Members’ Team Identification
An Exploratory Study of Identification in UN Peacebuilding Teams
Dissertation zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades eines Doktors der Sozialwissenschaften
vorgelegt von
Sebastian Döring
an der
Rechts, Wirtschafts und Verwaltungswissenschaftliche Sektion Fachbereich Politik und Verwaltungswissenschaft
Tag der mündlichen Prüfung: 22.12.2011 1. Referentin: Prof. Dr. Sabine Boerner 2. Referent: Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Seibel
Konstanzer Online-Publikations-System (KOPS) URL: http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bsz:352-170236
Of all of the central questions of organizational identification, the one that has probably received the least attention by organizational scholars has been, ‘How does
organizational identification occur?’
Pratt (1998: 192)
In commemoration of our interview partners Kai Buchholz, Guido Galli, and Fred Wooldridge who lost their lives during their duty for UN Peacebuilding
in Port-au-Prince on January 12, 2010
Executive Summary
Members’ identification has long been considered an important phenomenon in teams. Research has shown that individuals’ team identification may lead to a number of desirable member behaviors, including the willingness to engage in activities that benefit the group (e.g., Dutton, Dukerich, & Harquail, 1994; Haslam, Powell, & Turner, 2000), the readiness to communicate and cooperate (e.g., Dukerich, Golden, & Shortell, 2002), loyalty (van Vugt & Hart, 2004), and team learning (Van der Vegt & Bunderson, 2005).
Yet, despite the importance of identification, the knowledge about its emergence and contingencies has remained rather limited. The research presented in this dissertation contributes to a better understanding of team identification (TI) by specifying the cognitive, affective, and behavioral processes involved in TI emergence, their mutual relation, as well as central contingency factors that pertain to an individual’s identification path. Based on interview and observational data stemming from members of seven heterogeneous teams in the context of UN peacebuilding operations, the thesis presents a grounded theory analysis of TI emergence. It shows that when individuals become members of a team, they engage in processes of identity enactment, team experience sensemaking, team outcome evaluation, and identity narrative adaption. Thereby, they either choose a withdrawal, reactive, or active convergence mode to reconcile the team’s identity with their existing identity narrative. As a result of this convergence, members may subsequently develop either negative, temporary, or deep-structured identification.
Furthermore, seven contingency factors are shown to influence how the members’ TI
emergence unfolds. On the team level, these are, (1) the nature of the team’s collective
identity, (2) a team’s performance, (3) the degree of interaction and communication in a
team, (4) a team’s scope of autonomy, and (5) team leadership. On the level of the system
in which a team is embedded, we found (6) environmental hostility and favorability, as
well as (7) the collective system culture to constitute strong influences of the emergence
of members’ TI. Finally, the thesis provides tentative insights into the temporal sequence
of TI emergence and shows that it is likely to emerge in repeating cycles and follow
certain patterns. As such, the present work provides important insights for practitioners
and scholars alike.
German Summary
Die Identifikation von Angestellten mit Ihren Arbeitsgruppen, sogenannte Team- Identifikation (TI) ist bereits seit langem ein vielbeachtetes Phänomen in der Organisationswissenschaft. So postulieren Studien, dass ein hohes Maß von TI zu gewünschtem Mitarbeiterverhalten führt, beispielsweise einen gesteigerten Willen, zur Gemeinschaft beizutragen (e.g., Dutton et al., 1994; Haslam et al., 2000), erhöhte Kommunikations- und Kooperationsbereitschaft (e.g., Dukerich et al., 2002), höhere Loyalität (van Vugt & Hart, 2004) und gestiegene Lerndisposition (Van der Vegt &
Bunderson, 2005). Trotz des potentiell hohen Einflusses der Team-Identifikation
zugeschrieben wird, liegt der Entstehungsprozess von TI sowie die darin auftretenden
Einflussfaktoren weitestgehend im Dunkeln. Die vorliegende Arbeit hat zum Ziel, die
Entstehung von Team-Identifikation nachvollziehbarer zu machen, indem sie die darin
auftretenden kognitiven, affektiven und behavioristischen Prozesse identifiziert, sowie die
wichtigsten Kontingenzfaktoren beschreibt, die auf diese wirken. Auf Grundlage von
Interviews und teilnehmender Beobachtung in sieben heterogen besetzten Teams im
Kontext zweier UN Friedensoperationen versucht diese Arbeit eine Grounded Theory von
Team-Identifikation zu formulieren. Die Arbeit zeigt, dass vier Prozesse in Individuen
ausgelöst werden, wenn sie Teil eines Teams werden. Sie bringen eine oder mehrere
saliente Identitäten in die Gruppe ein (‚enacting’), bestimmen dann die Bedeutung Ihrer
Teamerfahrung (‚sensemaking’) und evaluieren diese (‚evaluating’). Schließlich erwägen
sie eine Änderung ihres Identitäts-Narratives (‚adapting’). Dabei nutzen sie eine von drei
Änderungsstrategien (aktiv, passiv, oder Rückzug) die wiederum den Typ von TI
bestimmen den die Individuen entwickeln (tiefgreifende TI, temporäre TI, oder negative
TI). Darüber hinaus identifiziert diese Arbeit sieben Kontingenzfaktoren, die auf die
beschriebenen Prozesse wirken. Auf der Ebene des Teams sind dies (1) die Beschaffenheit
der Kollektiven Gruppenidentität, (2) die Teamperformanz, (3) der Grad von Interaktion
und Kommunikation in einem Team, (4) die Handlungsfreiheit eines Teams, sowie (5) die
Teamführung. Auf der Ebene des Gesamtsystems wurden die Faktoren (6) Feindlichkeit
der Umwelt, sowie (7) kollektive Systemkultur identifiziert. Schließlich bietet die Arbeit
einen Ausblick auf erste Erkenntnisse in Bezug auf den zeitlichen und inhaltlichen
Zusammenhang zwischen den beschriebenen Prozessen und fasst diese in einem
Zyklischen Model von TI Entstehung zusammen.
Acknowledgements
Despite the fact that this thesis is by a single author, I have written large parts from a ‘we’ perspective since the research presented is not only the fruit of my own work and thinking. I have enjoyed substantial assistance and support from a number of colleagues, for which I am very appreciative. The present work was written in the context of a larger research project at the Center of Excellence, University of Konstanz, Germany. This project, entitled “Construction of collective identity and dynamics of organizational learning in UN peacekeeping operations” was planed and successfully submitted for funding by the late Prof. Dr. Rüdiger Klimecki and Dr. Melanie Schreiner-Mai both at the Chair of Management. I am truly thankful for their intellectual guidance and deeply saddened that Rüdiger Klimecki did not live to see the fruits of his work. As my first academic mentor, he will always be remembered.
Although my dissertation concentrates on one specific aspect of the originally proposed research agenda, and has deviated considerably from it over time, the ground for my doctoral work had already been paved when I joined the research team. That is, when I started the work that eventually led to the book at hand, the funding for the field investigations had already been secured, the main constructs had been defined, and the first interviews with peacebuilding practitioners had been conducted in order to establish a preliminary research agenda. It goes without saying that this constituted a great help for my work and deserves my sincere gratitude. My own participation in the research project started with the pilot study visit to Liberia in early 2008. Although I conducted this trip as well as the ensuing analysis alone, on many subsequent visits I was accompanied by my dear colleague Dr. Melanie Schreiner-Mai, with whom I carried out all of the preliminary interviews and most of the interviews for the main investigation. On these trips, she was a valuable and truly congenial partner for conducting the in-situ data analysis and developing preliminary models and conceptualizations in both Liberia and Haiti. For the literal transcription of the interviews, I was fortunate to receive substantial help from a number of student assistants. The fruitful intellectual exchange with Melanie also continued through the computer-assisted coding and recoding of the primary documents.
At later stages of the analysis process, two student assistants, Julia Finken and Sebastian
Kupferschmid, supported us. Melanie, furthermore, collaborated in the carving out of the
final model and the literature research for the original research agenda. For the secondary analysis of the data pertaining to leadership behaviors I joined forces with my colleague Hendrik Hüttermann, who also contributed considerable intellectual work to the development of the Excursus on leadership that is presented in this thesis. I thank Hendrik for his friendship and the two years of fruitful and exiting intellectual exchange. In parallel to the drafting of this thesis, I worked on the preparation of our results for a submission at the Academy of Management Journal (AMJ). This led to a prolific cross- fertilization between the two texts, in particular the results part of the thesis. In this process I profited greatly from the input of the AMJ Editor and three anonymous reviewers. In addition, I have enjoyed the help and academic guidance of my thesis supervisor Prof. Dr. Sabine Boerner who has served as a constant source of support as well as an irreplaceable intellectual inspiration. I could not have wished for a better advisor. I am also deeply thankful to the Center of Excellence at the University of Konstanz for their generous support and funding over the past three years. My appreciation goes in particular to Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Seibel, a member of the center’s board, who also served as second supervisor for this dissertation. It is thanks to his ongoing encouragement and backing that this project could be realized even after Prof. Dr.
Rüdiger Klimecki’s much too early death. Finally, I would like to thank our interview partners in Geneva, New York City, Haiti, and Liberia for their time and the many insights they shared with us. Without them, this work would not have been possible.
In addition to the collaborators and interview partners in my research project, I have received constant encouragement and support from my close friends and fellow doctoral candidates in Konstanz Florian, Matthias, and Martin. Their friendship and the many good times spent together have made time fly by and have left me with a great sense of appreciation. Finally, but most importantly, my thanks go to my dear Natalie who supported me through good and bad times, and my mother who always believed in me. I dedicate this work to my father. I know it would have meant a lot to him.
Konstanz, September 2011 Sebastian Döring
List of Acronyms
AIDS Acquired Immune-Deficiency Syndrome CTI Collective Team Identity
CST United Nations County Support Team
DPA United Nations Department of Political Affairs DPI United Nations Department of Public Information DOCO United Nations Development Coordination Office
DPKO United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations (UN) FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations GTG United Nations Gender Theme Group
HIV Human Immunodeficiency Virus HQ Headquarters
ILO International Labor Organization IMF International Monetary Fund
IOM International Organization for Migration JUNTA Joint UN Team on HIV/AIDS
MINUSTAH Mission des Nations Unies pour la Stabilisation en Haïti NGO Non-Governmental Organization
OCHA Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
OHCHR Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
OI Organizational Identification
TI Team Identification
US United States
UNAIDS Joint United Nations Programme on HIV and AIDS UNCG United Nations Communication Group
UNCT United Nations Country Team
UNDAF United Nations Development Assistance Framework UNDG United Nations Development Group
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
UNDPKO United Nations Deportment of Peacekeeping Operations
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization UNFPA United Nations Population Fund
UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees UNICEF United Nations Fund for Children
UNIFEM United Nations Development Fund for Women UNMIL United Nations Mission in Liberia
UNOPS United Nations Office for Project Services UNSC United Nations Security Council
UNSG United Nations Secretary General WB World Bank Group
WFP World Food Program
WHO Word Health Organization
List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1-1: Structure of the thesis... 8
Exhibit 3-1: Studies on antecedents and emergence of identification since 1990... 23
Exhibit 3-2: Antecedents of OI according to Mael and Ashforth 1992... 24
Exhibit 3-3: Antecedents and correlates of identification in organizations... 25
Exhibit 4-1: The process of grounded theory building... 40
Exhibit 4-2: UN peacebuilding in Liberia and Haiti in 2008 / 2009 ... 51
Exhibit 4-3: Map of Liberia... 54
Exhibit 4-4: Map of Haiti ... 57
Exhibit 4-5: Team characteristics and diversity in Teams A-G ... 60
Exhibit 4-6: Measure for TI / OI adapted from Bergami and Bagozzi 2000... 63
Exhibit 4-7: Excerpt of a participatory observation protocol... 66
Exhibit 4-8: Identity related scales used in the follow-up survey ... 67
Exhibit 4-9: Etic scheme for structuring data incidents (1
st- 2
ndweek)... 71
Exhibit 4-10: Provisionary list of categories and concepts (3
rd- 4
thweek)... 72
Exhibit 4-11: Emergence of new concepts during field investigation... 73
Exhibit 4-12: TI emergence as learning process: First conceptualization... 74
Exhibit 4-13: Preliminary TI model after analysis of Teams A-D ... 75
Exhibit 4-14: Team member interviews: Typical phases and topic allocations... 77
Exhibit 4-15: Exemplary code tree from Atlas.ti ... 79
Exhibit 4-16: Aggregate theoretical categories, sub-categories, and concepts ... 81
Exhibit 5-1: Factsheet Team A... 86
Exhibit 5-2: Factsheet Team C ... 92
Exhibit 5-3: Factsheet Team D... 100
Exhibit 5-4: Factsheet Team E ... 106
Exhibit 5-5: Factsheet Team B ... 112
Exhibit 5-6: Factsheet Team F ... 118
Exhibit 5-7: Factsheet Team G... 123
Exhibit 5-8: Identification episodes during the emergence of team identification... 126
Exhibit 5-9: Sensemaking phases and in-group/out-group comparisons ... 130
Exhibit 5-10: Alternations of sensemaking focus ... 133
Exhibit 5-11: Facets of adapting and their interdependence ... 143
Exhibit 5-12: Sub-processes of TI emergence... 153
Exhibit 5-13: Contingency factors and their influence on TI emergence... 154
Exhibit 5-14: Collective team identity, performance, and identification ... 156
Exhibit 5-15: Interacting and communicating in Teams A-G ... 161
Exhibit 5-16: Leadership behavior illustrations ... 172
Exhibit 5-17: Leadership behavior illustrations - continued ... 173
Exhibit 5-18: Influence of leadership behaviors on sensemaking phases ... 180
Exhibit 5-19: Tentative patterns between the sub-processes of TI emergence ... 189
Exhibit 5-20: The cycle of TI emergence... 191
Table of Contents
E
XECUTIVES
UMMARYI
G
ERMANS
UMMARYII
A
CKNOWLEDGEMENTSIII
L
IST OFA
CRONYMSV
L
IST OFE
XHIBITSVI
T
ABLE OFC
ONTENTSVIII
1. INTRODUCTION ... 1
1.1. R
ESEARCHI
NTEREST1
1.2. R
ESEARCHG
AP ANDF
OCUS2
1.3. R
ESEARCHD
ESIGN ANDS
ETTING6
1.3.1. Research Setting 6
1.3.2. Grounded Theory 6
1.4. S
TRUCTURE OF THET
HESIS7
2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND... 9 2.1. T
HEORETICALB
ASIS: S
OCIALI
DENTITY ANDS
ELF-C
ATEGORIZATIONT
HEORY10
2.2. I
DENTITY INO
RGANIZATIONS ANDT
EAMS12
2.3. I
DENTIFICATION INO
RGANIZATIONS ANDT
EAMS14
2.3.1. Consequences of OI and TI 16
2.3.2. Disidentification, Ambivalent Identification, and Neutral Identification 17
2.3.3. Identity Salience and Multiple Identities 18
2.4. I
DENTIFICATION ANDI
DENTITY IND
IVERSET
EAMS19 3. LITERATURE REVIEW AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS ... 20
3.1. A
NTECEDENTS ANDC
ORRELATES OFI
DENTIFICATION23
3.1.1. Antecedents from the Individual Sphere 25
3.1.2. Antecedents from the Organizational Sphere 26
3.1.3. Antecedents from the Contextual Sphere 29
3.2. T
HEP
ROCESS OFI
DENTIFICATION31
3.3. S
UMMARY ANDR
ESEARCHQ
UESTIONS34
4. METHODS AND DATA ... 38
4.1. R
ESEARCHD
ESIGN38
4.2. G
ROUNDEDT
HEORYM
ETHODOLOGY38
4.2.1. Principles of Building a Grounded Theory 38
4.2.2. Phases of GT Building 39
4.2.3. Grounded Theory Vocabulary 41
4.3. R
ESEARCHS
ETTING: UN P
EACEBUILDINGT
EAMS42
4.3.1. UN Peacebuilding Operations 43
4.3.2. Inter-Organizational Work Teams in UN Peacebuilding 44 4.4. P
ILOTI
NVESTIGATION: I
NTERVIEWS ATUN H
EADQUARTERS AND INL
IBERIA47 4.5. C
ASES
ELECTION: U
NITEDN
ATIONSP
EACEBUILDINGT
EAMS INL
IBERIA ANDH
AITI50
4.5.1. United Nations Peacebuilding in Liberia 52
4.5.2. United Nations Peacebuilding in Haiti 55
4.5.3. Within-Case Selection 59
4.6. M
AINI
NVESTIGATION: D
ATAS
OURCES, C
OLLECTION,
ANDA
NALYSIS60
4.6.1. Data Sources and Collection 60
4.6.1.1. Team member interviews in Liberia and Haiti 61
4.6.1.2. Team-external observer interviews in Liberia and Haiti 64
4.6.1.3. Participatory observation 64
4.6.1.4. Document analysis 66
4.6.1.5. Follow-up questionnaire 67
4.6.1.6. Other sources of information 68
4.6.2. Data Analysis 69
4.6.2.1. Data analysis stage I: Exploratory data analysis on-site 69 4.6.2.2. Data analysis stage II: Computer-assisted data analysis off-site 73 4.6.2.3. Data analysis stage III: Data analysis and pattern affirmation on-site 76 4.6.2.4. Data analysis stage IV: Final computer-assisted data analysis off-site 77
5. FINDINGS... 82
5.1. T
EAMC
ASES
TUDIES82
5.1.1. Teams with High Degrees of Members’ Team Identification 84
5.1.1.1. Team A – The Professionals 84
5.1.1.2. Team C – The Powerful Gatekeepers 90
5.1.1.3. Team D – The Pioneers 95
5.1.1.4. Team E – The Idealists 102
5.1.2. Teams with Low Degrees of Members’ Team Identification 109
5.1.2.1. Team B - The Lost Bunch 109
5.1.2.2. Team F – The Quarrelsome 115
5.1.2.3. Team G – The Expert Circle 121
5.2. T
HEC
OGNITIVE, A
FFECTIVE,
ANDB
EHAVIORALS
UB-P
ROCESSES OFTI E
MERGENCE125
5.2.1. Enacting a Salient Identity 127
5.2.2. Sensemaking about Team Experience 129
5.2.2.1. Individual-directed sensemaking 131
5.2.2.2. Collective-directed sensemaking 131
5.2.2.3. Alternations in sensemaking focus 133
5.2.3. Evaluating Team Outcomes 134
5.2.3.1. Instrumental utility 135
5.2.3.2. Affective utility 140
5.2.4. Adapting Identity Narrative 142
5.2.4.1. Identity compatibility comparison 143
5.2.4.2. Identity convergence modes 144
5.2.4.3. Identification outcomes 148
5.2.5. Intermediate Summary: The Sub-Processes of TI Emergence 151 5.3. C
ONTINGENCYF
ACTORS FOR THEE
MERGENCE OFT
EAMI
DENTIFICATION154
5.3.1. Nature of Collective Team Identity 155
5.3.2. Team Performance 157
5.3.3. Interacting and Communicating 159
5.3.4. Scope of Team Autonomy 162
5.3.5. Environmental Hostility and Favorability 164
5.3.6. The Collective System Culture 166
5.4. E
XCURSUS: L
EADERSHIP ASC
ONTINGENCYF
ACTOR FOR THEE
MERGENCE OFTI 168
5.4.1. Leadership and Identification 169
5.4.2. Leadership Behaviors and the Emergence of TI 171
5.4.2.1. Providing guidance 174
5.4.2.2. Encouraging involvement 176
5.4.2.3. Role modeling 177
5.4.2.4. Managing 179
5.4.3. Individual- and Team-Level Impact of Leadership on TI emergence 179
5.4.3.1. Leadership behaviors primarily relating to phase I 181
5.4.3.2. Leadership behaviors primarily relating to phase II 182
5.4.3.3. Leadership behaviors relating equally to both phases 183
5.5. T
ENTATIVEO
UTLOOK ANDS
UMMARY: T
EMPORALA
SPECTS INTI E
MERGENCE184
5.5.1. Cycles and Patterns in TI Emergence 185
5.5.1.1. TI emergence as cycle 186
5.5.1.2. Patterns between the sub-processes 187
5.5.2. Summary: The Cyclical Model of TI Emergence 190
5.5.3. Retracing the Emergence of Members’ TI in Three Examples 192
5.5.3.1. ‘The Disaffected’ and the emergence of negative TI 193
5.5.3.2. ‘The Ambivalent’ and the emergence of temporary TI 198
5.5.3.3. ‘The True Believer’ and the emergence of deep-structured TI 202
6. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS... 207
6.1. L
IMITATIONS OFR
ESEARCHA
PPROACH208
6.2. I
MPLICATIONS FORT
HEORY ANDF
URTHERR
ESEARCH210
6.2.1. The Emergence of Team Identification 211
6.2.1.1. Enactment of salient identities 212
6.2.1.2. Sensemaking about team experience 213
6.2.1.3. Evaluation of team outcomes 214
6.2.1.4. Adapting identity narrative 214
6.2.2. Contingency Factors for the Emergence of Team Identification 215
6.2.2.1. CTI and team identification 216
6.2.2.2. Team performance and team identification 218
6.2.2.3. Interaction and communication and team identification 218
6.2.2.4. Team scope of autonomy and team identification 219
6.2.2.5. Leadership and team identification 220
6.2.2.6. Environmental hostility and favorability 221
6.2.2.7. Collective culture and team identification 222
6.2.3. Tentative Findings on Temporal Sequence and Patterns of TI Emergence 222
6.3. P
RACTICALI
MPLICATIONS224
7. REFERENCES ... 227 8. APPENDICES ... 241
8.1. APPENDIX I: REVIEWED LITERATURE 241
8.2. APPENDIX II: INTERVIEWER GUIDELINE 251
8.3. APPENDIX III: FOLLOW-UP SURVEY 253
8.4. APPENDIX III: ATLAS.TI CODE LIST 260
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Research Interest
Identity and identification are regarded as root constructs in organization theory and organizational behavior (Albert, Ashforth, & Dutton, 2000). They explain how individuals define themselves and how they - based on this definition - think, act, and feel in their day-to-day organizational life, as well as how they interact with actors around them (Ashforth, Harrison, & Corley, 2008). In recent times, identity and identification have gained even greater importance for securing employees’ loyalty and conducive behaviors because individual-organization relationships have become increasingly insecure: Frequent organizational downsizing and restructuring, the replacement of long- term relational contracts with more short-term transactional ones, and the advent of boundaryless careers have all contributed to the decline of traditional forms of securing employee loyalty and motivation (e.g., Albert et al., 2000; Ashforth et al., 2008; Fiol &
O'Connor, 2005; Pratt, 2001). Therefore, the knowledge about how to foster and sustain members’ identification with an organization is of high relevance for organizational agents. This is particular true for heterogeneously composed management teams that are increasingly used in organizations to implement work that demands high degrees of creativity and problem solving capacity. Because of their members’ heterogeneity, such diverse or factional teams are frequently subject to identity conflicts and experience especially strong challenges with respect to the identification of their members (see e.g., Li & Hambrick, 2005; van Knippenberg, De Dreu, & Homan, 2004).
The importance of identity and identification for contemporary organizations and teams has prompted scholars to produce a considerable body of research on the topic (for reviews see Ashforth et al., 2008; Ashforth, Rogers, & Corley, 2011; Corley, Harquail, Pratt, Glynn, Fiol, & Hatch, 2006; Edwards & Peccei, 2007; Pratt, 2001; Rousseau, 1998).
Extant research highlights that individuals identify with organizations or teams in order to
satisfy their basic human needs for safety, uncertainty reduction, belonging, and affiliation
(e.g., Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Hogg & Terry, 2000; Pratt, 1998), as well as other self-
related needs, such as self-enhancement, self-knowledge, or self-continuity (Ashforth,
2001; Vignoles, Regalia, Manzi, Golledge, & Scabini, 2006). Other studies have shown
that individuals’ identification with an organization or team may lead to a number of
desirable member behaviors, including the willingness to engage in activities that benefit the organization or team (e.g., Dutton et al., 1994; Haslam et al., 2000), the readiness to communicate and cooperate (e.g., Dukerich et al., 2002), loyalty (van Vugt & Hart, 2004), and team learning (Van der Vegt & Bunderson, 2005). Investigations focusing on the origins of identification show that the antecedents of individuals’ identification are found in organizational or team attributes which appeal to members’ identification motives.
These include, for instance, particular values, norms, and behavioral standards (e.g., Mael
& Ashforth, 1992); spatial and temporal arrangements of group interaction (e.g., Rockmann, Pratt, & Northcraft, 2007); task or goal interdependence (e.g., Van der Vegt, Van de Vliert, & Oosterhof, 2003); as well as personal beliefs (e.g., van Knippenberg, Haslam, & Platow, 2007). However, research has also shown that members’ identification in organizations and teams constitutes a complex and sometimes contradictory phenomenon that must not be taken for granted. For example, studies have produced ample evidence that individuals may also come to de- or even disidentify from organizational entities, or be ambivalent about their identities (Dukerich, Kramer, &
McLean Parks, 1998; Elsbach, 1999; Pratt, 2000; Sveningsson & Alvesson, 2003).
1.2. Research Gap and Focus
In light of the great importance of identification for contemporary organizations and teams, it is remarkable that extant research on the topic has mainly focused on its antecedents or consequences and largely neglected the process of how identification actually emerges. As I show in the literature review of this thesis, in most extant studies, organizational and team identification are primarily understood as a ‘state of being’ that is caused by certain antecedents on the individual, organizational, or contextual level. In contrast, the when and how of identification, that is, the fluid and dynamic process of developing identification, has received relatively little attention (Ashforth et al., 2008:
339). Yet, the knowledge about the dynamics that underlie the emergence of members’
identification with an organization or team should be of particular interest to organizational agents. On the basis of a clearer understanding of the process and its contingencies, they would be able to create more suitable environments for identification and make better use of managerial levers for steering the process of members’
identification in a more precise fashion. Moreover, the process of identity emergence is
one of the most under-investigated areas of identification research and is thus of great theoretical relevance (e.g., Ashforth et al., 2008; Pratt, 1998).
The few empirical studies that explicitly address identification processes (e.g., Ibarra, 1999; Pratt, Rockmann, & Kaufmann, 2006; Sveningsson & Alvesson, 2003) all deal with individuals’ identification in relation to occupational or professional roles which transcend any given organizational entity. While these studies deliver valuable insights and constitute important milestones in the field, they remain silent about the question of whether insights into role identification - which speaks to what people do and their particular role expectations, but not to where they work - can be transferred to individuals’
identification with an organization or team (see Pratt et al., 2006: 236; Van Maanen &
Barley, 1984). From a theoretical standpoint this seems at least disputable because while higher- and lower-order identities are often nested in one another, organizational and team identification occur on a collective level and therefore involve more contingencies and external influences than identification with a role or profession (Ashforth et al., 2011).
In their review, Ashforth and colleagues (2008) nevertheless synthesize the current state of knowledge on organizational and role identification into a number of general ideas. They propose that identification occurs in a cyclical process that involves individuals’ identity enactment, an interpretation of how this identity fits the situation, and the construction of a new identity narrative. Yet, while these findings are a good starting point for further analysis, the authors conclude “that the model provides more questions than answers” (Ashforth et al., 2008: 346). I agree with this diagnosis and see two particular areas of knowledge that still hamper our understanding of the emergence of members’ identification with organizations and teams. First, while it has been established that affect, cognition, and behavior play a role in members’ identification with an organization or team, we know little about the specificities of these processes, as well as their mutual relations (see Ashforth, 2001; Ashforth et al., 2008; Harquail, 1998).
And second, the factors that constitute contingencies for the emergence of
individuals’ organizational and team identification, and that may determine different
identification patterns, are widely underexplored. To date, our knowledge is limited to a
number of static antecedents and correlates of identification. Yet, we know little about
their exact locus of influence on the several processes that play a role during members’
identification. A more precise knowledge about these sub-processes and their contingencies would hovever be useful to advance theory, enable empirical testing, and draw useful implications for practitioners.
The purpose of this dissertation is to close this gap in research by building and enriching the theory with respect to how individuals come to identify with organizational entities or not. The empirical focus thereby lies on individuals’ identification with organizational work teams. In other words, I am interested in better understanding the process and its contingencies that occur when individuals become members of a team. I focus on individuals’ identification with teams because contemporary organizations increasingly use sub-units and task teams to plan and implement their activities (e.g., Homan, Hollenbeck, Humphrey, Van Knippenberg, Ilgen, & Van Kleef, 2008; Milliken &
Martins, 1996; van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007). Therewith, the performance of teams is more than ever a precondition for an organization’s effectiveness and performance. In addition, researchers argue that, at least for intra-organizational contexts, lower-order identities, such as that of a team, are likely to be more salient for individuals because they are subjectively more important and often more relevant situationally (for an extended discussion see Ashforth & Johnson, 2001). Therefore the study of team identification is also particularly interesting from a theoretical perspective.
At the same time, due to two overarching trends, organizational teams have become more diverse, representing a universe of different member identities. First, demographic developments and globalization have altered the composition of the workforce and left their mark on organizations and the teams therein. Second, organizations have also started to deliberately staff their teams with members from diverse backgrounds (e.g., different functions, departments, organizations, nationalities, gender, ages, and educational backgrounds) in order to foster creativity and problem solving capability in their organizations (Jackson, Joshi, & Erhardt, 2003; van Knippenberg &
Schippers, 2007; Williams & O'Reilly III, 1998). Research on diverse teams and factional
groups has however shown that this diversity is not always conducive but that the different
social and organizational backgrounds of members can also induce faultlines in the
superordinate group (i.e., the team) because individuals evoke their social identities as
members of the several subgroups they belong to (Brewer, 1979; Hambrick, Li, Xin, &
Tsui, 2001; Homan, Van Knippenberg, Van Kleef, & De Dreu, 2007; Lau & Murnighan, 1998, 2005; Li & Hambrick, 2005). This may then result in adverse effects on intra-group processes and the performance of the superordinate entity (see e.g., Li & Hambrick, 2005). Consequently, members’ identification is even more relevant for organizational subgroups and teams: As organizations need to find ways to unite their members’ diverse, and at times contradictory, identities for the good of the organization, the emergence of members’ identification with their working team becomes a critical ingredient for organizational viability and success.
The findings presented in this dissertation contribute to a better understanding of
team identification by specifying the processes involved in TI emergence, their mutual
relation, as well as central contingency factors that pertain to an individual’s identification
path. The results suggest that when individuals become members of a team, their TI
emerges through the four sub-processes of identity enactment, team experience
sensemaking, team outcome evaluation, and identity narrative adaption. Thereby,
members either choose a withdrawal, reactive, or active identity convergence mode to
reconcile the team’s identity with their existing identity narrative. Furthermore, the thesis
identifies seven contingency factors that influence how these sub-processes unfold. These
are the nature of the team’s CTI, a team’s performance, the degree of interaction and
communication in a team, a team’s scope of autonomy, team leadership, the degree of
environmental hostility and favorability, and finally, the degree of collective culture
prevalent in the organizational system in which the team is embedded in. With these
findings, the work presented here not only adds specificity to existing ideas around the
process of identification and reveals critical variables that may inspire future research, but
also offers new insights with relevance for practitioners. In addition, the thesis provides a
number of tentative findings on the temporal aspects of identification and alludes to the
occurrence of certain patterns of TI emergence.
1.3. Research Design and Setting
In light of our research interest and the lack of scholarly knowledge, our choice of research design and setting was guided by the following objectives: (1) To gain a more in- depth insight into the emergence of team identification than conveyed by existing research; (2) to retrace real world identity development processes and identify critical factors, events, etc. therein; and (3) to obtain rich data in order to understand the complex interactions, diffuse processes, and often tacit perceptions, beliefs, norms, and values guiding the behavior of actors. Thus, we chose a qualitative, theory-generating approach according to the principles of grounded theory (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Glaser & Strauss, 1967). The main aim of our interpretative approach was thereby to elicit the participants’
perspectives, views, considerations, actions, and behaviors in order to detect which processes and contingencies play a role in the emergence of members’ team identification.
1.3.1. Research Setting
For this study we chose objects of analysis from a particularly diverse setting. We did so because we expected to better be able to investigate the dynamics of identification processes, in particular with respect to the concurrence of multiple foci of identification (cf. Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 2003), in this setting. Our findings are based on the study of individuals assigned to cross-organizationally staffed work teams in the context of the two United Nations peacebuilding operations in Liberia and Haiti. These work teams and the specific circumstances under which they operate represent extreme cases with respect to the heterogeneity of member identities, including individuals from different organizations, cultures, nationalities, functional backgrounds, ages, and gender.
1.3.2. Grounded Theory
We chose grounded theory (GT) as methodological approach for this study
because it seemed best suited to provide a framework for developing theory that was
grounded in systematically gathered and analyzed data (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Due to
the specific requirements imposed by the peacebuilding setting as well as the large volume
of interview data gathered from teams in two countries, we used an innovative, multi-
tiered variation of GT for this research project. Because data collection in the two main
cases (i.e., Liberia and Haiti) occurred with a time lag of four months, the analysis was
separated into four consecutive stages: (1) Exploratory analysis on-site in Liberia, (2)
computer-assisted analysis off-site, (3) confirmatory analysis on-site in Haiti, and (4) conclusive computer-assisted analysis off-site. While the on-site data analysis was carried out manually with the use of memos and preliminary lists of concepts and categories, the qualitative analysis software Atlas.ti was used during the two phases of off-site data analysis. The adoption of this specific design enabled us to flexibly adapt our data collection instruments and capture all aspects of the emerging phenomena.
1.4. Structure of the Thesis
As Exhibit 1-1 delineates, the dissertation will be structured as follows: In the now ensuing second chapter of this thesis, I introduce the phenomena and theoretical foundations of team identity and identification and subsequently define the central concepts that stand at the center of this thesis’ attention. In the third chapter, I review extant literature that contributes to our understanding of the emergence of team identification. On this basis, I then develop our guiding research questions. The fourth chapter provides an introduction to the empirical study, outlining the methodology and sample. In chapter five, I present the results of our grounded theory analysis of the seven UN peacebuilding teams in Liberia and Haiti. Based on rich empirical data, I outline our findings concerning (1) the sub-processes of members TI emergence and (2) the crucial contingency factors that pertain to these. In the same chapter I allude to our tentative findings with respect to the temporal nature of TI emergence and the existence of certain identification patterns. Then, I summarize these findings and present them with the help of three exemplary cases of TI emergence. Finally, in chapter six, I discuss the findings’
theoretical implications for further research and their relevance for the practical
management of identity dynamics in teams.
Exhibit 1-1: Structure of the thesis
2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
In this chapter, I recount the theoretical foundations of contemporary research on identification in organizational contexts and define the major concepts that bear relevance for this study, namely identification and identity. While the focus of my research is team identification (TI), I discuss TI in conjunction with organizational identification (OI). I do so because TI can be seen as a specific lower-order type of OI and findings from the one can thus be transferred to the other (e.g., Bartels, Pruyn, de Jong, & Joustra, 2007;
Foreman & Whetten, 2002; moreover, in quantitative studies the same measures are used for TI and OI, see e.g., Rockmann et al., 2007). Furthermore, because the process of members’ team identification can only unfold in relation to a clear identification target (see e.g., Riketta & Van Dick, 2005; van Knippenberg & van Schie, 2000), I conceptualize team identification as an individual-level phenomenon together with the collective-level phenomenon of team identity. The latter term refers to the central norms, values, and behavioral standards that characterize the team and that constitute those features that an individual adopts into his or her self-concept in the process of identifying.
The phenomena of identity and identification emanate from two research streams that have advanced largely separate from one another but which are inherently related.
The research on individuals’ identification with organizations or its subgroups (i.e., the micro-level), on the one hand, mainly borrows from Social Identity Theory (SIT) and Self Categorization Theory (SCT) and applies their insights to organizational settings. The research on the identity of organizational entities (i.e., the meso- and macro-level), on the other hand, draws its impetus from a metaphorical transfer of the psychological concept of individual identity to the organizational level.
This chapter will be structured as follows: I first review the basics of Social
Identity Theory and Self Categorization Theory that form the theoretical background for
most theorizing on identity dynamics in organizations. The second section introduces the
macro-level concepts of team identity and organizational identity. In the third section, I
turn to the definition of the micro-level phenomena of team identification (TI) and
organizational identification (OI). This section also summarizes recent findings about
disidentification, neutral identification, and ambivalent identification in organizational
settings, as well as the concepts of multiple identities and identity salience. I close my considerations on the theoretical background in the fourth section by discussing the special role that is attributed to identification and identity in diverse teams.
2.1. Theoretical Basis: Social Identity and Self-Categorization Theory
Most theorizing about identification in organizational settings has its origin in Social Identity Theory (SIT) and its refined successor, Self-categorization Theory (SCT) (for a detailed description see also Hogg & Terry, 2000: 122-26). Social Identity Theory goes back to the work of Tajfel and Turner (1974; 1986) and was originally aimed at understanding the cognitive and motivational basis of intergroup differentiation and discrimination. In a series of minimal group studies, the authors found that individuals systematically favored members of their own group over those of other groups even though the groups only existed as artificial constructions. After deeper investigations, Tajfel and Turner derived a set of premises and conclusions to explain such intergroup differentiation. First, they argued that individuals derive parts of their sense of self from the social groups they belong to. In other words, in addition to his personal identity, each individual holds set of social identities that influence how they define themselves.
1Furthermore, they proposed that every individual seeks to enhance his self-esteem and attain a positive self-concept by seeking membership in groups that meet their need for prestige and status. They thus argued that an individual’s social identities may contribute to (or impede) this self-enhancement if group membership is positively (negatively) evaluated. Further, Tajfel and Turner reasoned that a person’s evaluations of his or her own social group (i.e., the in-group) are always made in reference to other groups (i.e. the out-groups) that constitute foci of social comparisons. Positive, discrepant comparisons with the out-group thereby lead to high degrees of self-esteem and perceived prestige, while negative, discrepant comparisons result in low self-esteem.
As a corollary to these insights, Tajfel and Turner also found that individuals usually used one of three strategies to enhance their self-esteem if evaluations of the own
1
In the context of this thesis I will use the male attribution (his, he, him) when speaking about respondents,
team members and individuals in the third person. This is for reasons of readability and explicitly includes
females as well.
in-group were negative and thus ran counter to the members’ need for self-enhancement.
In the first strategy of individual mobility, members left the group to join another group that held higher prestige. The adoption of this strategy was however only possible if the situations allowed for mobility and group membership was flexible. For the second creative strategy, members redefined or altered the criteria of the social comparison which had initially led them to regard their in-group as having a low status. This strategy for instance included the use of other dimensions of comparison (which were more favorable for the in-group), or the comparison with an entirely different out-group. Finally, the third strategy for members of a low-status in-group was to engage in direct competition with out-groups to attain positive distinctiveness (for a detailed description see Tajfel &
Turner, 1986).
In an attempt to further explain the comparison processes specified in SIT, Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, and Wetherell (1987) developed Social Categorization Theory (SCT) which “specified in detail how social categorization produces prototype based depersonalizations of self and others, and, thus generates social identity phenomena”
(Hogg & Terry, 2000: 123). Similar to SIT, SCT proposes that individuals’ membership in
groups is closely tied to their needs for self-enhancement (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; also
referred to as self-enhancement motive). But in addition, SCT also postulates that group
membership helps individuals to achieve uncertainty reduction (Hogg & Terry, 2000), as
well as a feeling of inclusion and differentiation through demarcations between in-groups
and out-groups (Brewer & Pickett, 1999). According to SCT, individuals compare
themselves to others and assign themselves (and others) to contextually relevant
categories according to their perceived similarity or differences to so-called category
prototypes. These prototypes are stored in an individual’s memory and contain the
categories’ defining attributes as fuzzy-sets of features that capture the essence of group
membership. In addition to one’s attributes as a group member this may also include cues
about appropriate thinking, feeling, and acting as a group member. SCT thereby proposes
that prototypes are formed according to the principle of meta-contrast: They are aimed at
minimizing intra-group and maximizing inter-group differences. Individuals that are
members of the same group usually hold and share similar prototypes since they are
exposed to comparable social information. STC and SIT both hold that the salience of a
particular category, i.e. the active use of a particular social identity, depends on its
accessibility and on its fit with the given context and environment. Accessibility is thereby determined by the relative importance that the respective category has for the self-concept and/or perceptual salience in the situation. The potential to account for similarities and differences among people and/or their behaviors then determines fit. Once a social identity becomes salient, self-perception and conduct become aligned with the defining (i.e., prototypical) characteristics of the category, i.e. with other members of that group.
2.2. Identity in Organizations and Teams
Before delineating the phenomenon of team and organizational identification, I deem it necessary to first introduce the concept of organizational and team identity. I do so because the macro-level concept of identity and the micro-level concept of identification are inherently connected insofar as a team or organizational identity serves members as target for their identification. That is, when members identify with an organization or team, a part of their identity is derived from the defining characteristics of the collective.
In other words, without a target identity, identification would not be possible. I start my discussion by delineating the current state of research on organizational identity and then turn to team identity.
The concept of organizational identity is seen analogously to that of an individual’s
identity. However, while organizational identity has the same functions as individual
identity, its structure deviates. Identity composition, formation, and change are different
because organizations are social systems with many actors, and thus cannot be compared
with an individual’s internal psychological system. In general, organizational identity is
seen as organizational members’ shared beliefs concerning the question “who are we” as
an organization in differentiation to other organizational entities (cf. Albert & Whetten,
1985). Thus, an organizational identity comprises the central values, norms, attitudes, and
behavioral standards of a specific organization. Identity claims are most likely invoked
when members have to deal with profound, fork-in-the-road decisions (for a detailed
discussion of organizational identity see Albert & Whetten, 1985; Whetten, 2006: 220-
21). Organizational identity is said to be strong when it is perceived as unique and
perceptions about its content are widely and deeply held by the members.
Research has shown that a shared social identity among members of an organization can be a powerful integrative force. It may (1) draw individuals to one another, (2) motivate them to cooperate in order to achieve group goals even at the expense of individual interest, and (3) allow them to coordinate their behavior with respect to shared norms and requirements (Dutton et al., 1994; Haslam et al., 2000; Turner, 1987;
van Knippenberg & Ellemers, 2003). Thus, a shared organizational identity is generally linked to effective organizational processes and behaviors, and constitutes a key determinant of desirable organizational outcomes, such as members’ cooperation, coordination, and willingness to communicate (e.g. Dutton et al., 1994; Fiol, 2001; van Knippenberg & Ellemers, 2003). Following Turner (1982), Haslam, Postmes and Ellemers even suggest that “organizational identity makes organizational behavior possible” (2003:
365).
However, while a shared organizational identity may serve to promote cooperation and coordination within an organization, it can also result in members’ segregation from the outside. A well documented effect of such social categorization against outside actors are biased perceptions, judgment, and aversive behavior vis-à-vis members of other organizational entities (see for a review Brown, 2000; Gaertner, Dovidio, Anastasio, Bachevan, & Rust, 1993); yet, as Brewer argues, positive in-group regard does not automatically imply an anti-out-group orientation (1979). While this is true, Gaertner and colleagues assess that “nevertheless, in these circumstances, the balance scale for the even-handed treatment of other people begins off center” (1993: 3). Thus organizational members usually favor members of their own organization and perceive others as less trustworthy and capable (Brewer, 1979; Tajfel & Turner, 1986). This may have adverse effects on cooperation and coordination between organizations, and eventually on organizational outcomes (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Tajfel, 1978). As I will argue in Chapter 2.4, the fact that strong organizational identity may also cause segregative effects in organizations is of particular relevance for organizational entities that consist of members from different organizational and social backgrounds and who thus may categorize themselves according to these subgroups within the superordinate entity.
A special kind of lower-order organizational identity is the identity of a team,
which in the context of this thesis I will refer to as collective team identity (CTI). It refers
to the specific characteristics (i.e., values, norms, attitudes, and behavioral standards) that are central for the team as a collective and are shared among the majority of its members (Albert & Whetten, 1985). These are also the characteristics that comprise the answer to the question ‘who are we as a team’ and that members adopt into their self-concept in the process of team identification. A clear CTI contributes to the functioning of a team because it infuses the collective with sense and particular meaning (Albert & Whetten, 1985; Weick, 1995; Whetten, 2006). In addition, a strong CTI may prevent negative in- group/out-group dynamics that are likely to occur in teams if members categorize themselves and others along the lines of their various subgroup identities (Gaertner et al., 1993). A consensual understanding about essential group characteristics represents and highlights the similarities among team members and “makes it possible for people to categorize dissimilar persons as in-group members rather than as out-group members”
(Van der Vegt & Bunderson, 2005: 535); hence, it generates positive feelings among group members (Gaertner et al., 1993; Gaertner, Dovidio, & Bachman, 1996). As a collectively-held frame, consisting of values, norms, attitudes, behavioral standards, etc., it provides information, orientation, and context to team members in order to interpret their idiosyncratic roles, find responses to problems, and evaluate outcomes - in short, a CTI works as an informal governance and coordination mechanism (Albert & Whetten, 1985; Dutton & Dukerich, 1991; Golden-Biddle & Rao, 1997).
2.3. Identification in Organizations and Teams
Team and organizational identification are both sub-categories of social identification which is generally defined as a deep, psychological, self-defining, affective, and cognitive bond between an individual and a social entity (Edwards & Peccei, 2007).
Individuals are said to identify with a social category when they (1) label or categorize themselves as members of it, (2) define themselves with the same characteristics used to define the social entity (e.g., values, norms, attitudes, etc.), and (3) feel psychological attachment with and a sense of belonging to it (Dutton et al., 1994; Pratt, 1998; Tajfel &
Turner, 1986; Turner et al., 1987; van Knippenberg & Ellemers, 2003). Hence,
identification is based on both affect and cognition (Ashforth, 2001) or as Harquail put it,
identification “engages more than our cognitive self-categorization and our brains, it
engages our hearts” (1998: 225). In addition, broader definitions of identification have
alluded to the fact that identification also encompasses behavioral aspects (Ashforth et al.,
2008; Van Dick, Wagner, Stellmacher, & Christ, 2004) That is, in the process of identifying with a social entity, individuals adopt the central and distinctive attributes of the collective, in terms of its values, norms, attitudes, or behavioral standards, into their self-concepts and actively enact these in their day-to-day life.
When the focus of such identification is an organization in which an individual works, we refer to the process of becoming identified as organizational identification (OI). In the context of the research project that provided the basis for this dissertation, we investigated a particular kind of organizational identification: Members’ identification with small organizational subgroups, or teams. We refer to this type of identification as team identification (TI). Following the conceptualizations of Hackman (1987) and Cohen and Bailey (1997), a team is “a collection of individuals who are interdependent in their tasks, who share responsibility for outcomes, who see themselves and who are seen by others as an intact social entity embedded in one or more larger social systems, and who manage their relationships across organizational boundaries” (Cohen & Bailey, 1997:
241). This definition points to three basic properties that we consider to be central and defining elements for teams, and which differentiate them from other organizational (e.g., departments or firms) or social (e.g., groups or families) entities. First, teams bring together members that strive to achieve a shared goal, and thereby, depend on one another.
Second, teams have clear boundaries by which members as well as outsiders can differentiate who is a member and who is not. And third, teams dispose of internal mechanisms that enable them to make decisions and enact these vis-à-vis other organizational agents or individuals.
The concepts of team or organizational identification have certain similarities to that of commitment and are often confused with it. This conceptual vicinity stems from the fact that during the 1970s and early 1980s, they were used interchangeably (Shamir, Zakay, Brainin, & Popper, 2000), and that their measurement relied largely on the same scales. Yet, in more recent works they have re-emerged as separate constructs and their differences have been subject to a number of theoretical and empirical investigations (e.g., Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Cole & Bruch, 2006; Ellemers, De Gilder, & Haslam, 2004;
Riketta & Van Dick, 2005). While some of these contributions argue that the two in fact
are the same, I agree with the vast majority of authors that see them as separate, yet
intimately related phenomena (Cole & Bruch, 2006; Gautam, Van Dick, & Wagner, 2004;
Mael & Tetrick, 1992; van Knippenberg & Sleebos, 2006). Following Cole and Bruch I understand organizational commitment as “an individual’s emotional attachment to and involvement in an employing organization” (2006: 588). This perspective regards individual-employer relationship as a series of social exchanges. However, in comparison to team or organizational identification, it leaves aside the notion that individuals adopt elements of the collective into their self-concepts and define themselves in terms of their organizational membership.
2.3.1. Consequences of OI and TI
In recent research, team and organizational identification are seen as powerful drivers for desirable individual behavior in social entities: They foster members’
willingness to engage in activities that benefit the group, engage in collective actions, and thus achieve common objectives (e.g., Haslam et al., 2000; Tsui, Egan, & O'Reilly, 1992;
Turner, 1987; van Knippenberg & Ellemers, 2003). In particular, studies have supported the notion that members’ identification with a collective is associated with an increased willingness to communicate and cooperate (e.g., Dukerich et al., 2002; Dutton et al., 1994;
Postmes, Tanis, & De Wit, 2001), higher degrees of commitment
2(e.g., Ellemers, Spears,
& Doosje, 1997; Van Dick, van Knippenberg, Haegele, Guillaume, & Brodbeck, 2008), increased loyalty (van Vugt & Hart, 2004), stronger organizational citizenship (Dukerich et al., 2002), a higher desire to comply with organizational rules (Tyler & Blader, 2000), increased team learning (Van der Vegt & Bunderson, 2005), and better performance (Bezrukova, Jehn, Zanutto, & Thatcher, 2009). Thus, TI and OI can be considered powerful drivers of organizational success, and should therefore be a highly desirable state for every organization.
2
