It Depends on Who You're Talking To…: Predictors and Outcomes of Situated Measures of Organizational Identification

Abstract

Scholars have researched organizational identification extensively in recent years. Only occasionally, however, has this research examined multiple targets simultaneously and almost never has it examined variations that occur as individuals interact with others during different activities. The research reported here draws on Scott, Corman, and Cheney's (1998) communicative model of situated identification to investigate identification with various organizational targets across three communication-based situations. Situated scores based on communication partner and identification target were related to several predictor and outcome variables.

Keywords:

• Communication
• Identification
• Organization
• Situational
• Volunteers

Notes

Note. S.D. = Standard Deviation.

Note. Comm. = Communication; Org. = Organizational; ID = Identification; NP = Nonprofit; Cmty. = Community; Perf. = Performing.

∗p < .05. ∗∗p < .01.

Also relevant here is related work on commitment as a form of attachment. Commitment research on dual commitment to union and company (see Bemmels, 1995; Fullager & Barling, 1991; Reed, Young, & McHugh, 1994), and multiple commitments generally (Becker, 1992; Becker, Randall, & Riegel, 1995; Gregersen, 1992, 1993; Hunt & Morgan, 1994; Reichers, 1985) represents the pluralistic approach in this literature. Some work has even compared commitment and identification across multiple targets (see, for example, Gautam, van Dick, & Wagner, 2004; Riketta & van Dick, 2005). Additionally, the related idea of multiple organizational identities has also received attention (see especially Albert & Whetten, 1985; Cheney, 1991; Pratt & Foreman, 2000).

Congruency, which reflects similarity in identification scores across targets and/or situations, was also examined here; however, we do not have the space needed to fully develop this idea or report findings. In general, very few statistically significant findings emerged related to any congruency measures. Future research should examine how congruency measures relate to other variables.

Although response rate was boosted by organizational encouragement of volunteer members to participate, even this is likely a conservative number because several of these 240 volunteers attended more than one information session. To help ensure that no one responded more than once, a detachable cover page included participant contact information (and was used in a drawing for a $50 gift card as motivation to participate).

Like a number of other published studies (see meta-analyses by Fontenot & Scott, 2000; Riketta, 2005; Riketta & van Dick, 2005), we used an adapted version of Cheney's OIQ as a stand-alone measure. Although this practice is common in the field, it should be noted that Cheney advises the instrument should be used in combination with other methods to provide a more complete view of the identification process.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Craig R. Scott

Craig R. Scott is in the Department of Communication at Rutgers University.

Keri K. Stephens

Keri K. Stephens is in the Department of Communication Studies at the University of Texas at Austin.