Content area
Full text
The concept of Organizational Identification (OID) has had an interesting history, spanning across almost seven decades (1951- till date). Although proposed in the 1950s, the construct remained dormant till the early 1990s. In fact, in the 1970s, this construct lost its identity and got subsumed within the definition of Altitudinal Commitment (ATOC). Hence, it is often referred to as the Cinderella of Organizational Studies . It was only in late the 1980s that OID was recognized as a unique construct, distinct from other related constructs with differential influence on individual and organizational outcomes. Thereafter, the research body on OID has grown to encompass multiple dimensions, multiple foci and multiple ways of identifying with organizations. In a comprehensive review of literature, this study consolidates the major milestones in the OID developmental phases over the past seven decades. This paper highlights the present research trends in OID, raising questions on certain trends that could pose a threat to the seminal OID definition from the past, and concludes by providing directions for future research on OID.
Key Words: Ambivalent Identification, Attitudinal Commitment (ATOC), Dis-identification, Organizational Identification (OID), Split Identification
INTRODUCTION
OID is defined as an individual s sense of belongingness to his or her organization where an individual perceives that his or her fate is intertwined with that of the organization (Ashforth and Mael, 1989). It is a cognitive state where individual links his success and failure with the organization s success and failure. Hence, OID motivates individuals to display positive organizational attitude and behaviors. Though pertinent to organizational welfare, the construct went through a roller coaster journey with many ups and downs in the past seven decades. The initial conceptualization of OID was given by scholars like Foote (1951) and March and Simon (1958) in the 1950s. However, the construct remained dormant for the next 20 years till it got completely overshadowed by its conceptual neighbor-ATOC in the 1970s when commitment studies (e.g., Mowday, Steers, and Porter, 1979) posed it as just another dimension of ATOC. OID regained its status as a distinct construct in 1989 through the seminal work of Ashforth and Mael (1989) that differentiated it from related constructs like ATOC, behavior, affect, internalization, or occupational identification. This notion gathered empirical support from other...