendency of scholars to conflate social identity theory with self-categorization theory, is a more apposite descriptor (Haslam, 2001). Accordingly, from here onwards, I shall adopt this broader term, throughout, reflecting more accurately the social psychological foundations underpinning the organizational identity (OI) and organizational identification (OID) constructs, which are predicated on social identity theory in conjunction with self-categorization theory, rather than social identity theory per se.¹

I concur with the Guest Editors that, relative to the social constructionist, psychodynamic, and postmodern perspectives, the social identity approach has exerted the most powerful influence on work pertaining to the OID construct related closely to the notion of OI. Indeed, following Ashforth and Mael’s (1989) citation classic, the social identity approach has influenced MOS research across a broad spectrum of topics, from the analysis of candidate and assessor behaviors in personnel selection and assessment processes (e.g., Goldberg, 2005; Herriot, 2004), to the study of how identification with workplace collectives shapes the motivation of individuals and groups (Ellemers, De Gilder, & Haslam, 2004) and leadership processes (Hogg, 2001; Hogg et al., 2005; Pierro, Cicero, Bonaiuto, van Knippenberg, & Kruglanski, 2005; van Knippenberg & van Knippenberg, 2005; van Knippenberg, De Dreu, & Homan, 2004), to a consideration of how the allocation of workspace influences the relative salience of team and organizational identities and the attendant consequences for employee engagement (Millward, Haslam, & Postmes, 2007). In sum, a wide range of people-related problems confronting the modern workplace are, at root, problems stemming from fundamental identity concerns that fall within the purview of the social identity approach (see also Haslam, 2001, 2004; Haslam & Ellemers, 2005; Hodgkinson & Healey, 2008a). The social identity approach thus provides an especially powerful lens through which to describe, explain, and ultimately intervene in, organizational life, with a view to improving economy and society. Its prominence notwithstanding, at this critical juncture in the evolution of the world economy—a time when many management, economic and social “truths” are ripe for reconsideration—I want to take this opportunity to encourage OI/OID researchers wedded to the social identity approach, and the proponents of the other three approaches identified by the Guest Editors, to open themselves up to a constructive exploration of one another’s ideas, for far more is at stake than mere academic advancement. There are not, and never can be, any panaceas for meeting the pressing challenges with which all sections of the business and management studies community (and, indeed, the social sciences across the board) are now wrestling, ones that pose a major threat to the maintenance, if not the very existence, of social harmony. Clearly, therefore, a fresh wave of theory construction and empirical work is required to enhance understanding of the complexities at play and inform the design of new tools and processes for intervening that will hopefully prove more effective than those presently available.

Identity Barriers to the Cross-Fertilization of Ideas

Ironically, one of the primary reasons OI/OID researchers have rarely explored the potential interconnections between the four perspectives, I suggest, is due to a series of conflicting, seemingly fundamental, institutionalized constraints that are shaped and ultimately driven by the divergent personal and social identity concerns of the constituent members of the MOS community at large (see Peters et al., in press). As observed by Pettigrew (2001), the business and management studies field (of which MOS is a constituent subfield) is not a discipline, as such, but rather a confluence of (social science) disciplines, uniquely situated at the nexus of practice and its contributing disciplines. Each contributing discipline has its own routines and conventions that define and maintain its scholarly boundaries and criteria of excellence (Whitley, 2000).

Extrapolating from previous theorizing in the social identity tradition (e.g., Haslam & Ellemers, 2005; Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Turner, Oakes, Haslam, & McGarty, 1994), I conjecture that MOS scholars’ judgments of the quality and relevance of ideas will be shaped by their personal identities and by their social identities, which define their fundamental sense of who they are as professional academics. Accordingly, ideas consonant with these core identities will be evaluated more favorably than those that are not. It thus follows that MOS scholars who identify more readily with a given contributing discipline (e.g., psychology) will be more receptive to ideas emanating from that discipline (e.g., functional and psychodynamic approaches to the analysis of resistance to change) and less receptive to ideas emanating from other contributing disciplines (e.g., social constructionist and postmodern accounts from sociology) that are likely to have implications for (and potentially threaten) their sense of self, both as individuals and as members of the particular discipline-based professional groups to which they belong. Furthermore, MOS scholars who identify more strongly with a recognized subfield within their constituent discipline (e.g., social psychology and/or organizational psychology) will be more receptive to ideas that are aligned more closely with the mainstream views of their colleagues sharing membership of those intra-disciplinary “in-group(s)” (e.g. social identity and related self-categorization accounts of resistance to organizational development and change initiatives) and less receptive to ideas emanating from other quarters of their discipline (e.g., psychodynamic theories), the latter being viewed as beyond the mainstream and thus off limits.

In keeping with the foregoing analysis, it is hardly surprising to find that, for the most part, the proponents of the four perspectives have tended to enhance their professional reputations by publishing their ideas in the journals most highly valued by their immediate academic peers within the subdisciplines with which they most closely identify. Thus, for example, scholars whose work is underpinned largely by the functionalist social identity approach have published primarily in journals such as the Journal of Applied Psychology (e.g., van Knippenberg et al., 2004; van Knippenberg & van Knippenberg, 2005), Journal of Organizational Behavior (e.g., van Knippenberg, Martin, & Tyler, 2006), and Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (e.g., Haslam, Eggins, & Reynolds, 2003), regarded as leading outlets by MOS scholars who identify more closely with the base discipline of psychology rather than sociology (Peters et al., in press). Conversely, the work of scholars advancing the postmodern and social constructionist perspectives has tended to appear primarily in journals such the Journal of Management Studies (e.g., Chreim, 2005; Coupland & Brown, 2004) and Organization Studies (e.g., Harquail & King, 2010; Humphreys & Brown, 2002), regarded as leading outlets by MOS scholars who identify more closely with the base discipline of sociology rather than psychology (Peters et al., in press). Even though, on occasion, the work of the proponents of the various alternative perspectives has appeared in common general management journals, widely accepted as the field’s leading outlets by both the sociological and psychological wings of the MOS community—exemplified by Brown’s psychodynamic accounts of organizational identity processes (Brown, 1997; Brown & Starkey, 2000) predicated on the work of Sigmund Freud, and functionalist accounts (e.g., Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Hogg &Terry, 2000) predicated on the social identity approach, all of which were published in the Academy of Management Review—I maintain that the requisite cross-fertilization of ideas is not occurring on anything like the scale that is ultimately required to meet the present social and economic challenges.²

Overcoming the Identity Barriers Through a Critical Realist Design Science Approach

How, then, might we move the study of OI and OID processes beyond the present impasse and thus enrich the MOS field? Continuing a line of argument that several of my colleagues and I have been developing over a number of years (e.g., Denyer, Tranfield, & Van Aken, 2008; Hodgkinson & Healey, 2008b; Hodgkinson & Rousseau, 2009; Hodgkinson & Starkey, 2011, 2012; Pandza & Thorpe, 2010; Tranfield & Starkey, 1998), which builds on the foundation of Herbert Simon’s classic treatise, The Sciences of the Artificial (Simon, 1969), it is helpful to liken MOS (and the business and management studies field more generally) to engineering (in the physical sciences) and medicine (in the biological sciences). As argued some 15 years ago by Tranfield and Starkey (1998), the normative implication of this analogy is that the overarching concern of the business and management studies field should be the general (engineering) problem of design—how to create organizations and systems of management and economy that are a better fit for purpose than those we have currently. Doing so, they suggested, demands that the field should aspire to be transdisciplinary and problem-led. More recently, Ken Starkey and I (Hodgkinson & Starkey, 2011, 2012) have argued the case for expanding the horizons of this design science ethos, by adopting a critical realist philosophy (Bhaskar, 1978, 1979), to move it beyond the narrow positivistic conception of Simon (1969), the design science originator (see also Hodgkinson & Rousseau, 2009).

Critical realism focuses on the space between objectivism and (radical) social constructionism, much as design science focuses on the space between present (with its path dependencies) and future. As such, it “is a powerful tool in understanding the interplay of structure and agency in design activity dependence, and in theorizing generative mechanisms, well suited to theorize aspirations to a more humane and equal society” (Hodgkinson & Starkey, 2012, p. 606). In marked contrast with naive empiricist positivism, which assumes that that which is observed is what is important, critical realism focuses instead on the unobservable generative mechanisms (social, cultural and biological), themselves a complex outcome of structure and agency, necessary for a particular turn of events to occur (Bhaskar, 1979). Events occur when actors mobilize the resources at their disposal in a given context (including their identity resources) to shape change, “which, in social contexts, unfolds in open systems where generative mechanisms operate independently or in concert in complex interactions” (Hodgkinson & Starkey, 2011, p. 362). Given the hidden complexities pertaining to the generative mechanisms at play, as argued by Bhaskar (1979), the social sciences can only operate by “retroduction,” the theoretical reconstruction of plausible explanations of the conditions and mechanisms necessary for the events at hand to have occurred. In sum

The design science approach has, at least implicitly, much in common with critical realist ontology . . . . A design philosophy promotes integrative thinking, as opposed to “either/or” thinking, based on observation and inquiry . . . . The design philosophy also challenges us to reconsider the boundaries of our field and of our own practices. (Hodgkinson & Starkey, 2011, p. 363)

Implications

In the light of the foregoing analysis, I propose that a critical realist design science philosophy provides an appropriate basis for attempting to develop a more integrated and coherent body of theory and research pertaining to OI and OID, one that draws variously on the functionalist, psychodynamic, social constructionist and postmodern perspectives, with a view to generating insights that are greater than the sum of the constituent parts. Predicated on complementary, or in some cases, seemingly conflicting ontological assumptions, all four perspectives are, at one and the same time, both useful and constraining.

Functionalism, for example, is useful as a foundation for building descriptive and explanatory models of fundamental psychological processes, but also constraining, insofar as it neglects, or at least tends to downplay, crucial issues pertaining to power and politics in the dynamics of strategic transformation, thus risking the creation of rationality facades of the sort that form a focus of many of the more radical social constructionist and postmodern critiques of the MOS field in general (e.g., Willmott, 1993).³ The psychodynamic perspective, in contrast, provides a valuable role in highlighting the significance of cognitive and emotional processes that lie beyond conscious awareness. However, it is predicated on a body of psychological theory and research that has long been abandoned by the mainstream academic and applied psychology subfields, not least because it is highly problematic when evaluated by conventional scientific criteria, or, more correctly, the approach to scientific method falling within the strictures of positivism (see, for example, Kline, 1972; Popper, 1959). Although psychodynamic perspectives in general do not sit easy with the scientific ethos of the contemporary mainstream, rather than dismissing them out of hand, as demonstrated almost 20 years ago by Epstein (1994), it is highly instructive to reflect on how closely they accord with the comparatively recent dual-process theory conceptions of cognition now occupying the center ground of all of the psychology field’s major branches, which similarly stress the primacy of emotional and nonconscious mechanisms as the fundamental drivers of much of human behavior, including many of the core social psychological processes at the heart of organizational life (for recent overviews, see Dane & Pratt, 2007; Evans, 2008; Hodgkinson, Langan-Fox, & Sadler-Smith, 2008; Lieberman, 2007).

Like the less popular psychodynamic perspective, recent advances in dual-process theory, underpinned by a growing body of supporting evidence from the emerging field of social cognitive neuroscience, provide a solid basis for challenging functionalist approaches to the analysis of identity inertia and related problems that focus solely on cold cognition routes to identity change (e.g., Haslam et al., 2003; Hogg & Terry, 2000). As argued by Hodgkinson and Healey (2011), these conventional functionalist accounts overstate the ease of cognitive identity reconstruction, while underestimating the emotional difficulties associated with identity threat and the affective processes that mediate the transition to new identities. Indeed, it seems that the social pain generated by such identity threat activates neural networks similar to the ones activated by physical pain (Lieberman & Eisenberger, 2009). Consonant with earlier psychodynamic conceptions of identity change, the emerging evidence in social cognitive neuroscience emphasizes the importance of actors’ capabilities to regulate automatic and emotional reactions to self and social identity threats, especially heightened anxiety (Scheepers & Ellemers, 2005) and automatic social categorization and stereotyping processes (Amodio, 2008; Dovidio, Pearson, & Orr, 2008), which affect actors’ ability to see new directions without prejudice and embrace changes that impinge upon extant salient identities. The self-regulation of emotional response is thus a crucial mechanism for overcoming identity-based resistance to change (see also Amodio, 2008; Derks, Inzlicht, & Kang, 2008; Klein, Rozendal, & Cosmides, 2002). Self-regulation, in the context of OI transformation, requires the ability of managers at all levels to identify, interpret, and respond appropriately to the emotions of stakeholders throughout the organization (cf. Huy, 1999, 2002, 2011).

Concluding Remarks

As I have hopefully conveyed throughout, far too much is at stake at this critical juncture to entrust any one discipline, let alone any one social science discipline, with the responsibility for solving the deep and wicked problems now confronting our business enterprises and wider social institutions. My hope is that my all-too-brief exposition of critical realist design philosophy, together with my equally sketchy concrete illustrations, has provided a sufficient glimpse of what might be possible if MOS researchers (and researchers from other fields) were prepared to set aside their current identity concerns and embark on an exciting new phase of scholarly innovation—to motivate them to do so.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Bio

Gerard P. Hodgkinson is Professor of Strategic Management & Behavioural Science and Associate Dean (Programme Quality) at Warwick Business School, University of Warwick, UK. His research interests center on the psychological foundations of strategic management (especially cognition and emotion/affect), applied psychological measurement, and the nature and significance of management and organizational research for academia and wider publics. The (co-)author of more than 70 scholarly publications, for eight years (1999-2006) he was the Editor-in-Chief of the British Journal of Management. He currently co-edits (with J. Kevin Ford) the IRIOP Annual Review Issue of the Journal of Organizational Behavior and serves on the Editorial Boards of several major journals including the Academy of Management Review, Journal of Management, and Organization Science.

References

Amodio

D. M.

(2008). The social neuroscience of intergroup relations. European Review of Social Psychology, 19, 1-54.

Ashforth

B. E.

Mael

(1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14, 20-39.

Bhaskar

(1978). A realist theory of science. Brighton, UK: Harvester.

Bhaskar

(1979). The possibility of naturalism. Brighton, UK: Harvester.

Brown

A. D.

(1997). Narcissism, identity and legitimacy. Academy of Management Review, 22, 643-686.

Brown

A. D.

Starkey

(2000). Organizational identity and organizational learning: A psychodynamic approach. Academy of Management Review, 25, 102-120.

Chreim

(2005). The continuity-change duality in narrative texts of organizational identity. Journal of Management Studies, 42, 567-593.

Coupland

Brown

A. D.

(2004). Constructing organizational identities on the Web: A case study of Royal Dutch Shell. Journal of Management Studies, 41, 1323-1347.

Dane

Pratt

M. G.

(2007). Exploring intuition and its role in managerial decision making. Academy of Management Review, 32, 33-54.

10.

Denyer

D. A.

Tranfield

van Aken

J. E.

(2008). Developing design propositions through research synthesis. Organization Studies, 29, 393-413.

11.

Derks

Inzlicht

Kang

(2008). The neuroscience of stigma and stereotype threat. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 11, 163-181.

12.

Dovidio

J. F.

Pearson

A. R.

Orr

(2008). Social psychology and neuroscience: Strange bedfellows or a healthy marriage? Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 11, 247-263.

13.

Ellemers

De Gilder

Haslam

S. A.

(2004). Motivating individuals and groups at work: A social identity perspective on leadership and group performance. Academy of Management Review, 29, 459-478.

14.

Epstein

(1994). Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. American Psychologist, 49, 709-724.

15.

Evans

J. St. B. T.

(2008). Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition, Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 255-278.

16.

Goldberg

C. B.

(2005). Relational demography and similarity-attraction in interview assessments and subsequent offer decisions: Are we missing something? Group and Organizational Management, 30, 597-624.

17.

Hameed

Roques

Arain

(2013). Nonlinear moderating effect of tenure on organizational identification (OID) and the subsequent role of OID in fostering readiness for change. Group and Organization Management, 38, 101-127.

18.

Harquail

C. V.

King

A. W.

(2010). Construing organizational identity: The role of embodied cognition. Organization Studies, 31, 1619-1648.

19.

Haslam

S. A.

(2001). Psychology in organizations: The social identity approach. London: SAGE.

20.

Haslam

S. A.

(2004). Psychology in organizations: The social identity approach (2nd ed.). London: SAGE.

21.

Haslam

S. A.

Eggins

R. A.

Reynolds

K. J.

(2003). The ASPIRe model: Actualizing social and personal identity resources to enhance organizational outcomes. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76, 83-113.

22.

Haslam

S. A.

Ellemers

(2005). Social psychology in industrial and organizational psychology: Concepts, controversies and contributions. In Hodgkinson

G. P.

Ford

J. K.

(Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 20, pp. 39-118). Chichester, UK: Wiley.

23.

Brown

A. D.

(2013). Organizational identity and organizational identification: A review of the literature and suggestions for future research. Group and Organization Management, 38, 3-35.

24.

Herriot

(2004). Social identities and applicant reactions. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 12, 75-83.

25.

Hodgkinson

G. P.

Healey

M. P.

(2008a). Cognition in organizations. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 387-417.

26.

Hodgkinson

G. P.

Healey

M. P.

(2008b). Toward a (pragmatic) science of strategic intervention: Design propositions for scenario planning. Organization Studies, 29, 435-457.

27.

Hodgkinson

G. P.

Healey

M. P.

(2011). Psychological foundations of dynamic capabilities: Reflexion and reflection in strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 32, 1500-1516.

28.

Hodgkinson

G. P.

Rousseau

D. M.

(2009). Bridging the rigour–relevance gap in management research: It’s already happening! Journal of Management Studies, 46, 534-546.

29.

Hodgkinson

G. P.

Langan-Fox

Sadler-Smith

(2008). Intuition: A fundamental bridging construct in the behavioural sciences. British Journal of Psychology, 99, 1-27.

30.

Hodgkinson

G. P.

Starkey

(2011). Not simply returning to the same answer over and over again: Reframing relevance. British Journal of Management, 22, 355-369.

31.

Hodgkinson

G. P.

Starkey

(2012). Extending the foundations and reach of design science: Further reflections on the role of critical realism. British Journal of Management, 23, 605-610.

32.

Hogg

M. A.

(2001). A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 184-200.

33.

Hogg

M. A.

Martin

Epitropaki

Mankad

Svensson

Weeden

(2005). Effective leadership in salient groups: Revisiting leader-member exchange theory from the perspective of the social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 991-1004.

34.

Hogg

M. A.

Terry

D. J.

(2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25, 121-140.

35.

Humphreys

Brown

A. D.

(2002). Narratives of organizational identity and identification: A case study of hegemony and resistance. Organization Studies, 23, 421-447.

36.

Huy

Q. N.

(1999). Emotional capability, emotional intelligence, and radical change. Academy of Management Review, 24, 325-345.

37.

Huy

Q. N.

(2002). Emotional balancing of organizational continuity and radical change: The contribution of middle managers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 31-69.

38.

Huy

Q. N.

(2011). How middle managers’ group-focus emotions and social identities influence strategy implementation. Strategic Management Journal, 32, 1387-1410.

39.

Klein

S. B.

Rozendal

Cosmides

(2002). A social-cognitive neuroscience analysis of the self. Social Cognition, 20, 105-135.

40.

Kline

(1972). Fact and fantasy in Freudian theory. London: Methuen.

41.

Lieberman

M. D.

(2007). Social cognitive neuroscience: A review of core processes. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 259-289.

42.

Lieberman

M. D.

Eisenberger

N. I.

(2009). The pains and pleasures of social life. Science, 323, 890-891.

43.

Marique

Stinglhamber

Desmette

Caesens

(2013). The relationship between perceived organizational support and affective commitment: A social identity perspective. Group and Organization Management, 38, 68-100.

44.

Millward

L. J.

Haslam

S. A.

Postmes

(2007). Putting employees in their place: The impact of hot desking on organizational and team identification. Organization Science, 18, 547-559.

45.

Pandza

Thorpe

(2010). Management as design, but what kind of design? An appraisal of the design science analogy for management. British Journal of Management, 21, 171-186.

46.

Peters

Daniels

Hodgkinson

G. P.

Haslam

S. A.

(in press). Experts’ judgments of management journal quality: An identity concerns model. Journal of Management.

47.

Peters

Haslam

Ryan

Fonseca

(2013). Working with subgroup identities to build organizational identification and support for organizational strategy: A test of the ASPIRe model. Group and Organization Management, 38, 128-144.

48.

Pettigrew

(2001). Management research after modernism. British Journal of Management, 12 (special issue), S61–S70.

49.

Pierro

Cicero

Bonaiuto

van Knippenberg

Kruglanski

A. W.

(2005). Leader group prototypicality and leadership effectiveness: The moderating role of need for cognitive closure. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 503-516.

50.

Popper

(1959). The logic of scientific discovery. New York: Basic Books.

51.

Scheepers

Ellemers

(2005). When the pressure is up: the assessment of social identity threat in low and high status groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 192-200.

52.

Simon

H. A.

(1969). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

53.

Tajfel

Turner

J. C.

(1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In Austin

W. G.

Worchel

(Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole.

54.

Tajfel

Turner

J. C.

(1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In Worchel

Austin

W. G.

(Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7-24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.

55.

Tranfield

Starkey

(1998). The nature, social organization and promotion of management research: Towards policy. British Journal of Management, 9, 341-353.

56.

Turner

Oakes

(1986). The significance of the social identity concept for social psychology with reference to individualism, interactionism and social influence. British Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 237-252.

57.

Turner

J. C.

Hogg

M. A.

Oakes

P. J.

Reicher

S. D.

Wetherell

M. S.

(1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford: Blackwell.

58.

Turner

J. C.

Oakes

P. J.

Haslam

S. A.

McGarty

C. A.

(1994). Self and collective: Cognition and social context. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 454-463.

59.

van Knippenberg

Martin

Tyler

(2006). Process-orientation versus outcome-orientation during organizational change: The role of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 685-704.

60.

van Knippenberg

(2005). Leader self-sacrifice and leadership effectiveness: The moderating role of leader prototypicality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 25-37.

61.

van Knippenberg

De Dreu

C. K. W.

Homan

A. C.

(2004). Work group diversity and group performance: An integrative model and research agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 1008-1022.

62.

Whitley

(2000). The intellectual and social organization of the sciences (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

63.

Willmott

(1993). Strength is ignorance; slavery is freedom: Managing culture in modern organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 30, 515-552.

64.

Willmott

(2012). Reframing relevance as “social usefulness”: A comment on Hodgkinson and Starkey’s “Not simply returning to the same answer over and over again.” British Journal of Management, 23, 598-604.

65.

Zhu

Wang

Zheng

Liu

Miao

(2013). Examining the role of personal identification with the leader in leadership effectiveness: A partial nomological network. Group and Organization Management, 38, 36-67.