Situational Strength as a Moderator of the Relationship Between Organizational Identification and Work Outcomes

Abstract

Organizational identification theory suggests that the extent to which employees perceive a sense of oneness with their employer positively influences their workplace attitudes and behavior. We investigated situational strength as a potential moderator by exploring the extent to which the relationship between organizational identification and employee outcomes is attenuated when employee discretion is restricted. In particular, we examined whether the workplace cues that signal appropriate conduct in strong situations would mitigate the potentially positive effects of organizational identification on job satisfaction and performance. Consistent with this perspective, results from a field study point to the notion that organizational identification has a more pronounced, positive influence on employee job satisfaction and performance when employees experience behavioral discretion (i.e., in weak situations) compared with situations wherein behavior is more externally controlled (i.e., strong situations). We discuss theoretical and practical implications, as well as suggest avenues for future research.

Keywords

organizational identification situational strength job satisfaction

A great deal of research has examined ties that bind individuals to their organizations and how these associations influence work outcomes. The contemporary workplace is turbulent, requiring employees to handle growing ambiguity while assuming increasingly fluid job roles (Grant & Parker, 2009). As the comfort of familiar routines diminishes, employees who personally identify with the organization use this rooting as a bastion against work life disturbances (Ashforth, Harrison, & Corley, 2008). Theoretically and empirically distinct from organizational commitment (i.e., affective attachment, normative attachment, and continuance), organizational identification is present when employees perceive overlap between the essence of an organization and their self-concept (Ashforth et al., 2008). In other words, they see the unique identity of the organization as self-defining (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). This perceived harmony between the individual and the organization’s essence has been related to many positive workplace attitudes and behaviors such as job satisfaction and performance (Riketta, 2005).

While certain antecedents of organizational identification have been considered, such as leader–member exchange (Loi, Chan, & Lam, 2014), organizational justice (Olkkonen & Lipponen, 2006), and trust (Schaubroeck, Peng, & Hannah, 2013), factors that restrict the potency or enactment of identification remain understudied. In this research, we theoretically and empirically explore how situational strength (i.e., external cues that signal appropriate conduct; Meyer, Dalal, & Hermida, 2010; Meyer et al., 2014) can suppress the relationship between organizational identification and productive employee outcomes (i.e., job satisfaction and job performance). We selected job satisfaction as a criterion because it is a psychological response to an employee’s job (Judge & Klinger, 2008) that can influence motivation (Riketta, 2005). Additionally, we selected job performance as a criterion because employee contributions significantly affect the company and factors that influence these actions are salient.

We posit that in weak situations (i.e., circumstances that do not restrict expression of individual differences), the level of organizational identification will positively relate to job satisfaction and performance. Given room to operate and express themselves, the overlap between personal and organizational identity will manifest in terms of increased employee satisfaction and performance (Baard, Deci, & Ryan, 2004; Gagné & Deci, 2005). However, strong situations (i.e., circumstances that restrict expression) tend to dampen individual differences (by promoting uniformity of expectations and behavior) and negate the positive relation between organizational identification and work outcomes (Meyer & Dalal, 2009). By preventing employees from gravitating toward innately appealing aspects of the job or operating in a manner consistent with their individuality, strong situations can impede the influence of various personal characteristics on job satisfaction and performance (Meyer et al., 2014). Clear dictates of acceptable behavior (i.e., strong situations) restrain potential variation in outcomes related to organizational identification, resulting in employee uniformity that is greater than their individual differences would suggest. These relationships are depicted in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Model of relationships between identification, situational strength, and discretionary workplace behaviors.

Thus, our work makes the following contributions. First, we extend the organizational identification literature by exploring a condition under which the expected positive effects do not manifest. Much of the organizational identification literature over the past 25 years (Lee, Park, & Koo, 2015) suggests that organizational identification is positive for both the employee and employers (Riketta, 2005; Van Dick, van Knippenberg, Kerschreiter, Hertel, & Wieseke, 2008; Van Knippenberg, 2000); however, recent scholarship discusses subtleties, highlighting nuances that may affect these dynamics (Ashforth et al., 2008). For example, very high levels of organization identification can be counterproductive (Conroy, Henle, Shore, & Stelman, 2017) and organizational identification linked with narcissism can harm the organization (Galvin, Lange, & Ashforth, 2015). The current work shares a similar research space by highlighting when organizational identification may not produce the expected positive results (i.e., does not increase job satisfaction or performance).

Second, we examine whether especially prescriptive situations prevent various individuals from attaining job satisfaction or achieving high levels of job performance. This adds to the empirical literature showing that situational strength moderates several individual difference–outcome relationships by homogenizing employee behaviors (Barrick & Mount, 1996; Beaty, Cleveland, & Murphy, 2001; Bowling, Khazon, Meyer, & Burrus, 2015; Meyer, Dalal, & Bonaccio, 2009; Meyer et al., 2014).

Theoretical Development and Hypotheses

Organizational identification has received substantial attention in the management literature in the past few decades (Ashforth, 2016; Ashforth et al., 2008). Researchers made extensive progress clarifying the construct itself, as well as its antecedents and related outcomes (Lee et al., 2015; Riketta, 2005). As noted, organizational identification involves the overlap between what a person perceives as the essence and enduring elements of the organization and the individual’s identity (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Wu, Liu, Kwan, & Lee, 2016). When individuals strongly identify with an organization they perceive a sense of oneness and see membership as a key element of their identity (Mael & Ashforth, 1992; May, Chang, & Shao, 2015).

Organizational identification neighbors other constructs such as organizational fit. Organizational fit refers to the perceived compatibility between the individual and the organization (Saks & Ashforth, 1997) and is an approximal construct to organizational identification. Fit can be represented in a number of ways such as personal needs–organizational rewards, individual ability–organizational demands, and social skill–organizational norms (Edwards, 2008). However, these concepts differ from organizational identification as it taps into a relationship with the organization that involves an individual’s self-definition in a manner that fit does not.

Individuals who strongly identify with their organization will have positive feelings toward their membership and this association enhances their sense of self that roots them deeply into it (Ashforth et al., 2008). In general, they will work to ensure the organization’s well-being while simultaneously serving their own perceived interests that align with those of the organization (Galvin et al., 2015). Empirical research positively links organizational identification with desired characteristics such as ethicality (May et al., 2015) and self-determination (Zhang & Chen, 2013) while being negatively related to intent to turnover (Olkkonen & Lipponen, 2006).

Organizational Identification and Job Satisfaction

Empirical research indicates a positive relationship between organizational identification and constructive employee attitudes in the workplace (Ashforth & Saks, 1996; Wu et al., 2016). As organizational identification theory would suggest, individuals are likely to enjoy and experience self-enhancement working for an organization they care deeply about and see as central to their own identity (Ashforth et al., 2008). As individuals positively relate with their organization, these affirming associations are likely to translate to their job experience (Van Dick et al., 2008). Identifying with their employer brings a sense of meaning and these self-enhancing processes improve workplace attitudes as individuals work on behalf of the organization (Loi et al., 2014). This sense of job satisfaction is likely to be a natural outgrowth of organizational identification (Loi et al., 2014; Van Dick et al., 2008), as such we predict:

Hypothesis 1: Organizational identification will positively relate to job satisfaction.

However, certain situations might decrease the positive relationship between organizational identification and job satisfaction. Situational strength has been defined as the relative presence of explicit and implicit cues that a situation communicates to the individual regarding appropriate or inappropriate behavior (Meyer et al., 2010). For instance, while operating in a strong situation (e.g., working in sight of a supervisor), most employees tend to meet organization standards (e.g., exert effort, choose not to steal, do not provoke coworkers). In this case, the strength of the situation is likely to mute the influence of individual differences (Meyer et al., 2014) in predicting positive organizational outcomes because relevant situational cues artificially shape employees’ behaviors. Situational strength is an important moderator, in that it reduces the predictive utility of individual differences to understand behavioral tendencies (Meyer & Dalal, 2009). As expectations for appropriate behavior are clearly defined and plainly communicated they override individuals’ innate tendencies (Meyer et al., 2010; Snyder & Ickes, 1985), thereby attenuating relationships between these personal propensities and relevant outcomes.

Strong situations are likely to weaken the positive influence of organizational identification on job satisfaction for at least two interrelated reasons. First, strong situations tend to restrict observed variance in both the predictor and criterion (Meyer et al., 2010). Second, in strong situations individuals are unlikely to develop a sense of self-determined identification (Van Dick et al., 2008; Zhang & Chen, 2013) as their exchanges become transactional (e.g., “I am told what to do, I do it, and in some superficial way this influences how I see myself”) as opposed to relational (e.g., “I do what I do because I feel a strong connection to the organization and its mission”). Therefore, even when seemingly positive behaviors are specified by the organization, it mitigates some of the intrinsic pleasure of performing effectively on its behalf. Similarly, individuals are less likely to feel that they are making a uniquely positive contribution to the organization (Meyer & Dalal, 2009). They are also less likely to experience the intrinsic rewards of performing meaningful work. Therefore, we predict:

Hypothesis 2: Situational strength moderates the positive relationship between organizational identification and job satisfaction, such that stronger situations reduce the positive effects of organizational identification on job satisfaction.

Organizational Identification and Job Performance

Research also indicates a positive relationship between organizational identification and employees engaging in formal behaviors on behalf of the organization (Riketta, 2005). Specifically, theory suggests that individuals who strongly identify with an organization will inherently value formal work role behaviors (i.e., making a productive contribution to an organization they deeply care about) because they see it as central to who they are as individuals (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Wu e al., 2016). Empirical research supports this perspective and demonstrates that individuals who strongly identify with an organization are likely to have higher levels of in-role performance (Ashforth & Saks, 1996; Lee et al., 2015).

Extant scholarship also positively links organizational identification with volitional contributions, such as organizational citizenship behavior (Schuh et al., 2015). Individuals who strongly identify with an organization are more likely to contribute productively to it because they feel these behaviors are in their best interests and because the organization is important to their self-definition (Riketta, 2005; Van Knippenberg, 2000; Zhu, Riggio, Avolio, & Sosik, 2011). Employees’ in-role performance thus becomes a mechanism through which they can manifestly demonstrate support for their organization by enhancing its status and well-being. As such, we predict:

Hypothesis 3: Organizational identification will be positively related to job performance.

However, as Ashforth et al. (2008) suggest, it is possible that environmental limitations could hinder an individual who strongly identifies with the organization from acting on its behalf. One such constraint might be the strength of the situation (i.e., environmental signals restricting expression of individual differences). A combination of clearly delineated responsibilities and active monitoring may mitigate the positive influence of organizational identification on job performance. In such circumstances, it might be difficult to enact the behaviors necessary to increase job performance in a manner that differentiates oneself from less engaged peers, who have little choice but to enact the required behaviors necessary to maintain membership. When this occurs, there is likely to be less differentiation in the performance between employees who do or do not identify with the organization.

Strong situations are also likely to weaken the positive influence of organizational identification on motivation to work hard on behalf of the organization. Employees may feel like pawns of the organization rather than actors promoting it, thus minimizing their motivation (Gagné & Deci, 2005). This lack of control and agency will also likely mitigate the intrinsic pleasure derived from performing on behalf of the organization. In a strong situation, employees who identify with the organization are more likely to question the significance and uniqueness of their efforts (Meyer & Dalal, 2009), regressing their contributions to more closely resemble their peers who identify less strongly with the organization. Therefore, we predict:

Hypothesis 4: Situational strength moderates the positive relationship between organizational identification and job performance, such that stronger situations reduce the positive effects of organizational identification on job performance.

Overview of the Present Research

We collected information from a field sample of full-time employees to empirically test the relationships presented in the theoretical development and hypotheses sections of this article.

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to empirically test the relationships as described in the theoretical development and hypotheses sections of this work.

Design

In this study, we used a survey methodology to obtain data from a field sample of working adults. This process allowed us to obtain data from multiple sources (i.e., subordinate perceptions and supervisor ratings of subordinate performance) and included temporal separations between the variables. A priori, we instituted this data collection strategy to reduce the potentially deleterious effects of common method bias (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003).

Data Collection

We collected a field sample of employees working at an industrial company in the southern United States. A list of full-time employees (n = 158) received an electronic version of the initial (i.e., Time 1) survey containing the independent variables (organizational identification and demographic information). Approximately 1 month later (i.e., Time 2) we sent another survey that included the situational strength and job satisfaction items. One month after that (i.e., Time 3), supervisors rated the job performance of their direct reports who completed the first and second survey.

Sample

This protocol generated a final sample of 140 matched subordinate–supervisor dyads (89% response rate). On average, employees were about 47 years old (median = 47) with 11 years (median = 11) in their current jobs. The sample was 50% male. Thirty-one supervisors generated ratings of individuals who reported directly to them, which averages to 4.5 subordinates per supervisor.

Measures

Unless otherwise indicated, respondents used a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) to rate all items. At the behest of the field sample’s executive management, we administered measures that were parsimonious yet still could empirically suggest validity (Schwab, 2005). We evaluated factor analyses of the full measures on previously collected data and identified three items with the highest loadings from each scale, which became the measures administered in this study.

Organizational identification

We used Blader and Tyler’s (2009) measure (α = .77) to assess the extent to which subordinates identified with their employers (based on items from Mael & Ashforth, 1992). Our three items included questions such as “Working at my company is important to the way that I think of myself as a person” and “When someone praises the accomplishments of my company, it feels like a personal compliment to me.”

Situational strength

We used three items from each of the four dimensions (α = .71) of Meyer et al.’s (2014) Situational Strength at Work (SSW) scale to measure subordinate interpretation of cues regarding desired workplace behavior. Sample items include “On this job different sources of work information are always consistent with each other” and “On this job straightforward information is provided about what an employee needs to do to succeed.”

Job performance

We used three items (α = .95) from Williams and Anderson’s (1991) scale measuring workplace behavior. Our three items included items such as “Adequately complete assigned duties” and “Fulfills responsibilities specified in job description.”

Job satisfaction

We used the three-item (α = .88) job satisfaction scale from Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins, and Klesh (1983). Example items include “All in all, I am satisfied with my job” and “Overall, I like working here.”

Gender

A dummy variable captured employee gender (0 = female, 1 = male). We also collected subordinate age and tenure.

Data Analysis

We evaluated the factor structure, discriminant and convergent validity of study constructs using IBM SPSS Statistics/AMOS 22. Structural equation modeling was used to determine how well the collected data fit the structure of the focal constructs (Schumacker & Lomax, 1996). As shown in Table 1, results indicated that the expected three-factor measurement model (with situational strength configured as a second-order factor with four dimensions: clarity, constraints, consequences, consistency) for the predictor variables was acceptable, χ²(df) = 153.00 (128), p < .01; comparative fit index (CFI) = .98, incremental fit index (IFI) = .98, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .04.

Table 1.

Alternative Model Test Results.

No.	Model	χ²	df	χ²_diff	df _diff	CFI	IFI	RMSEA
1	3-factor model—2nd-order SS	153.00	128	—	—	.98	.98	.04
2	2-factor model—2nd-order SS combined with OI	230.94	131	77.94**	3	.92	.92	.07
3	2-factor model—2nd-order SS combined with JS	244.37	131	91.37**	3	.91	.91	.08
4	3-factor model—1st-order SS	621.95	135	468.95**	7	.59	.60	.16
5	2-factor model—1st-order SS combined JS and OI	695.65	138	542.65**	10	.53	.54	.17
6	2-factor model—1st-order SS combined with OI	775.39	138	622.39**	10	.47	.47	.18
7	2-factor model—1st-order SS combined with JS	877.37	138	724.37**	10	.38	.39	.20
8	1-factor model—all load on a single factor	978.96	140	825.96**	12	.30	.31	.21

Note. N = 140. SS = Situational Strength; OI = Organizational Identification; JS = Job Satisfaction; df = degrees of freedom; CFI = comparative fit index; IFI = incremental fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; diff = difference.

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

We developed alternate models to determine if grouping the variables/items in other configurations would produce structures that more precisely fit the data (see Table 1). We examined a model in which situational strength became a first order latent factor, where all 12 items loaded on the unidimensional factor structure. The fit of this construction was inadequate, χ²(df) = 621.95 (135), p < .01, CFI = .59, IFI = .60, RMSEA = .16, and the chi-square difference between the two constructions of situational strength, χ²_diff(7) = 468.95, p < .01, was statistically significant. A zero-order correlation exists between situational strength and organizational identification (r = .25, p < .01). We grouped the items from these scales together, loaded them onto a single latent factor, and compared this with the hypothesized model. Results for this construction indicated that the overall model-to-data fit was adequate, χ²(df) = 230.94 (131), p < .01, CFI = .92, IFI = .92, RMSEA = .07; however, it overlaid the data less effectively than the hypothesized model, χ²_diff (3) = 77.94, p < .01.

Another model grouped all of the collected items onto one factor. That is, we evaluated whether all collected items reflected one overarching construct. The fit of this single factor model was inadequate, χ²(df) = 978.96 (140), p < .01, CFI = .30, IFI = .31, RMSEA = .21, and the chi-square difference test, χ²_diff(12) = 825.96, p < .01, was statistically significant, suggesting these items should not be combined into one factor. We combined the predictor variables into other configurations (see Table 1), but none described the data as well as the hypothesized, theoretically driven, construct model.

The AVE of each latent variable exceeded .50 and the AVEs of each exceeded the squared correlation between the other focal variables and it. Table 2 presents descriptive statistics and zero-level correlations among the variables of the study. As previously noted, organizational identification positively relates with job satisfaction (r = .52, p < .01) and situational strength (r = .25, p < .01). As would be expected, age and tenure were positively related (r = .24, p < .01).

Table 2.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations.

Variable	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. Organizational Identification	3.77	.50
2. Situational Strength	3.33	.41	.25**
3. Age	46.86	9.73	−.10	.04
4. Tenure	7.86	4.72	.06	.06	.24**
5. Gender	.50	.50	−.03	−.16	−.28**	−.14
6. Job Satisfaction	4.36	.56	.52**	.11	−.09	.11	−.10
7. Job Performance (task)	4.18	.73	.09	.14	−.05	.05	−.24**	.26**

Note. N = 140. Values on the diagonal are coefficient alpha reliability estimates. Age and tenure measured in years.

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

Various regression techniques assume normality of the data input, although this may not be the case in any given sample. By resampling the original population and generating a confidence interval, bootstrapping (Mooney & Duval, 1993) endeavors to diminish the impact of skewed data. To provide a more robust empirical investigation, we integrated 1,000 bootstrapping iterations in our analyses. Using SPSS (Heck, Thomas, & Tabata, 2010), we ran a macro developed by Hayes (2013; PROCESS Template 1) to quantify the moderation previously described.

Hypothesis 1 suggests that organizational identification positively relates to subordinate job satisfaction. Where possible, we used multiple analytical techniques to confirm the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the studied relationships. We believe this provides additional credence to the relationships we propose and test. As shown in Table 2, there is a positive, statistically significant zero-order correlation between organizational identification and job satisfaction (r = .52, p < .01). Using the Hayes PROCESS protocol to run hierarchical moderation regression analyses, as shown in Model 4 in Table 3, the organizational identification coefficient is statistically significant (Β = .59, p < .01). Taken together, these results support Hypothesis 1.

Table 3.

Hierarchical Moderated Regression Results: Dependent Variable—Job Satisfaction.

Variable	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4
Controls
Age	−.01	.00	.00	.00
Tenure	.02	.01	.01	.01
Gender	−.15	−.11	−.12	−.11
Independent variable
Organizational Identification (OI)		.57**	.58**	.59**
Moderator
Situational Strength (SS)			−.06	−.11
Interaction
OI × SS				−.51**
R ²	.04	.29**	.30**	.34**

Note. N = 140.

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

Hypothesis 2 states that situational strength will moderate the relationship between organizational identification and subordinate job satisfaction such that the positive relationship will be weakened as situation strength increases. We created four models in which we entered additional variables in each progressive step. We first input the control variables, organizational identification second, situational strength third, and then the cross product of organizational identification and situational strength (i.e., the interaction) in the final step. Model 4 in Table 3, the coefficient of the interaction term is statistically significant (B = −.51, p < .01), which supports Hypothesis 2.

We plotted the relationship between organizational identification and job satisfaction for high (1 SD above the mean) and low (1 SD below the mean) levels of situational strength (Stone & Hollenbeck, 1989). The disordinal interaction shown in Figure 2 indicates that the positive relationship between organizational identification and job satisfaction was greater in weak situations. We ran a simple slope test to find out if the slopes in the interaction plot were significantly different from zero. These results indicated the relationship between organizational identification and job satisfaction was statistically significant (i.e., slope did not equal zero) in stronger situations (Β = .38, p < .01). Interestingly, in weaker situations the slope of this relationship is significant and more than twice as steep (Β = .79, p < .01). Taken together, these results support Hypothesis 2.

Figure 2.

Interaction of organizational identification and situational strength on job satisfaction (hierarchical moderation regression).

The dependent variable in Hypothesis 1 and Hypothesis 2 is job satisfaction. Ratings of job satisfaction are self-reports that means each organizational identification–job satisfaction correlate is unique. That is to say, the data are not nested within supervisory perceptions. However, the dependent variable in Hypothesis 3 and Hypothesis 4 are collected from supervisory rating of subordinate performance that means rating tendencies of a specific supervisor can potentially influence the ratings for all direct reports of that supervisor. As the supervisors rated multiple subordinates (roughly 4 subordinates per rater), the possibility for nonindependent ratings exists.

We calculated intraclass correlations to parcel the proportion of rating variance that is potentially attributable to nested effects (James, 1982) occurring from supervisors rating multiple subordinates. The estimate of covariance parameters (intraclass correlations) for job performance was .45 between supervisors and the intercepts of performance differed significantly (Wald Z = 2.71, p < .01). This suggests nonindependence effects (Hox, 2002), in terms of subordinate performance being influenced by idiosyncratic rating effects nested among individual supervisors. That is to say, some supervisors may be consistently more (or less) generous in their ratings of subordinate performance than others. Therefore, to address the potential nesting effects between supervisors, we utilized a mixed model (Hofmann, 1997; Hofmann & Gavin, 1998) consistent with the protocols of hierarchical linear modeling (Raudenbush, Bryk, Cheong, Congdon, & du Toit, 2004) to examine the data.

Hypothesis 3 suggests organizational identification positively relates to supervisor ratings of subordinate job performance. Table 2 does not indicate a positive, statistically significant zero-order correlation between organizational identification and job performance (r = .09, n.s.). However, as shown in Model 4 in Table 4, the relation between organizational identification and job performance is both positive and statistically significant (Β = .17, p < .05), which supports Hypothesis 3.

Table 4.

Mixed Effect Modeling Results: Dependent Variable—Job Performance.

Variable	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4
Controls
Age	−.01	.00	.00	.00
Tenure	.00	.00	.00	.00
Gender	−.23*	−.21*	−.20*	−.20*
Independent variable
Organizational Identification (OI)		.17*	.16*	.17**
Moderator
Situational Strength (SS)			.06	.00
Interaction
ID × SS				−.55**
Pseudo-R²		.02	.00	.06

Note. N = 140.

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

Hypothesis 4 states that situational strength will moderate the relationship between organizational identification and subordinate job performance such that the positive relationship will be weakened as situation strength increases and this result is shown in Model 4 in Table 4, the coefficient of the interaction term is statistically significant (Β = −.55, p < .01), which supports Hypothesis 4.

Again, we graphed the relationship between organizational identification and job performance for high (1 SD above the mean) and low (1 SD below the mean) levels of situational strength (Stone & Hollenbeck, 1989). Figure 3 reveals a disordinal interaction, showing a positive relationship between organizational identification and job performance in weaker situations but not in stronger ones. We executed a simple slope test to determine if the slopes in Figure 3 were significantly different from zero. This result shows that in weaker situations the relationship between organizational identification and supervisor ratings of subordinate job performance was statistically significant (Β = .40, p < .01), but this relationship was not significant in stronger situations (Β = −.05, n.s.).

Figure 3.

Interaction of organizational identification and situational strength on job performance (mixed effects modeling).

Results

We found support for the hypothesized effects. The results indicated that organizational identification will lead to valued outcomes (attitudes and job performance), but these relations will be mitigated by the context (e.g., situational strength). That is, the benefits of organizational identification will manifest when the situation allows (i.e., is weak) but will be less likely to occur when the subordinate operates in a rigid or highly controlled environment (i.e., strong situation).

Discussion

This study sought to explore how the situation may moderate the positive influence of organizational identification on outcomes in the workplace. As the theory of organizational identification (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Lee et al., 2015) would predict, individuals who strongly identify with an organization are likely to experience higher levels of job satisfaction and work to support their employer. Individuals who identify with an organization try to promote its success and experience greater job satisfaction as their contributions benefit both the employee and the employer (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Riketta, 2005). Extant scholarship reinforces this notion as organizational identification positively relates to various forms of productive, volitional behavior (i.e., helping, contextual performance, citizenship behavior—Lee et al., 2015). However, as noted, little work has elucidated the limits of these relationships or explore situations that limit the opportunity for those who care deeply about their organization to manifest their affinity for it. Our work provides additional nuance to our understanding of organizational identification by examining how the strength of the workplace situation might influence the effect of organizational identification on employee attitudes (i.e., satisfaction) and behavior (i.e., performance) within the framework of their formal roles.

The empirical results presented in the current work are consistent with and support the hypothesized relationships. As can be seen in Figure 2, the relationship between organizational identification and job satisfaction is positive in both the strong and weak situations, although the impact of this effect is significantly greater in weak situations. Figure 3 shows almost no relationship between organizational identification and job performance in strong situations—in essence, the line is flat. However, in weak situations, there is a robust, positive association between organizational identification and job performance.

Theoretical and Practical Implications

The body of scholarship routinely extols the positive benefits of organizational identification (Lee et al., 2015; Riketta, 2005). What the organizational identity literature lacks, however, is theoretically driven examination of the conditions that constrain these generally positive effects. The present research contributes to the literature by demonstrating one such condition. Specifically, our findings suggest that situational strength moderates the relation between organizational identification and employee outcomes (i.e., attitudes and behaviors). They also show that the beneficial effects of organizational identification are likely more pronounced for employees who enjoy discretion to determine how they execute their work (i.e., those who operate in weak situations), as opposed to individuals who are externally influenced by the organization and work environment (i.e., those who operate in strong situations). This effect suggests that the benefits of organizational identity are more likely to occur among those who have a say in determining their behaviors at work.

This research evokes questions about what drives satisfaction and performance in strong workplace situations. Our findings suggest that factors outside the employee (e.g., robust operational processes, leadership ability) are salient factors predicting individual performance in strong situations. However, important questions remain related to those operating in restrictive environments. For example, what is the long-term well-being of employees in such circumstances and how employees might perceive the challenges and/or benefits of highly structured work roles? Our work leaves open questions about the relative potency of organizational identification in strong situations (e.g., how does this restrictive environment influence the turnover intention of employees who strongly identify with the organization).

In addition, our findings have implications for Rousseau’s (1998) notion of situated identification. As the name implies, situated identification is primarily a function of situational cues and is contingent on environmental factors. Given the paucity of research that directly examines the environmental characteristics that encourage situated identification, we provide initial evidence that situational strength might be one important mechanism that could influence it. As such, the present research also contributes to the situational strength literature, which has repeatedly been shown to be an important, theoretically driven moderator of several organizationally relevant relationships (Barrick & Mount, 1993; Bowling et al., 2015; Meyer et al., 2009; Meyer et al., 2014).

Our research also has important implications for practitioners. Given the evidence relating organizational identity with positive outcomes, it would seem that promoting alignment between individual and organizational identity would be beneficial. However, as the present findings indicate, such situations may be complex. The impact of organizational identification will likely differ across job functions (and supervisors), so its projected benefit may not occur broadly (or uniformly) across the company.

As practitioners operate within their organizations to develop roles and enhance employee organizational identification, it is important that they consider the context within which the employees are working. It is possible that in strong workplace situations employee identification can be enhanced and not necessarily result in higher levels of performance or employee satisfaction. It might also be possible that in strong situations, attempts to increase identification could have deleterious effects as restricted opportunities of individual expression may frustrate employees. This might be especially true for employees who care deeply about their relationship with the organization, yet see little connection between their individualized efforts and job performance. Given that both satisfaction and performance are at their highest when organizational identification is high, but situational strength is low, these results suggest that identification should be allowed to develop organically among employees.

Limitations

As with most scholarship in the organizational sciences, this research is subject to certain limitations. As mentioned previously, the use of self-reported perceptions of organizational identification and situational strength does not provide multiple sources for these variables. Given that common method bias can only attenuate interaction effects (Siemsen, Roth, & Oliveira, 2010), the significant interaction effects detected in this study should be viewed as occurring in spite of (as opposed to being driven by) common method variance. Given the importance of interaction effects in the present article, we argue that the potential of common method variance may ultimately strengthen our results and conclusions. However, future research efforts aimed at replicating and/or extending our findings might introduce additional sources of data (e.g., peer ratings of situation strength, archival measures of performance) to help address this issue.

Future Research

Future research might explore other contextual variables that potentially play a moderating role on the positive relationship between organizational identification and outcomes. For example, analyzing various leadership contexts (e.g., styles and approaches) has the potential to provide additional insight into how circumstances might strengthen or weaken the relationship. For example, what is the interplay between leader–member exchange (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005; Gerstner & Day, 1997; Martin, Thomas, Legood, & Dello Russo, 2017) and situational strength? Also, are strong situations created by the direct supervisor or do they develop as a function of formal (or informal) organizational directives?

Future research could also examine the role of interactional fairness (Bies, 2001; Bies & Moag, 1986) as a salient concern in terms of heightening (or depressing) organizational identification. Employees can view their supervisors as the most immediate representative of the organization (Collins & Mossholder, 2017) who can promote (or impede) the development of constructive operational norms. The potential relevance of the interactional form of fairness likely stems from the frequency and intimate nature of interactional exchanges, as well as the notion that the character of the exchange is under direct control of supervisors (Collins & Mossholder, 2017; Collins, Mossholder, & Taylor, 2012). The extent to which subordinates perceive interactional fairness from their supervisors may influence the level and salience of their organizational identification.

Another potential avenue for future research is the exploration of the distinction between “situated identification” and “deep structure identification” in the context of strong situations (Rousseau, 1998). Situated is a relatively superficial, temporally fleeting form of identification that is not only initiated by situational cues but is contingent upon them (i.e., it tends to change with environmental considerations). In general, this is consistent with the notion of situational strength as described by Meyer et al. (2009; Meyer et al., 2010; Meyer et al., 2014) and as posited in the current work. Deep structured identification is a more permanent and unconditional aspect of one’s persona as it remains relatively stable despite changes in environmental considerations.

Unfortunately, there is presently no way to adequately differentiate between situated identification and deep structural identification in applied environments. That is, extant scales designed to assess identification operate under the assumption that all forms of identification are created equal. We believe extending this construct and developing valid measures that actively differentiate between situated and deep structure identity would be valuable. To the extent that instruments provide researchers and practitioners with this information, additional scales would broaden the identification landscape, and help to increase the precision and sophistication of results such as those found here.

Conclusion

The present findings contribute to the substantial body of literature suggesting that organizational identification is a significant predictor of a host of important outcomes (Ashforth et al., 2008; Lee et al., 2015). However, it further extends and provides important nuance to this literature by explicating one set of conditions under which at least two key relationships (i.e., the identification–satisfaction relationship and the identification–performance relationship) are more and less pronounced. Consistent with the budding literature on situational strength (i.e., the relative presence of behaviorally relevant environmental cues), we demonstrated that the relationships in question are significantly more positive in weak situations than in strong situations. Ultimately, this research provides an early foundation for future research that will further explicate additional considerations in the relationship between organizational identification and various outcomes.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

ORCID iD

Brian J. Collins

Author Biographies

Brian J. Collins is an associate professor of management at the University of Southern Mississippi. He is interested in the influence of interdependence on attitudes and behavior.

Benjamin M. Galvin is an assistant professor in the Marriott School of Business at Brigham Young University. His research interests include leadership, identity, individual differences, and inclusion.

Rustin D. Meyer is an assistant professor of Industrial/Organizational Psychology at Penn State. He studies the ways in which individual differences interact with situational variables to better understand and predict valued workplace outcomes, with a particular emphasis on situational strength’s role in the expression of personality.

References

Ashforth

B. E.

(2016). Distinguished scholar invited essay: exploring identity and identification in organizations: Time for some course corrections. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 23, 361-373.

Ashforth

B. E.

Harrison

S. H.

Corley

K. G.

(2008). Identification in organizations: An examination of four fundamental questions. Journal of Management, 34, 325-374.

Ashforth

B. E.

Mael

(1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20-39.

Ashforth

B. E.

Saks

A. M.

(1996). Socialization tactics: Longitudinal effects on newcomer adjustment. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 149-178.

Baard

P. P.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(2004). The relation of intrinsic need satisfaction to performance and well-being in two work settings. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 2045-2068.

Barrick

M. R.

Mount

M. K.

(1993). Autonomy as a moderator of the relationship between conscientiousness and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 111-118.

Barrick

M. R.

Mount

M. K.

(1996). Effects of impression management and self-deception on the predictive validity of personality constructs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 261-272.

Beaty

J. C.

Jr. Cleveland

J. N.

Murphy

K. R.

(2001). The relation between personality and contextual performance in” strong” versus” weak” situations. Human Performance, 14, 125-148.

Bies

R. J.

(2001). Interactional (in) justice: The sacred and the profane. In Greenberg

Cropanzano

R. S.

(Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp. 89-118). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

10.

Bies

R. J.

Moag

J. S.

(1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In Lewicki

R. J.

Sheppard

B. H.

Bazerman

M. H.

(Eds.), Research on negotiations in organizations (Vol. 1, pp. 43-55). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

11.

Blader

S. L.

Tyler

T. R.

(2009). Testing and extending the group engagement model: Linkages between social identity, procedural justice, economic outcomes, and extra-role behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 445-464.

12.

Bowling

N. A.

Khazon

Meyer

R. D.

Burrus

C. J.

(2015). Situational strength as a moderator of the relationship between job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analytic examination. Journal of Business and Psychology, 30(1), 89-104.

13.

Cammann

Fichman

Jenkins

G. D.

Klesh

J. R.

(1983). Assessing the attitudes and perceptions of organizational members. In Seashore

S. E.

(Ed.), Assessing organizational change: A guide to methods, measures, and practices (pp. 71-119). New York, NY: Wiley.

14.

Collins

B. J.

Mossholder

K. W.

(2017). Fairness means more to some than others: interactional fairness, job embeddedness, and discretionary work behaviors. Journal of Management, 43, 293-318.

15.

Collins

B. J.

Mossholder

K. W.

Taylor

S. G.

(2012). Does process fairness affect job performance? It only matters if they plan to stay. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 1007-1026.

16.

Conroy

Henle

C. A.

Shore

Stelman

(2017). Where there is light, there is dark: A review of the detrimental outcomes of high organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38, 184-203.

17.

Cropanzano

R. S.

Mitchell

M. S.

(2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31, 874-900.

18.

Edwards

J. R.

(2008). Person-environment fit in organizations: An assessment of theoretical progress. Academy of Management Annals, 2, 167-230.

19.

Gagné

Deci

E. L.

(2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 331-362.

20.

Galvin

B. M.

Lange

Ashforth

B. E.

(2015). Narcissistic organizational identification: Seeing oneself as central to the organization’s identity. Academy of Management Review, 40, 163-181.

21.

Gerstner

C. R.

Day

D. V.

(1997). Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 827-844.

22.

Grant

A. M.

Parker

S. K.

(2009). 7 redesigning work design theories: The rise of relational and proactive perspectives. Academy of Management Annals, 3, 317-375.

23.

Hayes

A. F.

(2013). An introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford.

24.

Heck

R. H.

Thomas

S. L.

Tabata

L. N.

(2010). Multilevel and longitudinal modeling with IBM SPSS. New York, NY: Routledge.

25.

Hofmann

D. A.

(1997). An overview of the logic and rationale of hierarchical linear models. Journal of Management, 23, 723-744.

26.

Hofmann

D. A.

Gavin

M. B.

(1998). Centering decisions in hierarchical linear models: Implications for research in organizations. Journal of Management, 24, 623-641.

27.

Hox

J. J.

(2002). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

28.

James

L. R.

(1982). Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 219-229.

29.

Judge

T. A.

Klinger

(2008). Job satisfaction: Subjective well-being at work. In Eid

Larsen

R. J.

(Eds.), The science of subjective well-being (pp. 393-413). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

30.

Lee

E.-S.

Park

T.-Y.

Koo

(2015). Identifying organizational identification as a basis for attitudes and behaviors: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 141, 1049-1080.

31.

Loi

Chan

K. W.

Lam

L. W.

(2014). Leader-member exchange, organizational identification, and job satisfaction: A social identity perspective. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87(1), 42-61.

32.

Mael

Ashforth

B. E.

(1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 103-123.

33.

Martin

Thomas

Legood

Dello Russo

(2017). Leader–member exchange (LMX) differentiation and work outcomes: Conceptual clarification and critical review. Journal of Organizational Behavior. Advance online publication. doi:10.1002/job.2202

34.

May

D. R.

Chang

Y. K.

Shao

(2015). Does ethical membership matter? Moral identification and its organizational implications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 681-694.

35.

Meyer

R. D.

Dalal

R. S.

(2009). Situational strength as a means of conceptualizing context. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2(1), 99-102.

36.

Meyer

R. D.

Dalal

R. S.

Bonaccio

(2009). A meta-analytic investigation into the moderating effects of situational strength on the conscientiousness-performance relationship. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 1077-1102.

37.

Meyer

R. D.

Dalal

R. S.

Hermida

(2010). A review and synthesis of situational strength in the organizational sciences. Journal of Management, 36, 121-140.

38.

Meyer

R. D.

Dalal

R. S.

Irwin

J. J.

Hermida

Chen

T. R.

Vega

R. P.

Khare

V. P.

(2014). Measuring job-related situational strength and assessing its interactive effects with personality on voluntary work behavior. Journal of Management, 40, 1010-1041.

39.

Mooney

C. Z.

Duval

R. D.

(1993). Bootstrapping: A nonparametric approach to statistical inference (No. 94-95). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

40.

Olkkonen

M. E.

Lipponen

(2006). Relationships between organizational justice, identification with organization and work unit, and group-related outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100, 202-215.

41.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Lee

J. Y.

Podsakoff

N. P.

(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.

42.

Raudenbush

S. W.

Bryk

Cheong

Y. F.

Congdon

du Toit

(2004). HLM 6: Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.

43.

Riketta

(2005). Organizational identification: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 358-384.

44.

Rousseau

D. M.

(1998). Why workers still identify with organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 217-233.

45.

Saks

A. M.

Ashforth

B. E.

(1997). A longitudinal investigation of the relationships between job information sources, applicant perceptions of fit, and work outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 50, 395-426.

46.

Schaubroeck

J. M.

Peng

A. C.

Hannah

S. T.

(2013). Developing trust with peers and leaders: Impacts on organizational identification and performance during entry. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 1148-1168.

47.

Schuh

S. C.

Zhang

X. A.

Egold

N. W.

Graf

M. M.

Pandey

van Dick

(2015). Leader and follower organizational identification: The mediating role of leader behaviour and implications for follower OCB. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 85, 421-432.

48.

Schumacker

R. E.

Lomax

R. G.

(1996). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

49.

Schwab

D. P.

(2005). Research methods for organizational studies. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

50.

Siemsen

Roth

Oliveira

(2010). Common method bias in regression models with linear, quadratic, and interaction effects. Organizational Research Methods, 13, 456-476.

51.

Snyder

Ickes

(1985). Personality and social behavior. In Lindzey

Aronson

(Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, 3rd ed., pp. 883-947). New York, NY: Random House.

52.

Stone

E. F.

Hollenbeck

J. R.

(1989). Clarifying some controversial issues surrounding statistical procedures for detecting moderator variables: Empirical evidence and related matters. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(1), 3-10.

53.

Van Dick

van Knippenberg

Kerschreiter

Hertel

Wieseke

. (2008). Interactive effects of work group and organizational identification on job satisfaction and extra-role behavior. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72, 388-399.

54.

Van Knippenberg

. (2000). Work motivation and performance: A social identity perspective. Applied Psychology, 49, 357-371.

55.

Williams

L. J.

Anderson

S. E.

(1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17, 601-617.

56.

C. H.

Liu

Kwan

H. K.

Lee

(2016). Why and when workplace ostracism inhibits organizational citizenship behaviors: An organizational identification perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101, 362-378.

57.

Zhang

Chen

C. C.

(2013). Developmental leadership and organizational citizenship behavior: Mediating effects of self-determination, supervisor identification, and organizational identification. Leadership Quarterly, 24, 534-543.

58.

Zhu

Riggio

R. E.

Avolio

B. J.

Sosik

J. J.

(2011). The effect of leadership on follower moral identity: Does transformational/transactional style make a difference? Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 18, 150-163.