Continued organizational identification following involuntary job loss
ABSTRACT Purpose – Continued identification with a former employer may provide valuable self-enhancement during transition, or it may highlight unsettling self-discontinuity. This study seeks to develop and test competing hypotheses regarding the extent to which continued organizational identification relates to psychological well-being following involuntary job loss. Design/methodology/approach – The author conducted a two-wave survey study spanning six months during the recent financial crisis in 2008 to test these hypotheses. Results are presented for 86 employees in two samples, 45 who were unemployed at the beginning of the study and 41 who lost their jobs during the study. Findings – Continued organizational identification positively related to psychological well-being in both samples. In a post-hoc analysis, this relationship held only for employees who attributed their job loss to themselves, rather than to external factors such as their organizations. Research limitations/implications – The results are based on a limited sample both in terms of size and scope; accordingly, they are best used to explain the relationships for the sample from which they were drawn, professional employees in the USA with a business education, about half of whom worked in the financial services industry. Practical implications – Being identified with an employing organization is not only beneficial for current employees and their organizations, but also helps employees whose jobs have been terminated. Managers and counselors should advise people to reflect upon, rather than distance themselves from, aspects of their identities based in former employers. Originality/value – This is the first study to examine the role of organizational identification in individual response to involuntary job loss.
- SourceAvailable from: Kevin G. Corley[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The literature on identification in organizations is surprisingly diverse and large. This article reviews the literature in terms of four fundamental questions. First, under “What is identification?,” it outlines a continuum from narrow to broad formulations and differentiates situated identification from deep identification and organizational identification from organizational commitment. Second, in answer to “Why does identification matter?,” it discusses individual and organizational outcomes as well as several links to mainstream organizational behavior topics. Third, regarding “How does identification occur?,” it describes a process model that involves cycles of sensebreaking and sensegiving, enacting identity and sensemaking, and constructing identity narratives. Finally, under “One or many?,” it discusses team, workgroup, and subunit; relational; occupational and career identifications; and how multiple identifications may conflict, converge, and combine.Journal of Management 01/2008; 34(3):325-374. · 4.59 Impact Factor
- The Academy of Management Review 01/1989; 14(1):pp. 20-39. · 6.17 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: In order to investigate the development of organizational identification during a merger, a quasi-experimental case study was conducted on a pending merger of police organizations. The research was conducted among employees who would be directly involved in the merger and among indirectly involved employees. In contrast to earlier studies, organizational identification was measured as the expected identification prior to the merger. Five determinants were used to explain the employees' expected identification: (a) identification with the pre-merger organization, (b) sense of continuity, (c) expected utility of the merger, (d) communication climate before the merger and (e) communication about the merger. The five determinants appeared to explain a considerable proportion of the variance of expected organizational identification. Results suggest that in order to obtain a strong identification with the soon-to-be-merged organization, managers should pay extra attention to current departments with weaker social bonds as these are expected to identify the least with the new organization. The role of the communication variables differed between the two employee groups: communication about the merger only contributed to the organizational identification of directly involved employees; and communication climate only affected the identification of indirectly involved employees.British Journal of Management 02/2006; 17(S1):S49 - S67. · 1.52 Impact Factor