Where there is light, there is dark: A review of the detrimental outcomes of high organizational identification

• Author: Lynn Shore,Samantha Conroy,Christine A. Henle,Samantha Stelman
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/job.2164
• Date: 01 February 2017
• Published date: 01 February 2017

Where there is light, there is dark: A review of the

detrimental outcomes of high organizational

identification

SAMANTHA CONROY*

,†

, CHRISTINE A. HENLE*

,†

, LYNN SHORE AND

SAMANTHA STELMAN

Colorado State University, Department of Management, Fort Collins, Colorado,U.S.A.

Summary An extensive body of research on organizational identification has developed over the last 25 years. This work

has typically taken the view that organizational identification is good for individuals and organizations. How-

ever, the underlying social identity processes of organizational identification do not suggest that only positive

outcomes should be expected. We review the work addressing organizational identification’s dark side. Our

review suggests that organizational identification can lead to unethical behaviors, resistance to organizational

change, lower performance, interpersonal conflict, negative emotions, and reduced well-being. Conditions

facilitating these undesirable outcomes include situation factors (e.g., identity threats, work characteristics)

and person factors (e.g., morality, other identifications). By providing a counterpoint to the generally positive

approach to organizational identification, we attempt to move the literature toward a more balanced view.

Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Keywords: organizational identification; dark side; social identity theory

Organizational identification (OI), an individual’s perception of oneness with his or her organization, has received

substantial attention in the management literature over the past 25 years, spurred by Ashforth and Mael’s (1989)

foundational article, Social Identity and the Organization. Research on OI demonstrates its powerful effects on

organizationally relevant outcomes, such as reduced turnover intentions (Conroy, Becker, & Menges, 2016),

enhanced job satisfaction (van Dick et al., 2004), and increased extra-role performance (Liu, Loi, & Lam, 2011).

In fact, a recent meta-analysis reported positive sample-size weighted correlations between OI and both desirable

attitudinal (r= 0.41) and behavioral (r= 0.29) outcomes (Lee, Park, & Koo, 2015). Thus, OI is viewed as a variable

that leads to many desirable outcomes.

Despite the overwhelmingly positive view of OI in the literature, some scholars have raised concerns of possible

negative outcomes (e.g., Ashforth & Anand, 2003; Dukerich, Kramer, & Parks, 1998; Rotondi, 1975). In particular,

Dukerich et al. (1998) noted that high levels of OI are associated with the pathology of “over-identification”in

which an individual’s needs become almost entirely based on organizational membership. When an individual lacks

distinctiveness from the organization, he or she may suppress feelings of dissention, support unethical behaviors,

and be susceptible to over-work (Dukerich et al., 1998). Empirical evidence also cautions against an overly optimis-

tic treatment of OI. For example, research is emerging that shows OI can lead to unethical behavior (e.g., Umphress,

Bingham, & Mitchell, 2010), work–family conflict (Li, Fan, & Zhao, 2015), reduced cooperation (Polzer, 2004), and

difficulty with change (e.g., van Dijk & van Dick, 2009).

*Correspondence to: Samantha Conroy, Colorado State University, Department of Management, Fort Collins, Colorado, U.S.A. E-mail: Samantha.

Conroy@colostate.edu

†

Samantha Conroy and Christine Henle contributed equally to the development of this paper.

Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 15 October 2015

Revised 19 October 2016, Accepted 1 November 2016

Journal of Organizational Behavior, J. Organiz. Behav. 38, 184–203 (2017)

Published online 27 November 2016 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/job.2164

The IRIOP Annual Review Issue

The seeds of caution in the literature raise an important issue. Has optimism around OI been taken too far? We

compile evidence of the dark side of OI through a detailed literature review. We define dark side outcomes of OI

as those that have detrimental consequences or costs for organizational members and/or the organization itself

(Griffin&O’Leary-Kelly, 2004). In particular, we seek to explain what dark side outcomes of OI have been

empirically established, when and why OI leads to these problematic outcomes, and what directions for future

research are most promising. While scholars have indicated that OI is an important construct because it has the

potential for both beneficial and detrimental outcomes (e.g., Ashforth, Harrison, & Corley, 2008), work addressing

detrimental outcomes has been fragmented. Thus, our review answers calls for research exploring the implications of

OI from a dark side perspective (e.g., Lee et al., 2015) by synthesizing this fragmented literature to form a more

coherent picture. This integration will lead to greater recognition that, for OI, while there is light, there is also dark.

Definition and Theoretical Foundations of Organizational Identification

The construct of OI arose from work on social identity theory (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Tajfel & Turner, 1985), with

self-categorization theory (Hogg & Terry, 2000) and the group engagement model (Tyler & Blader, 2003) further

extending social identity theory as applied to organizational settings. These theories provide the basis for defining

and explaining the implications of social identification (i.e., defining oneself in terms of a social group). While social

identity theory can be applied to many different foci of work-related identification, such as team, department, and

professional identification (Ashforth et al., 2008), OI has arguably garnered the most attention with multiple

narrative (e.g., Edwards, 2005; He & Brown, 2013) and quantitative reviews (Lee et al., 2015; Riketta, 2005).

Notably, these reviews have not given a significant amount of attention to dark side effects.

OI, a form of social identification, is an individual-level variable defined as an individual’s perception of oneness

with an organization (Ashforth & Mael, 1989), such that key aspects of the individual’s self-definition are drawn

from the organization’s perceived central attributes (Dutton, Dukerich, & Harquail, 1994). At its core, an employee’s

OI includes knowledge that one is part of the organization, high value being placed on organizational membership,

and an emotional connection to the organization (Ashforth et al., 2008). That is, because social identification

attaches “value and emotional significance”to the social group (Tajfel, 1978: 63), it is not sufficient to define OI

as simply organizational membership (Ashforth et al., 2008). OI also requires that importance be placed on the

organization, such that the self is meaningfully tied to the organization (Ashforth et al., 2008).

Social identification, generally, and OI, more specifically, develop to fulfill individual identity needs and

motives (Ashforth et al., 2008), including self-enhancement/self-esteem (need to maintain a positive self-view),

uncertainty reduction (need to reduce subjective uncertainty about oneself and one’s place in the world),

continuity (need for time and situational stability of the self), and belongingness (need for interpersonal attach-

ments and feelings of similarity to a group) (e.g., Cooper & Thatcher, 2010; Mael & Ashforth, 2001). For

example, individuals are likely to develop identification with prestigious or high status employers because it

can increase self-esteem (Bartels, Pruyn, De Jong, & Joustra, 2007). Research on the group engagement model

reinforces the importance of identification to individual needs, by asserting that pride and respect are of primary

concern in identification (Tyler & Blader, 2003). Procedural justice judgements of the social group influence

feelings of pride in the group’s status and feelings of respect in one’s own status within the group, which

influence the development of identification (Blader & Tyler, 2009).

In support of these needs, conscious and unconscious processes occur when one identifies with an organization,

and these processes are important for understanding the outcomes of OI. First, as formulated by social identity

theory, individuals are compelled to assure positive group distinctiveness, which refers to viewing one’s group

as superior on valued attributes in comparison to other groups (Reicher, Spears, & Haslam, 2010; Tajfel & Turner,

1985). Through the organization’s value, the individual is able to fulfill his or her needs for self-esteem and self-

enhancement (Dutton et al., 1994). However, in pursuit of positive group distinctiveness, individuals are prone

THE DARK SIDE OF ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTIFICATION 185

Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 38, 184–203 (2017)

DOI: 10.1002/job