Addendum to Paper ( Identity Matters: Identity As a Proximal Determinant of Employee Performance
Addendum to paper (“Identity matters: Identity as a proximal determinant of employee performance”) for Yale Talk
The attached manuscript makes a case for conceptualizing social identity as a primary determinant of employee performance. The basic argument in this paper is that the behaviors employees engage in on the job are shaped by the role their organization plays in how they think and feel about themselves. Somewhat more broadly, the paper argues that issues of self-definition are fundamental to understanding what people seek from—and how they relate to—their groups.
In more recent work on this topic, I have become interested in understanding why behavior is shaped by social identity. That is, I have been investigating the mechanism by which social identity vis-à-vis a group prompts the performance effects demonstrated in the current studies. Background
From my understanding of the literature, at least three possible mechanisms/explanations can be distinguished that relate to the results presented in this manuscript. Notably, only the first one has received explicit attention:
· The first explanation is that self-categorization and identification with a group prompts two concurrent processes: 1) a subduing of the personal self and 2) an increase in the extent to which group characteristics become self-defining and group norms become behavioral guides. The two processes explain that the performance results in the manuscript can be attributed to organizational norms that promote high performance (Christensen, Rothgerber, Wood, & Matz, 2004; Ellemers et al., 2004; Haslam et al., 2000; Oakes, Turner, & Haslam, 1991; Terry & Hogg, 1996; van Knippenberg, 2000). However, according to this approach high performance will not necessarily flow from high levels of social identification in and of itself. Rather, it is contingent on the norms of the group. In groups where norms promote weak/low performance, performance by high identifiers will be especially poor. Overall, high identifiers will be most likely to follow the group norms regardless of what they are.
Importantly, this is the explanation that most directly flows from the logic of social identity theory. In my view, it paints a picture of the highly identified as having a passive role in determining their behavior. Furthermore, it suggests potentially alarming consequences, such as in cases where the morality of group norms is questionable.
This mechanism can be described as a norm-based approach, insofar as group norms are the central driver of behavior among the highly identified.
· A second explanation is that those who are highly identified with a group become intrinsically concerned with the welfare and success of the group. As the group becomes intermingled with their self-concept, an intrinsic interest develops in the group’s welfare and the group’s success. Cognitive and affective ties to the group shift people from a focus on their own needs, goals, and motives to the needs, goals, and motives of the group, much like cognitive and affective ties to individuals often breeds a concern with their needs, goals, etc. Group goals thus become internalized (O'Reilly & Chatman, 1986). Once social identity fosters this psychological bridge to the group, people focus their attention on group needs and group welfare.
This approach has been implicitly described, though not explicitly distinguished, by a number of theorists. In particular, it has primarily been discussed by theorists in the organizational literature (Dukerich et al., 2002; Dutton, Dukerich, & Harquail, 1994; Kramer, Hanna, Su, & Wei, 2001).
This mechanism can be described as a group welfare-based approach, insofar as a concern over group welfare is the central driver of behavior among the highly identified.
· A third explanation is that those who are identified with a group place greater emphasis on their exchange relationship with the group. Since they see their futures as more strongly linked to the group—and are more invested in the group—they are more motivated to contribute to the group. Doing so perpetuates their exchange relationship with the group and also ensures that the group will remain viable and will continue to serve as a source of valued resources and status (insofar as membership begets a sense of status).
This mechanism can be described as an instrumental approach, insofar as the instrumentality of the group is the central driver of behavior among the highly identified.
The distinction between these approaches is important insofar as there are implications for why and when behavior will flow as a result of identity. Furthermore, they each stipulate different psychological concerns and processes, each painting a somewhat different picture of people in the group.
Importantly, the group-welfare and instrumental approaches both suggest that people will be concerned with the group’s viability and welfare. Their difference lies in the underlying motive for that concern. In the group-welfare case, it is out of a direct concern for the group without particular reference to the personal self. People are going beyond the personal self. In the instrumental case, the concern for the group is indirect and is driven by concerns directly linked to the personal self.
Research projects
I have started to investigate these different mechanisms, with a particular focus on demonstrating a) that the group welfare approach is a real and viable description of why identity may shape behavior, and b) understanding the conditions under which each of these respective mechanisms may be at work.
In one stream of research (with D. van Knippenberg & E. Sleebos), we are examining whether people may adopt a communal orientation towards their organizations. This work draws heavily from the communal and exchange relationship literature (e.g., Clark & Mills, 1979), which emphasizes that the giving and receiving of benefits in close relationships are typically marked either by communal norms (in which the giving and receiving of benefits is focused on meeting the other’s needs) or by exchange norms (in which the giving and receiving of benefits is focused on reciprocity). Adapting this framework to the context of people’s relationships with their organizations, we have found that a) communal orientation can characterize the relationship between employees and a work organization—thus challenging the hegemony of exchange theories, b) that communal—and not exchange—orientation explains the effects of identity on employee behavior. This is direct evidence that concern over needs—and not exchange-based concerns—underlie identity’s effects on performance. This work compares the group-welfare approach and the instrumental approach, and finds that the group welfare approach provides a better description of the mechanism by which identity shapes performance.
In a second stream of research (with A. Kane), we are exploring whether strong social identity makes people more or less likely to deviate from counterproductive group norms. In this laboratory-based work, we vary participants’ strength of social identity and examine the likelihood of their breaking counterproductive norms. Our prediction is that those with stronger social identity will be more likely to break counterproductive norms. Such findings would lend support to a group-welfare account for why identity shapes behavior. Importantly, we also explore the interactive effects of social identity strength and a number of other factors (such as fear of social sanction, need to belong, self esteem, etc.) to determine whether these factors shape whether strong identity results in norm compliance or deviance. In so doing, we hope to identify factors that explain when each of the various mechanisms that link identity to performance may be in operation.