Defining Who You Are By What You Are Not

Published: 08th May 2020
Views: N/A

Through two exploratory studies, we develop and test an introductory framework of "organizational disidentification." Our first study investigates the concept of organizational disidentification by way of a qualitative investigation of cognitive relationships using the National Rifle Association (NRA). Findings imply that organizational disidentification is a self-understanding based on: (1) a cognitive separation between one's individuality as well as the organization's individuality, and (2) a negative relational categorization of oneself and also the organization (e.g., categorizations such as "rivals" or "opponents"). Organizational disidentification appears to be motivated by individuals' desires to both affirm distinctiveness that is positive and prevent negative distinctiveness by distancing themselves from incongruent values and negative stereotypes attributed to an organization. Our findings also indicate that organizational disidentification can lead people to take action (either volunteer work or voicing their opinion) as an effect of the perceived separation from your business 's individuality. Results of our study that is second --a large-scale survey of public attitudes about the NRA--supply support for this framework. Significant theory and research has examined how individuals define their self concepts vis-a-vis their links with social groups or organizations (Tajfel 1982, Turner 1987, Abrams and Hogg 1990, Kramer 1993). This research implies that people routinely develop social identities--defined as self-perceptions based on cognitive links between their identities and the identities of groups or organizations (Rabbie and Horwitz 1988, Hogg and Abrams 1988, Ashforth and Mael 1989, Dutton et al. 1994, Bergami and Bagozzi 2000). If an organization is firmly identified with by an individual, her or his social identity has a considerable overlap with all the individuality of that organization. According to this view, organizational identification is suggested by self-understandings of "oneness" with all the organization (Mael and Ashforth 1992).A growing quantity of literature suggests that organizational identifications are important because of their implications for both individuals' and organizations' wellbeing. In the individual level, a lot of research on societal identifications implies that identification having a favorably perceived social group or organization enhances a person's self-esteem, self-distinctiveness, and self-continuity (Hogg and Abrams 1988, Dutton et al. 1994). Recent studies also demonstrate that identification supplies advantages to the organization by increasing members' long-term commitment and support for the organization (Bhattacharya et al. 1995; O'Reilly and Chatman 1986; Adler and Adler 1988; Mael and Ashforth 1992, 1995). This research is supported by studies of group identification, which reveal that group members exhibit more co-operation and group support when group identifications are outstanding and favorable (Kramer and Brewer 1984, 1986).Because of these significant effects of organizational identification, researchers have also examined its predictors or antecedents. This work indicates that distinctive or esteemed organizational images, satisfaction with membership encounters, and wide-ranging experience or tenure having an organization are the primary antecedents of organizational identification (Schneider et al. 1971, Hall and Schneider 1972, Mael and Ashforth 1992). Recent research suggests that such antecedents may actually enhance organizational identification by strengthening person's cognitive links to the organization (Dutton et al. 1994).Together these findings about the indicators, results, and antecedents of social and organizational identification supply a seemingly complete framework of individuals' connections to their organizations. Yet this research has not discussed the possibility that people' social identities and self-concepts are defined by the groups or organizations where they perceive their individualities to be separated. Which is, for the large part (see Elsbach 1999 and Dukerich et. al. 1998 for exceptions) individuality researchers haven't examined the concept of organizational disidentification. Further, no research has empirically examined organizational disidentification.

Report this article Ask About This Article

More to Explore