Understanding the impact of organizational identification on enhancing employee engagement and promoting organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB).

Understanding the impact of organizational identification on enhancing work/ employee engagement and promoting organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB) in light of the social identity theory and the Self-Determination Theory (SDT).

In today’s hypercompetitive world, organizations are keen to attract, nurture and retain highly engaged talents: those who are able to bring one’s self into work, being fully present, highly dedicated, open to collaboration, and capable of bringing about astounding results. Unarguably employee productivity is one of the organization’s business priorities that is highly affected by employee engagement, in research from Hanaysha (2016, p. 66) “work engagement has a significant positive effect on employee productivity. It is also found that all dimensions of employee engagement (vigour, dedication, and absorption) have significant positive effects on employee productivity”.

Work/ employee engagement is a multifaceted factor of today’s organizational business priorities, and it’s affected by several psychological multidimensional factors on both group and individual levels. We will explore further the impact of organizational identification in light of the social identity theory, on promoting and enhancing employee engagement and organizational citizenship behaviour along with the integrative aspects of the Self-determination theory to promote discretionary efforts and engagement.

Although there is not much consensus about the definition of employee engagement, we will consider the definition that focuses on the organizational context, according to (Gallup, 2013 as cited in Whittington et al., 2017, p. 3) “The Gallup organization defines engagement as employees who are involved in, enthusiastic about, and committed to their work and contribute to their organization in a positive manner”. Whilst Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB) can be defined as the discretionary effort exhibited by the individual who is willing to act on behalf of their group's best interest and not directly emphasized by the organizational reward or punishment systems ((Zhang et al., 2017).

Furthermore, employee engagement and organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB) are highly interrelated to one’s perception about the organization that they belong to. “Organizational identification refers to a person’s sense of belonging within the organization in which they work” (Karanika-Murray et al., 2015, p. 1019). Such organizational identification as explained by Ferris et al. (2017) is emanated from the social identity theory (Glassner & Tajfel, 1985) to put much more emphasis on the impact of group membership on how we see ourselves. According to Ferris et al. (2017), The sense of “we” as we see ourselves through the characteristics that we share with others in our group is apprehended in the social identity concepts. However, the sense of “we” as integrated with the one’s internal sense of “I” as a unique individual might explain the integrative impact of organizational identification and the power of self as captured by the Social Determination Theory (SDT), which can be explained further as “the distinction between autonomous motivation and controlled motivation. Autonomy involves acting with a sense of volition and having the experience if choice” (Gagné & Deci, 2005, p. 333).

Albeit that autonomous motivation is central to understanding the Self Determination Theory (SDT), according to Deci & Ryan, (2000) as cited in Bakker & Oerlemans, (2019) it also outlines three key innate psychological needs including autonomy and competence, whilst relatedness is the third key psychological need that might be pivotal towards understanding the integrative dimension between the (SDT) and organizational identification, augmenting their impact on employee engagement and performance.

Building on the key aspects of the aforementioned definitions and explanation, autonomous motivation as an individual level concept can synergize with the social or organizational identification which according to Ferris et al. (2017) can be perceived as an individual level concept as well but affected with the group membership as explained by the social identity conceptualization of organizational behaviour, focusing on one’s outcomes and contribution to the organization. “One key implication of this is that people who identify more with the organization should be more motivated to perform well in their jobs” (Ferris et al. 2017, p. 74).

Perceiving organizational identification as part of the employee’s self-concept would make it easier to apprehend the positive correlation between organizational identification, employee engagement, and organizational citizenship behaviour. According to Riketta (2005) as cited in (Zhang et al., 2017, p. 191) “Individuals with high levels of Organizational Identification have typically linked their organizational membership to their self-concept either cognitively (e.g. internalizing organizational values), emotionally (e.g. pride in being part of the organization) or both. Furthermore, in research from Zhang et al. (2017, p. 192) “Employees with higher organizational identification are therefore likely to be more engaged because they tend to internalize the organization’s success as their own personal success”, whilst considering the discretionary nature of cooperating with group members and the innate psychological need of relatedness as per the Self-Determination Theory (SDT), employees tend to develop and maintain positive organizational identification which might contribute to a sense of pride and perceiving themselves as respected members of the group which in turn leads to promoting organizational citizenship behaviours expressed in more discretionary efforts and contribution (Zhang et al., 2017).

As evident through a recent research study by Karanika-Murray et al. (2015), they found that specifically through the work engagement dimensions of vigour and dedication, employee or work engagement mediates the positive correlation between organizational identification and job satisfaction, supporting the argument that employee engagement can be enhanced effectively through building positive organization identification perception as integrated into one’s self-concept. Furthermore, according to research from Valentin et al. (2015) the three dimensions of the Self-determination theory; competency, autonomy, and relatedness play an important role in promoting sustained engagement through meeting the psychological needs of the employee, paving the way towards creating value for both the employee and the organization. Considering the relatedness dimension as the intersection point between both organizational identification and the self-determination theory (SDT), it is confirmed in research that “Relatedness allows for employees to make connections and feel respected and trusted” (Valentin et al., 2015, p. 190).

“Although SDT argues that the natural tendency of human beings is to internalize the external, socially constructed reasons for doing tasks, the theory also describes aspects of the person (e.g., autonomous orientation vs. controlled orientation) and context (e.g., autonomy-supportive context) that can facilitate this process” (Gagne, 2015a, p. 146). Such an argument clarifies the need for approaching employee engagement from both individual and social perspectives, understanding that the employee’s orientation to work engagement, citizenship, and performance is affected by both one’s self-concept and the internalization process to perceive the external organizational identity through one’s self-concept. This needed multifaceted and multidimensional approach to employee engagement might justify the struggle of today’s organizations and leaders to find explicit ways of promoting engagement and OCB. “A report published by Gallup Organization indicated that only a third (33%) of American employees were ‘engaged with their job” (He et al., 2013, p. 682).

As an example of how organizational social practices would impact organizational identification and consequently affect work/employee engagement; in recent research by He et al., (2013), they found that resonating with the aforementioned theories and argument, procedural justice is considered one of the key organizational social-related practices directly impact employee engagement through organizational identification. They also expanded more on the impact of procedural justice on citizenship behaviour explaining the positive correlation that exists via organizational identification as explained through the group engagement model. This model can be explained according to Tyler & Blader (2003) as to how procedures can influence and formulate one’s social identity and consequently influence attitudes, values, and behaviours. In light of the brief explanation of the group engagement model, it gets clearer that organizational identification along with the three dimensions of the self-determination theory (SDT) have a synergistic integrative positive correlation with employee engagement, influencing organizational citizenship behaviour.

Albeit there’s strong evidence that supports the integrative impact of both organizational identification based on the concepts of the social identity theory and the (SDT) dimensions of employee’s psychological needs that directly impact employee engagement and (OCB), there’s a need for further research to explore other correlated aspects that might either augment or weaken the impact of those factors. Furthermore, a further investigation of the potential limitations of such an impact is needed to help organizations improve their practices to promote engagement and OCB. Another important question that might need further studies, is the impact of the nature of the job along with leadership practices on organizational identification and (SDT), especially because some jobs allow greater leeway of control and cooperation whilst some other jobs might be classified as prescribed, standardized and individualistic with limited leeway for autonomy and collaboration across organizational boundaries.

Summarizing the aforementioned assumptions and theories, the social identity theory has paved the way towards understanding the impact of organizational identification as internalized by one’s self-concept, and it’s evident and supported in research that positive organizational identification leads to enhancing employee engagement and positive organizational citizenship behaviours, while a synergistic and integrative effect is facilitated by the relatedness dimension of the self-determination theory and supported by other dimensions of autonomy and competence to promote autonomous motivation that augments the positive impact of organizational identification on enhancing work engagement, resulting in positive organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB). Despite such significant impact and correlation, a further investigation of other correlated dimensions and limitations is needed to help organizations enhance and improve the overall percentage of their engaged workforce towards better results and business success.

 References:

Bakker, Arnold B, & Oerlemans, Wido G.M. (2019). Daily job crafting and momentary work engagement: A self-determination and self-regulation perspective. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 112, 417-430.

Ferris, L. D., Johnson, R. E., & Sedikides, C. (2017). The Self at Work: Fundamental Theory and Research (SIOP Organizational Frontiers Series) (1st ed.). Routledge.

Gagne, M. (2015). The Oxford Handbook of Work Engagement, Motivation, and Self-Determination Theory (Oxford Library of Psychology) (Reprint ed.). Oxford University Press.

Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331–362. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.322

Glassner, B., & Tajfel, H. (1985). Social Identity and Intergroup Relations. Contemporary Sociology, 14(4), 520. https://doi.org/10.2307/2069233

Hanaysha, J. (2016). Improving employee productivity through work engagement: Evidence from higher education sector. Management Science Letters, 61–70. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2015.11.006

He, H., Zhu, W., & Zheng, X. (2013). Procedural Justice and Employee Engagement: Roles of Organizational Identification and Moral Identity Centrality. Journal of Business Ethics, 122(4), 681–695. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1774-3

Karanika-Murray, M., Duncan, N., Pontes, H. M., & Griffiths, M. D. (2015). Organizational identification, work engagement, and job satisfaction. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 30(8), 1019–1033. https://doi.org/10.1108/jmp-11-2013-0359

Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2003). The Group Engagement Model: Procedural Justice, Social Identity, and Cooperative Behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7(4), 349–361. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0704_07

Valentin, M. A., Valentin, C. C., & Nafukho, F. M. (2015). The engagement continuum model using corporate social responsibility as an intervention for sustained employee engagement. European Journal of Training and Development, 39(3), 182–202. https://doi.org/10.1108/ejtd-01-2014-0007

Whittington, L. J., Meskelis, S., Asare, E., & Beldona, S. (2017). Enhancing Employee Engagement: An Evidence-Based Approach (1st ed. 2017 ed.). Palgrave Macmillan.

Zhang, Y., Guo, Y., & Newman, A. (2017). Identity judgements, work engagement and organizational citizenship behavior: The mediating effects based on group engagement model. Tourism Management, 61, 190–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2017.01.005