Organizational Identity and the Nature of Stakeholder Relationships
in the Blended Age of Organizing
BY
JULIE A. LANGER B.A., North Park University, 2004 M.P.A. University of Illinois – Chicago, 2011
THESIS
Submitted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Public Administration in the Graduate College of the University of Illinois at Chicago, 2018
Chicago, Illinois
Defense Committee:
Dr. Kelly LeRoux, Chair and Advisor, Public Administration Dr. Mary Feeney, Arizona State University Dr. Shelley Brickson, Business Administration Dr. James Thompson, Public Administration Dr. Michael Siciliano, Public Administration
To Ava and Mason. Thank you for bringing perspective into my life, and for allowing me to realize my most cherished identity as your mother.
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank the members of my dissertation committee Dr. Kelly LeRoux, Dr.
Mary Feeney, Dr. Shelley Brickson, Dr. Michael Siciliano and Dr. James Thompson for their guidance, mentorship, and inspiration during my years as a graduate student. Each one of them has played a key role in my development as a scholar and over the years has shown concern not only for my research, but for me as a person.
I owe a special thanks to both my committee chair, Dr. Kelly LeRoux and Dr. Mary Feeney.
Dr. LeRoux has been a supporter in every sense of the word. For every opportunity given, question answered, word of encouragement offered and anxiety assuaged, I am truly grateful. My academic development is a direct result of both her kindness and the countless hours and critical assessments she has invested in my work. I am also tremendously grateful for the guidance and mentorship that
Dr. Mary Feeney has provided me throughout many years. She took me under her wing early on, inspired me to work extremely hard and invested so much in my development as a scholar. I am truly lucky to have such intelligent and strong women as both mentors and friends.
I would also like to thank my parents who early on instilled in me a love for learning, told me I could be anything I wanted to be, and made me believe it. Finally, I would like to thank my husband Timothy McCarthy for making the world a place where being anything I wanted to be, could actually become a reality. Thank you for supporting me and our life over the last decade.
“Thankful” does not begin to describe my gratitude for your patience, support and vision.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS Summary ...... ix Chapter 1 - Introduction ...... 1 1. Background ...... 1 2. Statement of the Problem ...... 6 3. Study Significance...... 13 4. Research Questions ...... 18 5. Summary of Subsequent Chapters ...... 21 Chapter 2 - Organizing in a New Economy: Isomorphism, Sector Blurring and Implications for Identity Orientation ...... 24 1. Introduction ...... 24 2. The Changing Nature of Organizing: A Macro-Level Perspective...... 28 3. Conforming to the “Norm”: Organizational Isomorphism in the New Economy...... 36 4. Identity at Risk? Sector Blurring and the Marketization Debate ...... 47 5. Organizational Identity Orientation and the Nature of Stakeholder Relationships ...... 55 Hypothesis #1: ...... 59 Hypothesis #2: ...... 62 Chapter 3 - Variability or Homogeneity: A Population and Sub-Population Perspective on Organizational Identity Orientation ...... 64 1. Introduction ...... 64 2. Industry, Insularity and Implications for Identity Orientation: A Population Level Perspective ...... 68 Hypothesis #3: ...... 76 3. Audiences, Expectations and Implications for Identity Orientation: A Sub-Population Perspective ...... 76 Hypothesis #4: ...... 82 Hypothesis #5: ...... 86 Chapter 4 - Research Design and Methodology ...... 87 1. Overview ...... 87 2. Research Methodology and Study Design ...... 87 Purpose and Methodology ...... 87 Survey Design...... 89 3. Survey Administration, Sample Characteristics and Preliminary Results ...... 97 Phase 1 ...... 98 Phase 2 ...... 108
iv
4. Overview of Analytic Methods ...... 113 Chapter 5 – Development of the Measurement Models ...... 117 1. Overview ...... 117 2. Scale Development (Phase 1) ...... 117 3. Scale Development (Phase 2) ...... 122 Pretest 1 ...... 125 Pretest 2 ...... 131 Final Scale Development Procedures ...... 136 Tests of Convergent and Discriminant Validity ...... 140 Chapter 6 – Results of Hypothesized Relationships ...... 145 1. Sector Level Analysis of OIO ...... 145 2. Population Level Analysis of OIO ...... 153 3. Sub-Population Level Analysis of OIO ...... 165 4. Using Predictive Models to Examine the Nature of OIO ...... 171 Chapter 7 – Summary and Implications...... 184 1. Summary ...... 184 2. Major Findings and Contributions ...... 187 3. Conclusions and Paths for Future Research...... 194 APPENDICES ...... 202 REFERENCES ...... 258
v
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE I: COMPONENTS OF ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTITY ORIENTATION ...... 4
TABLE II: CORE COMPONENTS OF SERVICE-ORIENTED ORGANIZATION...... 79
TABLE III: TIMELINE OF ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTITY ORIENTATION STUDY ...... 89
TABLE IV: MEASURES OF OIO (PHASE 1) ...... 94
TABLE V: SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS (PHASE 1) ...... 100
TABLE VI: PERCEPTIONS OF INDIVIDUALISTIC OIO STATEMENTS (PHASE 1) ...... 103
TABLE VII: PERCEPTIONS OF COLLECTIVISTIC OIO STATEMENTS (PHASE 1) ...... 104
TABLE VIII: PERCEPTIONS OF RELATIONAL OIO STATEMENTS (PHASE 1) ...... 106
TABLE IX: SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS (PHASE 2) ...... 111
TABLE X: FACTOR ANALYSIS SUITABILITY TESTS (PHASE 1) ...... 118
TABLE XI: RELATIONAL OIO FACTOR ANALYSIS RESULTS (PHASE 1) ...... 120
TABLE XII: COLLECTIVISTIC OIO FACTOR ANALYSIS RESULTS (PHASE 1) ...... 120
TABLE XIII: INDIVIDUALISTIC OIO FACTOR ANALYSIS RESULTS (PHASE 1)...... 121
TABLE XIV: OIO FACTOR MEASURES (PHASE 2) ...... 123
TABLE XV: PRETEST 1 FACTOR ANALYSIS SUITABILITY TESTS (PHASE 2) ...... 126
TABLE XVII: PRETEST 1- RELATIONAL OIO FACTOR ANALYSIS RESULTS (PHASE 2) ...... 127
TABLE XVIII: PRETEST 1 - COLLECTIVISTIC OIO FACTOR ANALYSIS RESULTS (PHASE 2) ...... 128
TABLE XIX: PRETEST 1 - SINGLE ITEM EFA OF ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTITY ORIENTATION MEASURES (PHASE 2) ...... 130
TABLE XX: PRETEST 2 – FACTOR ANALYSIS SUITABILITY TESTS (PHASE 2) ...... 131
TABLE XXI: PRETEST 2- INDIVIDUALISTIC OIO FACTOR ANALYSIS RESULTS (PHASE 2) ...... 132
vi
LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED)
TABLE XXII: ANALYSIS PRETEST 2- RELATIONAL OIO FACTOR ANALYSIS RESULTS (PHASE 2) ...... 133
TABLE XXIII: PRETEST 2- COLLECTIVISTIC OIO FACTOR ANALYSIS RESULTS (PHASE 2) ...... 133
TABLE XXIV: PRETEST 2- SINGLE ITEM EFA OF ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTITY ORIENTATION MEASURES (PHASE 2) ...... 135
TABLE XXV: FACTOR ANALYSIS SUITABILITY TESTS (PHASE 2) ...... 136
TABLE XXVI: INDIVIDUALISTIC OIO FACTOR ANALYSIS RESULTS (PHASE 2) ..... 137
TABLE XXVIII: COLLECTIVISTIC OIO FACTOR ANALYSIS RESULTS (PHASE 2) .... 138
TABLE XXIX: SINGLE ITEM EFA OF ALL OIO SCALE MEASURES (PHASE 2) ...... 139
TABLE XXX: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR OIO CONSTRUCTS ...... 140
TABLE XXXI: CONVERGENT AND DISCRIMINANT VALIDITY TESTS OF OIO SCALES ...... 141
TABLE XXXII: ANOVA RESULTS OF SECTOR DIFFERENCES IN PERCEPTIONS OF OIO ...... 146
TABLE XXXIII: PAIRWISE COMPARISON OF MEANS ACROSS SECTORS...... 147
TABLE XXXIV: MEMBER VIEWS OF ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTITY ORIENTATION ...... 149
TABLE XXXV: MEMBER PERCEPTIONS OF MOTIVATION RELATED IDENTITY STATEMENTS...... 150
TABLE XXXVI: MEMBER PERCEPTIONS OF TRAIT RELATED IDENTITY STATEMENTS...... 152
TABLE XXXVII: ONE-WAY ANOVA: PERCEPTIONS OF OIO IN FOR-PROFIT INDUSTRIES ...... 155
TABLE XXXVIII: ONE-WAY ANOVA: PERCEPTIONS OF IDENTITY ORIENTATION IN NONPROFIT INDUSTRIES ...... 156
vii
LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED)
TABLE XXXIX: PAIRWISE COMPARISON OF MEANS ACROSS NONPROFIT INDUSTRIES ...... 158
TABLE XLI: PAIRWISE COMPARISON OF MEANS ACROSS GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIES ...... 161
TABLE XLII: TWO-SAMPLE TTEST – PERCEPTIONS OF RELATIONAL IDENTITY ORIENTATION IN ORGANIZATIONS THAT PROVIDE HIGHLY PERSONAL SERVICES ...... 167
TABLE: XLIV: MEMBER VIEWS OF ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTITY ORIENTATION IN THE FOR-PROFIT SECTOR...... 174
TABLE: XLV: MEMBER VIEWS OF ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTITY ORIENTATION IN THE NONPROFIT SECTOR ...... 176
TABLE XLVI: MEMBER VIEWS OF ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTITY ORIENTATION IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR ...... 178
TABLE XLVII: REVIEW OF ALL EMPIRICAL FINDINGS ...... 181
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1: PRIMARY ORGANIZATIONAL FORM AND AUTHORITY BASE IN THE 20TH AND 21ST CENTURIES…………………………………………………………………………41 FIGURE 2: ECOLOGICAL NESTING OF ORGANIZATIONS……………………………….66
ix
Summary
The nature of organizing has changed. If the environment of the 20th century was marked by centralization, a rise in political authority and near unity in organizational form as a result of bureaucratization; it is decentralization, a rise in market authority and the proliferation of diverse organizational forms that characterize the new institutional environments in a global knowledge- based economy. These changes have prompted organizations across sectors to recognize their common enterprise and interact more. No longer are for-profit organizations focusing solely on the pursuit of profit, and government and nonprofit organizations on the pursuit of the common good. Rather, in today’s interconnected world, businesses are expected to embrace collective values and public and nonprofit organizations to internalize a market ethos. While supporters of sector cross-pollination in the public and nonprofit sector often view these changes as a pragmatic way for organizations to survive and thrive, critics believe that the pervasive influence of a market- ethos is changing the way that individuals working in the public and nonprofit sectors view the fundamental nature of relationships with stakeholders and those they serve, by promoting instrumental connections and consumer identities over the public interest.
Drawing from theories of isomorphism and organizational ecology, this research examines identity and stakeholder relationships through the lens of Organizational Identity Orientation.
Using a mixed method approach, a quantitative measurement model of the organizational identity orientation construct is developed and used to determine how organizational members across sectors view the fundamental nature of stakeholder relationships in the blended age of organizing.
Findings suggest that while member perceptions of identity orientation tend to align with historical sector norms of collectivism in the public and nonprofit sectors and individualism in the for-profit sector, all orientations are reflected by members within each sector. Further, average views of
x individualism are much closer across all sectors than are views of collectivism, and in the case of nonprofit and for-profit members, not significantly different. Factors such as client-type, industry and the type of services an organization provides, help to explain some of these differences.
1
Chapter 1 - Introduction
1. Background
According to Whetten (2006), “organizations are best known by their deepest commitments,” or “what they repeatedly commit to be through time and across circumstances,”
(p. 224). These commitments, which reflect an organizations highest values and act as
“institutional reminders of significant organizing choices” form the foundation of its identity
(Whetten, 2006, p. 224). Whether it be shaping how an organization interprets and acts upon an issue or crisis (Dutton and Dukerich, 1991) or molding the type of social value it creates
(Brickson, 2007), it is widely understood that identity is a key driver of organizational behavior and action. One critical way that identity informs organizational behavior is that it helps us to understand how entities relate with one another (Brickson, 2000). All entities need at least a preliminary answer to the question “who are we” in order to effectively interact with others over the long run (Albert, Ashforth, Dutton, 2000). “Similarly, other entities need at least a preliminary answer to the question, ‘who are they’ for effective interaction,” (Albert, Ashforth,
Dutton, 2000: p. 13). Organizational identity orientation (OIO), a construct born from social psychology and organizational behavior, speaks directly to this important facet of organizational identity, asking the important question, “who are we as an organization, vis-à-vis our stakeholders,” (Brickson, 2007: p. 866)?
Organizational identity orientation is defined as, “the nature of assumed relations between an organization and its stakeholders,” as perceived by organizational members (Brickson, 2005, p. 577; Brickson, 2007)1. Questions of identity orientation at the organizational level focus on
1 It is important to note that while the measurement of organizational identity orientation relies on individual members perceptions, empirical evidence indicates that it is an organizational level construct. More specifically, findings from employees
2 the organization as a whole and ask “who are we?” either as independent entities
(individualistic), dyadically interdependent partners (relational) or as group members
(collectivistic) (Brickson, 2005). How an organization defines and compares itself to others, and its primary motivations and values will differ significantly depending on whether an organization espouses an individualistic, relational or collectivistic identity orientation (Brickson, 2000). For example, members in organizations espousing individualistic orientations might refer to their organization as “the best” or “unlike any other” as they often compare their organizations to other similar organizations and work hard to differentiate it. Organizational self-interest is the primary motivation for action in individualistic organizations. Conversely, characteristics connecting an organization to close partners or a larger group are more salient in relational and collectivistic organizations that use dyadic and collective role standards as comparison referents.
Employees might describe a relational organization as “caring and compassionate partners” and a collectivistic organization as one that “emphasizes making contributions to its community.”
These organizations seek primarily to maximize the well-being of particular others or the collective, respectively. Table I summarizes these points and provides a brief outline of the composition of the Organizational Identity Orientation construct.
As a core component of identity, organizational identity orientation is important because it,
“outlines the fundamental basis for sanctioned organizational action toward […] various audiences or stakeholders,” (Brickson, 2005, p. 602) and is thus foundational to the way it manages all stakeholder relationships (Brickson, 2005). For example, an organization with an
in organizations in legal services and non-alcoholic beverage industries, indicate that differences in organizational identity orientation stem primarily from specific organizational level factors that mold its immediate environment such as client type and cooperative structure; while individual level variables, such as tenure and sex, were found to explain very little between- organization variance in identity orientation (See Brickson (2005) for a full discussion).
3 individualistic orientation may primarily form instrumental relationships characterized by weak ties, whereas organizations with relational orientations may form relationships characterized by strong dyadic ties that are based on concern and trust (Brickson, 2007). While stakeholder relationship patterns may vary based on an organizations’ identity orientation, rather than making judgements a priori about the values and motivations that shape stakeholder relationships, the Organizational Identity Orientation framework recognizes that diverse relationship patterns exist, each with the potential to create distinct forms of social value, ranging from the reinvestment of wealth into public goods and operational innovations to the generation of citizenship behavior and the advancement of social causes (Brickson, 2007). Simply stated, the OIO framework highlights how organizations can aid in the achievement of diverse public interest ideals though varied individualistic, relational and collectivistic identification processes
(Albert, Ashforth & Dutton, 2000; Brickson, 2000; Brickson, 2005; Brickson, 2007).
4
TABLE I: COMPONENTS OF ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTITY ORIENTATION
Locus of Basis for organizational Salient Traits Motivation Comparison OIO Social Value Potentiality Self-Definition & Values Vis-à-vis Referent Stakeholders Generate high levels of wealth Those (potential to reinvest or Individual distinguishing redirect), are maximally organization, sole Organizational Interorganizational Individualistic the organization efficient and innovative, entity set apart self-interest comparison from other promote virtues such as from others entities bravery, risk-taking, and heroism Generate high levels of personalization and Those understanding, provide Inter-entity, connecting the Particular Comparison to tailored care to meet Relational relationship organization other’s benefit role standard specialized needs, help build partner dyadically to organizational capacity, particular others promote virtues such as empathy and dependability Those Generate social capital and a Collective (group connecting the sense of citizenship, build of organizations, Greater Intergroup organization to unity and spur social change, Collectivistic community), part collective’s comparison, in- a larger, more promote virtues such as of a larger more welfare group comparison impersonal conscientiousness, fairness and impersonal whole cause principled
5
The answer to the question, “who are we as an organization” in relationship to others, not only informs organizational identity and behavior, but situates an entity in a much larger institutional space. The unique space embodied by organizations gives them power and helps to shape their impact in society. As such, it is critical to understand how organizations are oriented toward stakeholders if we hope to understand and shape that impact, and further prevent the entity from being “misclassified as a social actor or misused as a social tool” (Whetten, 2006, p.
223). Traditionally for-profit, nonprofit and government organizations have been seen as social actors that occupy distinct spaces in the economy, which create different types of value in society based on their primary motivations. Self-interest has long been seen as the basis for organizational motivation in for-profits and thus their impact potential has historically been linked to their ability to generate surplus wealth in a maximally efficient manner; assumptions which align closely with individualistic identity orientations. Conversely, public and nonprofit organization have long been assumed to be driven primarily by other-orienting motives that lay a foundation for the creation of relational support, social capital and collective change. These assumptions align more closely with relational and collectivistic orientations.
Many of these assumptions stem from traditional notions of sector boundaries which hold that the economy is made up of three distinct components, the market, state and civil society, each with its own unique roles and identity (Frumkin, 2013). However, globalization2 has ushered in a new era of organizing, characterized by dynamism, fluidity and the blurring of
2 While globalization most often refers to the integration of economies around the world, the mass expansion of the global marketplace and the increasing influence of economic values on society; more broadly, it deals with the question of borders (Farazmand, 1999; Kettl, 2000; IMF, 2008). From a political perspective, the fluid and agile movement of capital, labor and knowledge across borders has raised questions of institutional distinctiveness and ushered in new challenges related to governance, identity and the ability of actors across sectors to adequately address public problems.
6 conventional boundaries that challenge sector-based norms. No longer are for-profit organizations focusing solely on the pursuit of profit, and government and nonprofit organizations on the pursuit of the common good. Rather, in today’s globalized and interconnected world, businesses are beginning to promote pro-social values such as diversity and equity while government and nonprofit organizations increasingly champion neoliberal values such as deregulation, privatization and efficiency. While supporters of sector blurring see these changes as a way for organizations to survive and thrive in new, more complex operating environments, critics have argued that such macro level changes have altered not only the traditional identity of organizations across sectors, but rather their identity orientation, or the way they perceive the fundamental nature of their relationships to stakeholders and those they serve.
Drawing from theories of isomorphism, organizational ecology and the sector distinction literature, the remainder of this dissertation explores the nature of organizational identity orientation among communities of organizations and among specific organizational populations and sub-populations within these larger communities.
2. Statement of the Problem
In a global society, many political, technological and cultural issues are no longer the province of a single jurisdiction, be it the market, state or civil society (Frederickson, 1999).
Rather, in an interconnected world, issues such as national security, environmental safety, and human rights are increasingly being recognized as trans-jurisdictional phenomena that require the problem-solving potential of both state and non-state actors (Frederickson, 1999; Wolf,
2008). World leaders have insisted that governments, business organizations and civil society must work together and share the information and resources needed to adequately address public problems and foster peace and prosperity (CCCUN, 2010). At the organizational level, actors
7 across sectors have responded to these demands by shifting away from hierarchical patterns of organizing and adopting horizontal decision-making structures, characterized by negotiation and collaboration.
Increasingly, actors across sectors are recognizing their common enterprise and interacting more. As a result, the activities of governments, businesses and nonprofits have become progressively more intertwined. Through processes of devolution, contracting and privatization, the government has come to rely on the nonprofit and for-profit sectors for the provision of public services ranging from the housing of criminals and development of anti- missile systems to the exploration of space and the provision of welfare services (Bozeman,
2007; Donahue & Zeckhauser, 2011; NASA, 2016; Wolf, 2008). For-profit organizations have formed collaborative relationships with government and nonprofit organizations in order to reduce operating costs, improve their brand and appeal to consumers (Porter & Kramer, 2011); and nonprofits, through political and community networking with governments, business groups, and community organizations have greatly improved both organizational effectiveness and advocacy outcomes (Johansen & LeRoux, 2013). The increasing interactions between actors within and across sectors have fundamentally altered the meaning of institutional connectedness and redefined classic notions of the “organizational field”3 . Today, fields are defined not only by their structural and functional features and purposes (e.g. common products or markets), but also by both similar and competing beliefs, social logics and norms. Such changes have ushered in new pressures that have driven isomorphic change.
3 DiMaggio and Powell (1983) define an organizational field as, “those organizations that in the aggregate, constitute a recognized area of institutional life,” and cite connectedness and structural equivalence as central components (p. 148). See page 39 of this dissertation for a more detailed account.
8
Isomorphism is a process that compels entities facing similar environmental demands to resemble one another (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). Within organizational fields, isomorphic pressures drive structural and trait-based changes that promote compatibility between institutions and their environment (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). In the second half of the 20th century, a post- industrial society centered on mass production demanded speed, continuity and precision from organizations in the U.S. These pressures, coupled with the prominence of political authority and the increasing reach of the state into areas previously unregulated, led not only to the expansion of the central state, but also the centralization of capital and coordination of philanthropy
(DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Meyer, 1979). At the organizational level, these environmental pressures manifested in the bureaucratic form, and isomorphic processes led to the models’ proliferation across sectors. However, as described by DiMaggio & Powell, (1983), “diversity in organizational form is isomorphic to environmental diversity,” (p.149). Globalization has made the operating environments of organizations today profoundly more diverse by redefining the meaning of borders and increasing the information load with which organizations must contend.
If the environment of the 20th century was marked by centralization, a rise in political authority and near unity in organizational form as a result of bureaucratization; it is decentralization, a rise in market authority and the proliferation of diverse organizational forms that characterize the new institutional environments in a global economy.
From social enterprises and quasi-governmental organizations to pro-social business ventures and shared value initiatives, it is clear today that in response to various environmental pressures the structural and functional purposes, as well as, the beliefs and logics of organizations across sectors are blurring. As a result, we see a wider range of organizational forms that reflect both traditional and non-traditional beliefs and logics. In other words, larger
9 environmental pressures have led to isomorphic changes or what I call the proliferation of a
“similar diversity” in form across sectors (i.e. many organizations are trying to be many things)4.
However, while all sectors are affecting each other, and being affected by each other simultaneously, and therefore change has been multi-directional, it is perhaps the expansion of the market ethos and its tenets of individualism, efficiency and effectiveness that has been most influential as organizations respond to isomorphic pressures and seek to become more compatible with globalized operating environments of the 21st Century (Bozeman, 2007). In the private for-profit sector, the rise in market authority has prompted exponential growth and an amassing of shareholder wealth never before seen in American history (Brickson, 2007).
However, while an economy that fully embraces a market ethos has produced many positive benefits for the for-profit sector, its effects on the nature of organizing in the public and nonprofit sectors are less clear.
While government and nonprofit organizations have never operated in environments completely insulated from market forces, marketization pressures have intensified as a result of globalization. Marketization can be understood as the penetration of an individualistic ethos, economic values and market-type relationships into arenas previously deemed separate and distinct (Eikenberry, 2009). Both government and nonprofit organizations have responded to environmental pressures to become more market-like by increasingly emphasizing the importance of the customer, and embracing the core tenets of economic individualism, efficiency
4 A note of clarification here. Diffusion of new ideas and ways of organizing in the 21st century have created heterogeneous institutional environments. As DiMaggio and Powell (1983) point out, “diversity in organizational form is isomorphic to environmental diversity.” I interpret this as meaning that when institutional environments are more or less homogenous, organizations will reflect unitary form. Isomorphism of the bureaucratic form in the 20th century would be an example of this. However, when institutional environments are heterogenous, organizations will reflect diverse forms. Isomorphism of the collaborative or multipurpose form seems to reflect this is the 21st century. When I refer to the proliferation of “similarly diverse” organizations, these are the concepts being conveyed.
10 and effectiveness. In the public sector, market-based reforms gained traction as a result of the
New Public Management and Re-Inventing Government Movements. In part, these movements emphasized elements such as devolution, productivity and efficiency (Hood, 1991; Kettl, 2000).
As a result, the government adopted a more entrepreneurial, customer-centered approach to governing, and privatization efforts proliferated, leading a substantial shift in how the public sector is governed and managed today (Bozeman, 2007; Osborne & Gaebler, 1993).
Pressures to become more market-like and to embrace the core elements of economic individualism have also led to substantial changes in the nonprofit sector. Government, under pressure to produce measurable results, called for greater efficiency in the nonprofit sector as it began to rely heavily upon charitable organizations for the delivery of public goods and services
(Hwang and Powell, 2009; Young, 2002). Increased pressure to adopt commercial operating models resulted (Bromley and Meyer, 2014). In addition, increased competition from organizations in the for-profit sector prompted many nonprofits to adopt or re-introduce business-like management tools in order to survive (Frumkin and Adre-Clark, 2000). Further, the rise in popularity of practices throughout the nonprofit sector such as venture philanthropy, impact investing, social entrepreneurship, and cause-related marketing, which draw heavily from for-profit models, has prompted rationalization of the sector and an increased focus on instrumental value (Eikenberry, 2009; Hwang and Powell, 2009).
Early supporters of market-based reforms in government believed they would increase efficiency, reduce administrative costs and foster cultures of innovation and risk-taking that would empower and satisfy employees (Osborne & Gaebler, 1993; Thompson, 1994). Supporters of marketization in the nonprofit sector also view the process as a way to leverage resources, achieve greater efficiency, obtain a larger message platform and better target services to clients
11
(Eikenberry & Kluver, 2004; Young, Salamon & Grinsfelder, 2012). Others see the proliferation of such practices simply as evidence of the rise of more formal organizational and managerial practices in response to larger cultural changes (Bromley and Meyer, 2014). Overall, champions of a market-based approach to organizing in government and nonprofit organizations see sector cross-pollination as a way for organizations to respond to shifting environmental demands and remain agile in their environments.
While supporters of marketization in the public and nonprofit sectors see the adoption of market-based innovations as a way to effectively respond to environmental demands, critics fear that the institutionalization of such practices has led to an erosion of sector values and loss of identity. Much like the “bureaucratization” of the nonprofit sector was seen by critics as a
“constant obstacle” to the maintenance of egalitarian and collectivist organizational forms in the
20th century (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983); marketization has been seen as impeding upon the ability of the nonprofit sector to fulfill their traditional roles as value guardians and advocates in the 21st. Whereas public sector distinctiveness is in part derived from its foundational values of equity and concern for the public interest overall, and the uniqueness of the for-profit sector stems in part from its primary values of efficiency and optimality, the identity of the nonprofit sector has long been defined by its emphasis of values such as charity, philanthropy, associationalism and communitarianism (Berger and Neuhaus, 1977; LeRoux and Feeney, 2014;
Salamon and Anheier, 1998). Scholars have questioned whether marketization challenges these roles by incentivizing the nonprofit sector to move away from its “expressive, non-instrumental dimensions” (Frumkin and Adre-Clark, 2000, p. 142) towards the adoption and formation of activities and relationships that focus first on their potential to offer instrumental benefits
(Eikenberry and Kluver, 2004).
12
In the public sector, a general criticism of marketization is that it places economic interests ahead of public interests, and threatens the sector’s identity. In other words, success and failure are measured primarily by costs to producers and consumers instead of legitimate consent of the governed, due process and security (Hood, 1991). Rather than taking into account a full range of public-serving values and pragmatic service delivery mechanisms, market-based approaches to Public Administration value efficiency and effectiveness and rely primarily on market mechanisms to achieve economies of scale and respond to consumers (Bryson, Crosby and Bloomberg, 2014). Simply stated, economic interests are governed by economic authority which “carries no necessary expectation of specific public values or public interest ideal,”
(Bozeman, 2007, p. 46). Further, marketization is seen as promoting an instrumental view of the citizenry that overlooks the intricate nature of the relationship between a citizen and their government in a democracy and replaces democratic and constitutional values, such accountability, equity and responsiveness with economic values of efficiency and effectiveness
(Kettl, 2002).
In general, critics believe that the marketization of the public and nonprofit sectors alters key values and objectives, and changes how entities view the fundamental nature of relationships with stakeholders and those they serve, by promoting instrumental connections and consumer identities over public values and public interest (Eikenberry & Kluver, 2004; Kettl, 2002).
Simply stated, critics argue that marketization has not only altered sector identity by emphasizing individualistic values and motivations over more traditional other-orienting motives, but rather than it has changed its identity orientation, or how organizational members define these entities in relationship to others and those they serve. From an identity orientation perspective, critics believe that organizational members no longer define public and nonprofit organizations as
13 collectives focused primarily on promoting the welfare of a larger group, cause or community but rather they define them first as separate and distinct entities that must look out for their own welfare above all else.
3. Study Significance
The changing relationships between the market, state and civil society are not new phenomena. In fact, the blurring of organizational and sectoral boundaries has shaped much of the 21st century research agenda in both Public Administration and Nonprofit Management.
Many of the “big questions” raised by scholars in both fields call for a better understanding of how to facilitate and manage increasing interactions between organizations within and across sectors (Agranoff and McGuire, 2001; Lohmann, 2007). As a result, much has been learned about types of networks and collaborative relationships (Austin, 2000; Agranoff, 2007; Provan and Lemaire, 2012); factors promoting or inhibiting networks and collaboration (Gazley, 2010;
Gazley and Brudney, 2007; Guo and Acar, 2005); performance (Milward et al, 2010; Provan and
Milward, 1995); and the role of managers and directors in collaborative arrangements (Agranoff and McGuire, 1999; O’Toole and Meier, 2001). While invaluable insight has been gained from the managerial approach to understanding sector blurring, research from this perspective sidesteps issues of values, motivation and the fundamental nature of stakeholder relationships, which are core to sector identity and the marketization debate.
Though motivations and values are ancillary to managerial perspectives on sector blurring in Public Administration and Nonprofit Management, they are core to a more normative, value-centered approach, which seeks to better understand and explain the meaning and purpose of organizations in an interconnected world (Bryson, Crosby and Bloomberg, 2014; Denhardt
14 and Denhardt, 2006; Eikenberry, 2009). In general, the value-centered approach calls for a renewed interest in concepts such as public interest and public value, and is reminiscent of the ideas championed by Waldo (1948) and de Toqueville (1840). More specifically, the values- based approach champions a view of decision making that moves beyond Simon’s
“administrative man” or the “economic man” of microeconomics and embraces open dialogue and multiples tests of rationality (Bryson, Crosby and Bloomberg, 2014). In other words, normative, values-based approaches view the historically important roles of government and nonprofit organizations as protectors and supporters of public interests and facilitators of an engaged citizenry as paramount.
In Public Administration, the values-based approach gained momentum as scholars and practitioners sought to counterbalance the pervasive influence of market-based utilitarian ideologies on public organizations (Bozeman, 2007). As a result, theories of normative publicness proliferated in Public Administration (Bozeman, 2007; Denhardt and Denhardt,
2006), and efforts to identify and map public values have multiplied (Bozeman, 2007; Jorgensen and Bozeman, 2007; Bozeman and Moulton, 2011; Witesman, 2016). While there are often competing interpretations of what constitutes public values (Bozeman, 2007; Moore, 1995), at a broad level they can be understood as those values that society seeks to create through its public serving institutions (Kroll and Moynihan, 2014). Overall, normative approaches centered on public values and the public interest seeks to reinstate a more balanced view of the bureaucracy that recognizes it not only as an efficient and effective producer of public goods and services, but also as a guarantor of public values (See Bryson et. al., 2014 for a full review).
A similar values-based movement calling for a refusal of market-discourse is also underway in Nonprofit Management (Eikenberry, 2009). The central contention is that by
15 embracing a market-discourse the sector is losing sight of its charitable origins and capacities for building social capital and contributing to a stronger civil society. In recognizing that organizations in the public sector are not the only set of institutions that have public value obligations (Bryson, Crosby and Bloomberg, 2014) scholars have identified and inventoried nonprofit roles that contribute to the public value in order to preserve the sectors publicness
(Moulton and Eckerd, 2012). Further, in an effort to emphasize the historical foundation and values of the sector, a democratic discourse that emphasizes meaningful citizen participation in nonprofit organizations and society at large, has been championed (Eikenberry, 2009).
While values-based approaches examining the roles and identities of organizations in the public and nonprofit sector recognize the centrality of motivations and values to sector identity, concepts such as public interest and public values are often fluid and divergent making them difficult to inventory without making a priori assumptions about what ought to be valued.
Further, there are many theories that present varied, often divergent views of the fundamental identities, purposes and motivations for organizational action in the public and nonprofit sectors
(Berger and Neuhaus, 1977; Hood, 1991; Kettl, 2002; Lohmann, 1989; Rosenbloom, 1983;
Weisbrod, 1975). However, values-based research is sometimes criticized for presenting unidimensional views of the fundamental purposes of these organizations that are based on the social values and aspirations of the authors. Nonetheless, important insights have been gained from the normative, values-based approach with regards to how public values and the public interest should shape the ways in which public and nonprofit organizations understand their roles
16 vis-à-vis others. However, few studies have investigated how organizational members actually view the fundamental nature of stakeholder relationships across sectors5.
Lastly, when topics such as blurring and identity are addressed most often it is only at the organizational level with little attention given to how such concepts are reflected within and across sectors or particular populations and sub-populations of organizations. For example,
Child, Witesman and Spencer (2016) find that in one of the most blended organizational spaces, the Fair-Trade industry, organizational members in for-profit and nonprofit organizations orient their identity around the notion of sector. More specifically, members had a hard time envisioning that the primary motivation and locus of self-definition would be malleable enough to permit for-profits to be used primarily for the pursuit of collective causes or that it would be appropriate for nonprofits to orient primarily around economic activities and individualistic interests (Child, Witesman and Spencer, 2016). However, as these authors point out, we know that sectors are composed of a wide variety of organizations. Hospitals, higher education institutions, housing agencies, and homeless service providers are just a few types of organizational populations that that comprise the larger public and nonprofit sectors. Therefore, while the new operating environments that communities of organizations exist within may reflect a wide variety of organizational types, because populations and sub-populations of organizations are autonomous units with unique environmental relationships (Carroll and Hannan, 2005) it would be valuable to examine the ways in which organizational members answer the question
“who are we vis-à-vis our stakeholders” from multiple perspectives.
5 Stakeholders are broadly defined here as, “any group or individual who is affected by or can affect the achievement of an organization’s objectives,” (Freeman, 1984, p. 5). While stakeholders can include internal organizational members, in the context of this manuscript, the meaning is generally directed to external entities such as clients, citizens, or customers, unless otherwise noted
17
The identity orientation framework, puts forth a parsimonious set of motivational assumptions about the fundamental nature of stakeholder relationships, an issue at the core of the blurring and marketization debates. Further, it is a construct that travels easily across levels of analysis. Consequently, it is well positioned to advance related normative work and explore these phenomena among communities, populations and sub-populations of organizations. In addition to bridging related constructs such as values and motivations and traveling easily across levels of analysis, other facets of the OIO framework make it ideal for examining the fundamental nature of stakeholder relationships across sectors. First, while organizational identity orientation can be viewed in typological terms, whereby particular combinations of qualities characterize ideal types, the aim is not to classify organizations into mutually exclusive categories (Brickson,
2005). Rather, organizational identity orientation allows for an understanding of both ideal identity orientations and hybrid orientations (Brickson, 2005). This makes it ideal for exploring the many and often diverse ways that organizations across all sectors view stakeholder relationships. Lastly, while identity orientation is not immutable, it is generally understood to be a relatively stable feature of organizational identity (Brickson, 2007). In other words, while environmental conditions may pressure an organization to adopt new practices, it may do so in a decoupled rather than integrative fashion (Weaver, Trevino and Cochran, 1999). Therefore, an organization’s orientation toward stakeholders’ is thought to remain relatively stable, given that each identity orientation is guided by fundamentally different perspectives on reality and the nature of independence and interdependence (Brickson, 2007). This may be particularly informative to the marketization debate, as it can help to unbundle whether or not macro-level forces such as marketization are reflected at a more fundamental level – as critics have argued. In sum, Organizational Identity Orientation offers researchers a meta-level framework which
18 travels easily across levels of analysis, bridges ideas such as values and motivation, and speaks directly to the fundamental nature of stakeholder relationships, an important and enduring feature of organizational identity. Further, this work integrates insights from the fields of business, public administration and nonprofit management and has the unique potential to inform core debates on marketization in the public and nonprofit sectors and sector identity more broadly.
4. Research Questions
Traditionally, organizations in the for-profit sector have been characterized as individualistic institutions that value superiority and are motivated by self-interest (Brickson,
2007). However, research findings indicate that relational and collectivistic identity orientations, characterized by other-orienting motivations and values are reflected in the sector as well
(Brickson, 2005). Theories of isomorphism suggest that as organizations across sectors become increasingly interconnected and environments become more diverse, organizations should reflect similar diversity in culture, structure and output (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). Research suggests that isomorphism can be used to explain the blurring across sectors (Bromley and Meyer, 2014).
The blurring hypothesis posits that for-profits, nonprofits and government organizations increasingly look alike as a result of increased interactions in a common environment (Child,
Witesman, & Spencer, 2015). Further, identity is thought to be shaped by an organization’s relationship with its environment (Albert and Whetten, 1985; Glynn and Abzug, 2003), and organizations with similar environmental relationships are thought to reflect similar values and obligations to others (Czarniawska and Wolff, 1998; Scott, 1998). In this regard, given that OIO is a prominent feature of identity that speaks to organizational values, motivations and relationships with others, based on the literature which asserts that organizations across sectors have “blurred” as a result of larger environmental changes such as globalization, for-profit,
19 public and nonprofit organizations should be expected to exhibit “similarly diverse” identity orientations. In other words, because all sectors are affecting each other and being affected by each other simultaneously, a similar diversity should be reflected among them. The first research question presented here addresses theories of isomorphism and the blurring hypothesis from an identity perspective in order to better understand how organizations across sectors view the fundamental nature of stakeholder relationships and asks (1) Does organizational identity orientation primarily reflect historical role standards of the for-profit, nonprofit and public sectors or do varied identity orientations exist?
If varied identity orientations are reflected across sectors, what are we to make of such diversity? According to Carroll and Hannan (1995) focusing on diversity is, “key to understanding the larger social and economic conditions,” that shape diverse organizational populations (p. 360). Theories of organizational ecology posit that organizations are hierarchically nested with communities of organizations, composed of diverse organizational populations6 (Hannan and Freeman, 1977). For example, one might consider organizations in the nonprofit sector as a community made up of diverse populations ranging from hospitals and homeless service providers to museums and environmental groups. This is important because changes to operating environments of communities of organizations usually means changes in the composition or activities of other organizational populations within that community (Carroll and Hannan, 1995). However, because populations are thought to operate as autonomous units within a larger community, different populations will depend on and react to changes in their
6 From an ecological perspective, organizations are thought to be hierarchically nested. More specifically, communities of organizations, also referred to as sectors or organizational fields, are thought to be composed of many diverse organizational populations (Astley, 1985; Carroll, 1984; Carroll and Hannan, 1995). Populations can be conceptualized as groups of organizations that are similar in form (Hannan and Freeman, 1977), and organizational fields as, “a set of interdependent populations of organizations participating in the same cultural and social sub-system,” (Scott, 2008, p. 434). See page 67 of this dissertation for a visual depiction of this concept.
20 larger material and social environment in distinct ways (Carroll and Hannan, 1995). Simply stated, while a “similar diversity” in organizational identity orientation might be reflected across sectors, the unique social and material milieu faced by organizational populations and sub- populations within each sector may have implications for identity orientation and help us to understand variance, if it is found. Brickson (2005) confirms that the characteristics of different organizational populations such as industry can, “engender a different structure in firms’ client and member relationships,” and thus shape identity orientation in distinct ways. Further,
Brickson (2005) contends that who an organization serves and how central those relationships are to production processes may also influence its identity orientation. More specifically, research findings indicate that whether organizations primarily serve corporations, individual and families or public and nonprofit organizations, impacts its identity orientation. The second research question draws from theories of organizational ecology to explore the nature of identity orientation among organizational populations, such as industries, and sub-populations that are defined by who an organization services and the nature of the services that they provide. As such, I ask: (2) Do sector level expectations about the nature of organizational identity orientation remain constant or change when looking at specific organizational populations and sub-populations of organizations within and each sector?
While Organizational Identity Orientation offers researchers a meta-level framework which bridges ideas such as values and motivation, and has the unique potential to integrate insights across disciplines and inform core debates about sector identity more broadly; empirical work on the construct has not kept pace with the extensive theoretical work published on the topic (Bingham, Dyer, Smith and Adams, 2011; Brickson, 2000; Brickson, 2005; Brickson,
2007; Brickson, 2013). In part, this stems from the lack of a way to systematically capture and
21 measure and the construct. As such, one of the primary purposes of this research is to translate the theoretical dimensions of individualistic, relational and collectivistic organizational identity orientation into scales that can be used to produce systematic, generalizable research on the topic.
The other primary objective of the research proposed here is exploratory and aimed at enhancing the scope of scholarly thought pertaining to organizational identity orientation. This will be accomplished by using the quantitative measurement instrument that is developed to examine the concept, its existence and variability among communities of organizations and among the specific organizational populations and sub-populations within these larger communities. More specifically, I will begin by examining the nature of identity orientation at the sector level, and then will explore whether sector level expectations remain constant or change when looking at specific organizational populations and sub-populations. For example, would we expect the presence and variability of organizational identity orientation among all organizations in the nonprofit sector to look the same as if we examined it among a specific population of organization within the sector such as those organizations involved in homeless services or the arts? Further, what if we considered nonprofit organizations that mostly perform advocacy work for an entire group of individuals versus those that provided services tailored to specific individuals? The summary of subsequent chapters which follows briefly lays out how each of these perspectives is approached.
5. Summary of Subsequent Chapters
In an era of organizing characterized by fluidity, dynamism and the blurring of conventional boundaries, understanding simultaneously what makes organization in the for-
22 profit, public and nonprofit sectors unique, while accounting for multiplicity in the motivations and values shaping stakeholder relationships, is an issue of premiere importance to scholars and administrators alike. More specifically, given the diverse environmental pressures faced by organizations across sectors in response to globalization and the changing nature of the economy, a more holistic view of the motivations and values shaping stakeholder relations is needed. When environments are in flux and structural norms are challenged, internal cognitive structures such as identity orientation become even more important as they are relied upon by individuals and organizations to help make sense of unfamiliar territory (Albert, Ashforth & Dutton, 2000). This research aims to provide a more complex view of the motivations and values shaping stakeholder relations across sectors, by examining and extending theoretical and empirical work on
Organizational Identity Orientation
This chapter has introduced Organizational Identity Orientation and has provided an overview of its relevance for informing the sector blurring debate, especially as it relates to marketization and the ways in which organizational members across sectors view the fundamental nature of stakeholder relationships in the new economy. Subsequent chapters will address the central research questions presented in this introduction by examining whether expectations about organizational identity orientation and its existence and variability among communities of organizations at the sector level are expected to remain constant when considering specific organizational populations and sub-populations within these larger communities. Chapter 2 delves more deeply into literature on sector blurring, isomorphism and organizational identity orientation. More specifically, it examines literature on the public-private distinction in light of globalization and current socio-political structures that have encouraged sector blurring. It then draws from theories of isomorphism to explore the nature of
23
Organizational Identity Orientation across sectors given the institutional environment that organizations are operating in today. Drawing from theories of organizational ecology, Chapter 3 then focuses on potential sources of variability and homogeneity among organizational populations and sub-populations within these larger organizational communities paying close attention to the insulating tendencies of industries and the ways in which audience expectations shape the nature of stakeholder relationships. Chapter 4 reviews the design and methodology used to address the research questions, describes the data collection approach, study measures and provides a brief examination of summary statistics, the sample, and preliminary results.
Chapter 5 will present the scale development process and results. Finally, Chapter 6 will present the findings related to the hypotheses and Chapter 7 will discuss the implications of these findings and conclude with a number of paths for future research.
24
Chapter 2 - Organizing in a New Economy: Isomorphism, Sector Blurring and Implications for Identity Orientation 1. Introduction
The attributes of an organization that reflect its highest values and deepest commitments across time and circumstances form the foundation of its identity (Albert and Whetten, 1985;
Whetten, 2006). In other words, identity defines what an organization is at its core. According to
Brickson (2005), “one of the most important aspects of identity is that it helps us to understand how entities relate with one another,” (p. 1). However, when organizations focus on values and commitments once ancillary to their core identity, they can risk becoming perceived as unpredictable or untrustworthy (Whetten, 2006). As such, the overlapping form and function of the market, state and civil society resultant from globalization and the shifting nature of economic authority, has led some to ask the question: have these organizations become unrecognizable? According to Bromely and Meyer (2015) because of globalization and resultant culture shifts, it is becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish for-profit, nonprofit and government organizations based on form and function alone. The question remains; what happens when an organization becomes unrecognizable or when stakeholders are unable to establish clear expectations of how an organization relates to the world around it? To answer this question, two early examples of organizational activity are examined.
One of the first examples of a for-profit organization deviating from traditional business norms and breaking with other similar organizations in terms of its core values and practices was
Ben and Jerry’s. Founded in 1978 by Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, Ben and Jerry’s Ice
Cream quickly became branded as a “corporate hippie” for its pursuit of both profits and social good, or what would become known as the double bottom line (Page and Katz, 2012). According to Cohen, he and Greenfield viewed the company as, “an experiment to see if it was possible to
25 use the tools of business to repair society,” (Page and Katz, 2012, p. 40). While Cohen and
Greenfield no longer run the company (it was sold to Unilever in 2000 for $326 million), it remains one of the most involved and outspoken brands on social issues (Wohl, 2016). In 2004, the company partnered with Rock the Vote to register voters in line for ice cream on its annual free cone day; in 2015 it created a video campaign on global warming which received more than a million views and 12,000 petition signatures and; and in 2016 it created the “Democracy is in
Your Hands” campaign to explain complex concepts ranging from the power of big money in politics to voting rights (Wohl, 2016). Most recently, the company released a limited batch flavor called, “One Sweet World” and have committed to donating a portion of its sales to those working at the intersection of economic and racial justice. Further, in 2017 the company also worked with suppliers in order to create a program that ensures “just and dignified working conditions” on all dairy farms that it sources from (Masterson, 2017). While still pursuing its double bottom line of people and profit, Ben and Jerry’s has faced many critics throughout its evolution, some of whom view the company’s social mission as a profit-liability and others who see its sale to one of the largest multi-national consumer goods companies as a threat to its social purpose (Page and Katz; 2012). In the eyes of stakeholders on both sides of the issue, the company was acting out of character and thus it was difficult to ascertain a clear sense of how it related to the world around it.
A similar pioneer in the public sector that deviated from traditional norms, values and models in government was a town in Georgia called Sandy Springs. Up until 2005, Sandy
Springs was part of unincorporated Fulton County (Bozeman, 2007). However, following a referendum led by the republican majority at the time, Sandy Springs incorporated, becoming the seventh largest city in Georgia (Bozeman, 2007). Since the day it incorporated, Sandy Springs,
26
“handed off to private enterprise just about every service that can be evaluated through metrics and inked into a contract,” (Segal, 2012, p. BU1). Today, the city has only eight employees in addition to its public safety personnel (Sandy Springs, 2016). In practice, this means that most of the people working for Sandy Springs are private, contracted employees. “Applying for a business license? Speak to a woman with Severn Trent, a multinational company based in
Coventry, England. Want to build a new deck on your house? Chat with an employee of
Collaborative Consulting, based in Burlington, Mass. Need a word with people who oversee trash collection? That would be the URS Corporation, based in San Francisco,” (Segal, 2012, p.
BU1). According to the Mayor of Sandy Springs Rusty Paul, residents of the city are not referred to as taxpayers, but rather customers (Kaiser, 2016). While Paul says the city receives absolutely no complaints about the quality of services (Kaiser, 2016) and residents give high marks to quality of life indicators on citizen surveys, others worry that deviating from traditional governmental norms and embracing the private sector model is giving particularistic advantage to the economic elite, while leaving poor communities to fend for themselves (Segal, 2012).
Like in the case of Ben and Jerry’s, for some stakeholders, the government of Sandy Springs is creating incongruities between organizational expectations and how the entity is actually relating to the world around it.
It has been almost forty years since Ben and Jerry’s began its pursuit of the double bottom line and over a decade since Sandy Springs privatized the majority of governmental functions. However, in the wake of globalization, the changing nature of the world economy and the rise in prominence of market authority, many others have followed. Increasingly, actors within and across sectors are recognizing their common enterprise and interacting more. These increasing interactions between actors have fundamentally altered the meaning of institutional
27 connectedness and redefined class notions of the organizational field, giving rise to new pressures that are driving isomorphic change. Thousands of for-profit companies across hundreds of countries have endorsed agreements to act morally and work towards promoting human rights and environmental standards; and firms are regularly assessed on how they handle both community and environmental responsibilities (Donaldson and Walsh, 2015). At the same time, the spread of neoliberal values and growing influence of economic individualism in most arenas of social life has prompted many nonprofit and government agencies to embrace processes of marketization and its associated tenets of efficiency and effectiveness (Bromley and Meyer,
2015; Eikenberry, 2009; Hood, 1991; Kettl, 2000). Because all sectors are changing in similar ways, sector blurring has resulted, reigniting debates about core values, sector identity and the nature of stakeholder relationships.
The purpose of this chapter is to expand upon the ideas introduced thus far so as to provide a more comprehensive discussion of the theory and literature on identity orientation and sector blurring and to explore the nature of organizational identity orientation at the sector level.
In general, this chapter examines how environmental changes, such as globalization and the changing nature of economic authority have impacted sector norms and what this has meant for the organizations and stakeholders operating within the market, state and civil society. I begin by exploring how globalization has impacted the production structure of the world economy and then investigate how these environmental changes have catalyzed isomorphic processes and led to sector blurring. One aspect of sector blurring, the marketization of the public and nonprofit sectors, is then examined in-depth, in order to better understand how macro-level environmental changes have manifested at the organization level and impacted how organizational members view the fundamental nature of stakeholder relationships in the new economy. Finally, I
28 conclude by examining the links between marketization and identity orientation and use the totality of this evidence to lay out my first two hypotheses.
2. The Changing Nature of Organizing: A Macro-Level Perspective
In the 17th century, French nobleman and writer François de La Rochefoucauld noted that change is one of the only facets of life which remains constant. Nearly two decades later, in his documentation of the American condition, Alexis De Tocqueville underscored the country’s preoccupation with the idea of change and the possibility of indefinite improvement (De
Tocqueville, 2003). While de Tocqueville captured a central theme of American life in the 19th century, as Bennis (2009) noted, “one thing is, however, new since de Tocqueville’s time: the acceleration of newness, the changing scale and scope of change itself,” (123). Over the last four decades, globalization has ushered in an era of organizing and change characterized by dynamism, fluidity, and the blurring of traditional boundaries7. For relationships and social structures throughout society, such as charitable groups, firms and government agencies, the spread of globalization is perhaps the most important change in human history (Bromley and
Meyer, 2014; Dean and Ritzer, 2014) It has transformed not only the structure and functions of government, industry, and civil society but the very foundations upon which they have been built
(Farazmand, 1999).
One of the most important transformations resultant from globalization that has affected actors across all sectors, is that the production structure of the world economy has been fundamentally altered. According to Strange (1996), a production structure is concerned simply with who produces what, and where and how they produce it. It is clear that changes in
7 While economic perspectives on globalization tend to emphasize the advancement toward a fully integrated world market, more broadly globalization represents the diminished significance of jurisdictional borders and the fluid movement of people, knowledge, and beliefs across spheres once isolated (IMF, 2008; Kettl, 2000).
29 regulations and technology, as well as the spread of rationalism and capitalism that in part drove globalization, have shifted society away from a post-industrial production-centered economy dominated by political authority, towards a knowledge-based economy where market authority reigns supreme (Bromley and Meyer, 2015; Dean and Ritzer, 2015; Scholte, 2000; Thurow,
2000). While this shift has caused dramatic changes around the world for institutions such as the market, state and civil society, as Strange (1996) notes, “the relation of market authority to political authority has never been stable for long, and […] at different times and in different places the pendulum has swung away from one and toward the other and back again,” (p 45).
While political authority can be defined in many ways, in this context it refers to the relative power of the nation-state and its ability to influence and control social and political operations though rules and directives (Dahl and Lindbloom, 1953; Lindbloom, 1977; Perry and Rainey,
1988). In contrast, market authority refers to the relative power of price systems and economic markets to direct action (Dahl and Lindbloom, 1953). Examining the changing structure of the economy and relative balance of market and political authority is central to understanding the effects that globalization has also had on both the structure of the market, state and civil society and the very foundations and values upon which these institutions have been built.
The production structure of the U.S. economy from the early to mid-20th century is often referred to as the industrial economy. The industrial economy is characterized by a growing ability to harness and use energy sources such as steam, electricity, oil and gas, the vertical integration of the corporation and mass production (Bell, 1976). Economic growth during this time resulted primarily from regional or national labor productivity, the nature of which was mostly based on human-machine interactions (World Bank, 2004). The structure of the industrial economy was a monumental shift from earlier agricultural or subsistence economies where
30 economic growth was determined primarily by the availability of natural resources and the productivity of extractive industries such as farming, mining, fishing and timber (Bell, 1976;
World Bank, 2004). While private corporations dominated much of the production in the early industrialized economy, over the course of the 20th century, the government played an increasingly interventionist role, as citizen support for the private sector plummeted due to continued labor strife and the onset of the great depression (Hinshaw and Stearns, 2014).
In the U.S. the power of the nation-state and its expansion into arenas previously unregulated was especially pronounced in both the post-depression and WWII years (Holmes,
2014; Meyer, 1979). As the private sector continued to suffer from a withdrawal of public confidence, the prominence of political authority in the U.S. during this time became more apparent. In order to save the failing U.S. economy after the Great Depression, President
Roosevelt, through the New Deal, created a national welfare system in order to guarantee a basic level of social and economic well-being for all Americans (Patterson, 2014). While new deal programs ranged from bankrolling failing crop programs to providing jobs and insurance to the unemployed, in general the plan allowed for widespread government intervention in the economy (Holmes, 2014). During this time, the U.S. also witnessed exponential growth in its defense establishment and saw the expansion of political authority over the transportation and energy sectors (Meyer, 1979). While the power of the nation-state grew and created a host of new relationships between governments and the private sector, it was clear that most activities were governed by political authority and thus directed through a politically constituted hierarchy.
The exponential rise in political authority over the nature and structure of economic activity during this time led not only to the expansion of the central welfare state, but also the
31 centralization of capital and coordination of philanthropy (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Meyer,
1979).
While government was seen as the preeminent actor in economies across the world for much of the 20th century, by its end, the U.S. government was dealing with stalled economic growth, high unemployment, an energy crisis, political upheaval and international instability, the net result of which was a loss of citizen support and legitimacy (Farazmand, 1999). Further, as borders became more fluid and capital, goods and labor flowed more easily as a result of globalization, issues of state sovereignty arose, and many governments feeling pressure to compete globally and contribute to accelerated capital accumulation, cut back social programs characteristic of the welfare state (Farazmand, 1999; Soros, 2005; Scholte, 2000). According to
Farazmand (1999), the transitional nature of the state during globalization has been explained as a transition from the welfare state, to the corporate state. In other words, the political authority that ensured the prominence and sovereignty of the nation-state and the centralization and bureaucratization of diverse social and economic activities was receding. During this time, governments began, “to plan less, to own less and to regulate less, allowing instead the frontiers of the market to expand,” (Yergin and Stanislaw, p. xiii). According to Yergin and Stansilaw
(1998) this “marks a great divide between the twentieth and twenty-first centuries,” (p. xiii).
After World War II, when political authority reigned supreme, international capital transactions largely remained under the strict control of national governments (Soros, 2005).
While the formation of the Bretton Woods institutions (e.g. IMF and World Bank) aimed in part to facilitate capital flows in these restricted environments, it was not until the 1990s and the collapse of the soviet empire that financial markets would become truly global (Soros, 2005).
During this time, as the power of the nation-state was diminishing, global financial markets
32 increasingly dominated national economies (Yergin and Stanislaw, 1998). It was clear that market authority, or the relative power of price systems and economic markets to direct action, was eclipsing political authority as the primary mode of social and economic control both in the
U.S. and around the world. Growth in global capital markets, the removal of trade barriers and technological innovations helped to integrate financial markets around the world (Gilpin, 2002).
As a result, a broad spectrum of economic activity ranging from education to entertainment has turned capitalist, thus driving expanded commodification, consumerism and profits (Scholte,
2000). Further, the growing prominence of market authority has been substantially influenced by the spread of capitalism, particularly neoliberal capitalism which is committed to individual liberty and a free market, free from government intervention (Dean and Ritzer, 2015).
Consequently, ideas of privatization, competition, deregulation, international integration, and the free flow of goods and ideas have come to characterize the economy in a globalized world
(Yergin and Stanislaw, 1998).
The loss of legitimacy and citizen support for the nation-state that in part led to a rise in market authority and market oriented economic policies around the world also focused new attention on civil society and nonprofit organizations. Increased threats to social welfare, development and the environment coupled with decreasing confidence in the nation-states’ ability to cope with these problems alone, led to an expansion of civil society’s role in the world
(Dean and Ritzer, 2014; Salamon et al 1999). As market authority rose and trends in contracting, devolution and privatization took shape, governments increasingly relied upon nonprofit organizations to attend to the emergent problems of the day (Smith and Lipsky, 1995). More recently, in the wake of global financial crises and continued social distress around the world, the belief that market authority and neoliberal economic policies are the best way to approach global
33 issues has come under question (Salmon, Anheier, List, Toepler and Sokolowski, 1999).
Consequently, civil society and nonprofit organizations have again, “surfaced as strategically important participants [in the search for] a middle way between sole reliance on the market and sole reliance on the state,” (Salamon, et. AL., 1999, p. 5). In other words, a renewed focus has been placed on the potential of civil society to bring balance to the ever-changing and often unstable relationship between market and political authority.
While globalization has impacted the state, market and civil society differently, what all three institutions have in common is that as a result of globalization they are now operating in new economy that is governed predominantly by market authority. The “new” economy of the
21st century is often referred to as the post-industrial or knowledge-based economy. Unlike previous agrarian or industrial economies where agriculture or industry were the leading production structures, in a post-industrial economy, information and services dominate (World
Bank, 2004). In other words, “the key component of a knowledge economy is a greater reliance on intellectual capabilities than on physical inputs or natural resources,” (Powell and Snellman,
2004, p. 201). Consequently, innovation and intellectual property rather than labor productivity are the major drivers of economic growth in a post-industrial knowledge-based economy (World
Bank, 2004).
Because the creation, diffusion and use of information are foundational to the post- industrial economy, distributing knowledge through both formal and informal networks is essential to economic performance (OECD, 1996). As a result, what has been created is a,
“network society, where the opportunity and capability to get access to and join knowledge and learning intensive relations determines the socio-economic position of individuals and firms,”
(OECD, 1996, p. 14). Stated simply, because knowledge is being developed interactively and
34 shared, strategic relationships and partnerships become critical for success. Consequently, globalization and the onset of the new economy has strengthened ties of interdependence among nations, institutions, organizations and individuals by increasing and making immediate, actor interactions, and by highlighting their similarities, differences and complex interdependencies
(Brown, Khagram, Moore and Frumkin, 2000).
Based on the demand for interconnectedness in a knowledge-based economy, actors across sectors are sharing information and interacting more (Harris, 2001). Innovators in business, government and civil society are collaborating and learning from each other about ideas and strategies that have proven successful and those that have a clear track record of failure
(IMF, 2008). In a globalized world, it is increasingly clear that no one institution can do all things. No longer can the market focus solely on the pursuit of profit, the state on the provision of public goods and civil society on social action. Today, in order to respond effectively to a range of political, technological and cultural issues, from poverty alleviation and environmental preservation to national security, the problem-solving potential of both state and non-state actors is required (Kania and Kramer, 2011; Kettl, 2000; Wolf, 2008). At the organizational level, actors across sectors have responded to these environmental demands by adopting horizontal decision-making structures, characterized by negotiation and collaboration.
While approaching problems in a collaborative fashion is not necessarily a new phenomenon in the American organizational landscape (McGuire, 2006) since the 1980’s the number of partnerships among businesses, governments and civil society organizations has grown rapidly (Selsky and Parker, 2005). Further, while collaboration is not new, the increased interconnectedness of organizations as a result of globalization has fundamentally altered traditional notions of institutional roles, resulting in a “stunning evolutionary change in
35 institutional forms of governance” (Alter & Hage, 1993: 12). Networks have allowed organizations to address challenges and opportunities in ways that single organizations cannot
(Agranoff and McGuire, 2001), and has provided them with the knowledge they need in order to respond to wicked problems that span political, disciplinary and institutional boundaries, common in globalized world (Isett, Mergel, LeRoux, Mischen and Rethemeyer, 2011).
Collaborative governance arrangements, aiming to maximize public value (Ansell and Gash,
2008; Dohanue and Zeckhauser, 2012), have brought together diverse stakeholder groups in government led, consensus oriented decision-making processes, in order to address issues ranging from commercial space flight (NASA, 2016) to the delivery of homeless services
(Mosley, 2015). For-profit organizations have directed shared value initiatives that intersect with their business and address social problems such as the spread of infection (Shared Value
Initiative, 2013); and nonprofits have orchestrated collective impact approaches that capitalize on the capacity of actors in business, government and civil society and look beyond individual agendas in order to tackle social and economic issues such as educational access and student achievement (Kania and Kramer, 2011; StrivePartnership, 2016).
In a globalized world dominated by market authority, strategies seeking isolated impact whether through the market, state or civil society are becoming increasingly obsolete. Rather, in order to survive in new global, knowledge-based economy actors across sectors must continually develop diverse relationships where information can be created and shared interactively in order to address issues that are in constant motion. While the examples of collaboration provided here barely scratch the surface in terms of the diverse plethora of cross-sector relationships that exist today, they highlight well the ways in which the activities of governments, businesses and nonprofits have become increasingly intertwined. Due in part to larger societal transformations,
36 traditional roles and forms of governance across sectors have evolved, fundamentally changing the meaning of institutional connectedness and giving rise to new pressures that are driving isomorphic change. The next section explores what isomorphism and conforming to the “norm” mean in the new-economy.
3. Conforming to the “Norm”: Organizational Isomorphism in the New Economy
A well understood axiom of organizational studies is that organizations and their environments are inextricably linked (Adams and Perlmutter, 1995). One corollary of this is that organizations sharing similar environments tend to reflect similar forms and structures as they seek to become more compatible with their surroundings (Boxenbaum and Jonsson, 2008).
According to DiMaggio and Powell (1983), the concept that best captures this process of change and homogenization among organizations is isomorphism. Isomorphism is defined here as a process that compels entities facing similar environmental demands to resemble one another
(DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). Theorists typically identify rational, competitive and institutional forces that act as drivers of isomorphism and homogenization. Rational theorists contend that organizations in similar task environments homogenize in order to become more efficient (Scott,
1995). Closely related is the view that isomorphism can result from rational decision makers adjusting behavior to meet environmental demands, or because of environmental competition and the selecting out of non-optimal organizational forms (Boxenbaum and Jonsson, 2008;
Hannan and Freeman, 1977).
The institutional view of isomorphism holds that organizations not only adapt to technical requirements and competition, but also to conscious and unconscious notions of what they believe society expects of them (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). According to DiMaggio and
Powell (1983), “organizations compete not just for resources and customers but for political
37 power, and institutional legitimacy, for social as well as economic fitness,” (p. 150). As a result, from an institutional perspective isomorphic changes are seen as resulting from a range of coercive, mimetic and normative forces such as; political influence, cultural expectations, uncertainty, ambiguous goals, professionalization and normative rules (DiMaggio and Powell,
1983). Whether processes of isomorphic change result from rational, competitive or institutional forces in the environment, the end result - homogenization of structure, culture and output – is the same. Simply stated, when faced with similar environmental pressures, organizations respond in similar ways, leading to similarity in structure and form. Consequently, at the societal or sector level, processes of homogenization or isomorphism are inextricably linked to dominant production structures and the type of authority (a.k.a market or political) that characterize institutional operating environments.
During the early 20th century, an industrial economy coupled with public demands for greater security, improved living conditions, a drive for progress and a search for justice and fairness
(Yergin and Stanislaw, 1998) characterized institutional operating environments in the U.S.
Given the conditions of the time, as previously discussed, much faith was vested in the nation- state and its ability to direct social and economic action. As a result, political authority extended its domain over what previously had been the territory of the market (Yergin and Stanislaw,
1998) and the state became known as the preeminent authority and the great rationalizer of the
20th century (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). Because of the diffusion of political authority and the extension of the nation-state into more arenas of social and economic life, Meyer and Rowan
(1977) argued that as a result of isomorphic processes organizational structures during this time increasingly reflected institutionalized rules and hierarchical bureaucratic forms that were legitimated by the state.
38
The diffusion of political authority and adoption of the bureaucratic form in the U.S. became evident early on in the 20th century as the scope of federal activities grew; creating a host of new intergovernmental ties that were governed by formal administrative procedures at the organizational level (Meyer, 1979). Similarly, emergent relationships between the federal government and the private sector were also increasingly governed by strict administrative regulations and compliance requirements that reflected institutionalized rules and hierarchical bureaucratic forms. While bureaucratization, both in the form of administrative guidelines and the elaboration of hierarchy, characterized interorganizational relations in the public and private sector at this time, isomorphic processes were also driving the adoption of the bureaucratic model across sectors. According to Meyer (1979), in the private sector, processes of bureaucratization became increasingly evident as individuals engaged in relational transactions began to organize into simple hierarchies that then extended through vertical integration and eventually grew into conglomerate forms. Further, many civil society organizations centered on participatory practices also began forming organizational hierarchies in order to foster support and legitimacy with hierarchically organized donor organizations further highlighting how environmental pressures and the dominance of political authority were driving isomorphic processes of bureaucratization (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983).
According to DiMaggio and Powell (1983) a field-level8 approach to isomorphism suggests that, “organizational characteristics are modified in the direction of increasing compatibility with environmental characteristics […] and diversity in organizational form is
8 An organizational field can be understood as those organization, “that in the aggregate constitute a recognized area of institutional life,” (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). However, the idea of an organizational field is much broader than just suppliers, competitors, consumers and regulators. Rather, it is a term that is defined relationally to include the totality of relevant actors, as defined by their transactional ties or “connectedness” as well as those belonging to a similar network structure or “structural equivalence” (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983; Mohr, 2005). As such the organizational field can be understood more broadly as, “a set of interdependent populations of organizations participating in the same cultural and social sub-system,” (Scott, 2008).
39 isomorphic to environmental diversity,” (p. 149). In the 20th century the centrality of the nation- state and pull of political authority defined institutional operating environments in the U.S. As a result, most organizations responded to these environmental pressures and conformed to the rationality agenda and “norm” of the time which was the centralized bureaucracy (Frumkin and
Galaskiewicz, 2004) and isomorphic processes led to its proliferation across sectors. However, scholars have long suggested that it is essential to dissect what “conformity to the norm” really means (Frumkin and Galaskiewicz, 2004). Though limited environmental diversity led to near singularity in organizational form in the 20th century, it is clear that, “the bureaucratic form is not the only form that [can] spread,” but rather the proliferation of any model can be driven by environmental influences and a desire to conform to the norm (Frumkin and Galaskiewicz, 2004, p. 303).
As a result of globalization and the onset of the knowledge economy interaction, agility and market authority have come to define institutional operating environments in the U.S. As a result, the extent to which organizations across sectors interact has increased and collaborative forms and patterns of coalition have emerged as organizations conform to the new 21st Century
“norm”. Figure 1 presents a simplified visual depiction of this idea. Consequently, the totality of actors to which organizations are connected both formally and informally has grown exponentially, making the operating environments of organizations across sectors profoundly more diverse and redefining traditional notions of the organizational field. “For example, chemical companies participate in a contested field defined by differences over their environmental effects and responsibilities – as formulated by the companies, activist environmental groups, governmental regulatory bodies and the media, both general and industry specific,” (Scott, 2008, p. 435). As organizations across sectors conform to the new “norm” of
40 interconnectedness and respond to multi-directional environmental pressures, isomorphic processes have prompted organizations to reflect a “similar diversity” in structure, form and output. For-example, for-profits are adopting corporate social responsibility programs, cause related-marketing partnerships and shared value initiatives in order to become more “other- orienting” while public and nonprofit organizations are emphasizing neoliberal values and like processes in order to become more “businesslike”. Simply stated, many organizations are trying to be many things and as a result we see a wider range of organizational forms that reflect both traditional and non-traditional beliefs and logics. Thus, at a meta-level, isomorphic changes have led to “sector blurring” or the muddling of boundaries between the market, state and civil society.
Figure 1: Primary Organizational Form and Authority Base in the 20th and 21st Centuries
41
Figure 1: It should be noted that collaborative forms existed in the 20th century just as bureaucratic forms exist in the 21st. This figure is meant simply to highlight a general trend The blurring hypothesis posits that sector boundaries are becoming increasingly unclear and that entities from traditionally distinct sectors of the economy, such as charities, firms and governments, look increasingly like one another (Child, Witesman and Spencer, 2015). While recent sector blurring trends have re-ignited debates about the public-private distinction in light of globalization and other environmental changes, the discussion is not a new one. Scholars have long debated whether public and private organizations differ according to their character
(Appleby, 1945) prime beneficiaries (Blau and Scott, 1962), ownership and funding (Wamsley and Zald, 1973) or the degree to which they are controlled by market or political authority
(Bozeman, 1987; Perry and Rainey, 1988). Conversely, others have argued that public and private organizations have always exuded more similarities than differences, as the blurring hypothesis would suggest (Pugh, Hickson and Hinnings, 1969; Rainey, 2009). It is clear today that in response to diverse environmental pressures for-profit, nonprofit and public organizations overlap and interrelate in a number of ways. However, while it is clear that the market, state and civil society have all been impacted by diverse environmental pressures that have prompted
42 multi-directional isomorphic changes, it is perhaps the spread of neoliberal capitalism and the expansion of market authority that has to date been most influential as organizations seek to become compatible with 21st century operating environments.
As defined by Dahl and Lindbloom (1953) market authority refers to the relative power of price systems and economic markets to direct action. It is a concept that is closely related to capitalist accumulation processes and Adam Smith’s laissez-faire doctrine which is centered on economic individualism and a belief that the competitive market will yield both efficiency and freedom (Bozeman, 2007; Scholte, 2000). As a result of globalization, the spread of capitalism and the rise in market authority a widening spectrum of economic activity has turned capitalist
(Scholte, 2000). According to Gilpin and Gilpin (2000) globalization has enabled a highly integrated international financial system that has allowed investment capital and other financial assets to grow exponentially. One valuation of repackaged securities, derivatives and other financial assets came in at $360 trillion, larger than the value of the entire global economy
(Gilpin and Gilpin, 2000). As a result of this growth, many private companies have experienced an amassing of shareholder wealth never seen before in American history (Brickson, 2000). The rise in market authority in all aspects of social and economic life has also led to expanded commodification and consumerism as was evidenced by the replacement of General Motors, a production-oriented company, by Walmart, a consumption-oriented retailer, as the largest corporation in the world (Dean and Ritzer, 2000).
Today, consumerism, commodification and market authority has also spread to non- traditional arenas such as education and healthcare (Scholte, 2000). The expansion of economic values and market-type relationships into arenas previously deemed separate and distinct is often referred to as marketization, and is an aspect of sector blurring that has incited much debate.
43
According to Simpson and Cheney (2007), “we can think about marketization as a framework of market-oriented principles, values, practices and vocabularies; as a process of penetration of essentially market-type relationships into arenas not previously deemed part of the market; or as a universal discourse that permeates everyday discourses but goes largely unquestioned,” (p
191). In a post-industrial globalized economy, the marketization framework increasingly emphasizes neoliberal values which champion faith in the unfettered market above all else
(Eikenberry 2009). Consequently, issues of consumerism and commodification are core to the marketization framework. Processes of marketization have materialized in both the public and nonprofit sectors in different ways, though an emphasis on market-based solutions to social problems define the core changes that have occurred in each.
In the public sector, the spread of market authority and processes of marketization were in many ways epitomized by the New Public Management (NPM) and Reinventing Government movements, and related practices of devolution, contracting and privatization. In general, New
Public Management is term that is often used to describe a set of government reforms that led to a substantial shift in how the public sector was governed and managed (Bozeman, 2007), and it is often equated with the “Reinventing Government” movement (Osborne & Gaebler, 1992;
Moe, 1994), which was introduced by Osborne and Gaebler (1992) as a way to promote a smaller federal workforce, decentralized service delivery, customer oriented management, and results oriented governance. Kettl (2000) identified six core elements of NPM including; productivity, marketization, service orientation, decentralization, policy improvements and accountability. Borins (1998) identified the core tenets of NPM as including responsiveness, autonomy, performance measurement, downsizing, service delivery and privatization. While no two authors list the exact same defining characteristics of New Public Management (Hood &
44
Peters, 2004), in general the NPM movement is assumed to emphasize neoliberal values such as devolution, marketization, and efficiency (Kettl, 2000; Hood, 1991).
One of the core premises of the New Public Management and Reinventing Government movements was the notion that a smaller more effective government was needed (Osborne &
Gaebler, 1992). Two of the recommendations in the report issued as a result of the National
Performance Review called for cutting the size of the federal workforce and focusing on public- private partnerships for service delivery. Contracting and privatization were of two strategies employed by the federal government in order to devolve government services and cut the size of the federal government. Generally, contracting out can be understood as instances when the government relies on other firms, nonprofits, or governments to deliver and implement public services (Milward & Provan, 2000). The GAO (1998) defined privatization as any process that is aimed at shifting in whole or in part goods and services from government to the private sector using strategies such as contracting out or asset sales (Bozeman, 2007). While the notion of privatization is very similar to contracting out, some scholars (Moe, 1994) see privatization as a more ideological way to describe the principles of smaller government and efficiency in action.
The core question that privatization seeks to ask is; which sector performs the task or function most efficiently? (Moe, 1994). In general, both contracting and privatization were introduced as managerial strategies which could harness the power of the market to create public value more efficiently.
The rise in use of these types of strategies has been attributed to the pervasiveness of market authority in all areas of society and organizational life today. In many instances the social and economic ideas of Adam Smith and Jeremey Bentham have manifest in modern day theories such as principal agent, property rights, public choice and market failure all of which can be seen
45 as forming the underpinnings of market-oriented strategies for creating public value in the
United States such as devolution, contracting and privatization, (Bozeman, 2007). These strategies form the foundation of the Reinventing Government and New Public Management movements, which are part and parcel responsible for the rise in the use of market-oriented strategies and private resources to produce public value.
The spread of market authority and related reforms such as the New Public Management and Reinventing Government movements that ushered in sweeping market-oriented reforms to government also dramatically affected organizations in the nonprofit sector. In general, nonprofits have become central to NPM approaches seeking a flexible more efficient government through the devolution, contracting and privatization. As a result, government contracting with nonprofits expanded to meet an ever-expansive variety of social needs. While government- nonprofit relationships are not new, the spread of market authority and NPM practices changed their fundamental nature (Smith and Lipsky, 1993). Governments have moved away from funding the sector through no strings attached grants towards contracting processes that emphasize both competition and performance (Eikenberry and Kluver, 2004). In an effort to compete with other nonprofit and for-profit organizations for government funding and contracts, nonprofits have increasingly focused on management and performance measurement practices seeking to quantify the impact of their programs and services (McIndoe and Barman, 2013). The market-oriented changes introduced by NPM within the nonprofit sector were perhaps best summed up by Anheier (2009) who stated that, “with the rise of NPM, the emphasis on service provision and instruments of privatization casts nonprofits essentially in a neoliberal role. Many have become tools of a public sector now frequently guided by the simple equation that could be
46 summed up as: less government = less bureaucracy = more flexibility = greater efficiency (Kettl,
2000).” (p 1084).
While the New Public Management movement and spread of market authority impacted the nonprofit sector in numerous ways, according to Young, Salamon and Grinsfelder (2012) the materialization and growing influence of market authority on the nonprofit sector is best highlighted by its expanding reliance on commercial revenue. Government spending cuts in conjunction with an expanded demand for services and increased competition between both for- profit and nonprofit providers have placed pressure on nonprofits to develop or reintroduce commercial revenue streams (Eikenberry & Kluver, 2004; Young, Salamon & Grinsfelder,
2012). Most commercial or earned income streams come in the form of fees for services such as tuition, box office receipts and hospital charges, or through product sales and other profit-making ventures (Eikenberry & Kluver, 2004; Young, Salamon & Grinsfelder, 2012). However, for many nonprofits the practice of generating earned income and adopting a market ethos has taken on a new more fundamental form though the use of social enterprise and entrepreneurship operating models. “No longer conceived simply as a revenue generation strategy these ventures treat market engagement as the most effective way to pursue a nonprofit organizations’ mission,”
(Young, Salamon and Grinsfelder, 2012) and thus their leaders draw directly from the language and skills of the for-profit world to advance the well-being of members and clients (Eikenberry and Kluver, 2004).
While benefits of a market-centered economy and society have been clear for the for- profit sector, the impact of market authority on government and civil society has been less clear.
Supporters of sector-blurring in the form of marketization and the adoption of market-oriented practices in government and nonprofit organizations often see it as a practical response
47 environmental demands and a way to survive and thrive. Subsequently, from a theoretical perspective, the argument would be that rational and competitive forces are driving processes of isomorphism as a means of survival. Conversely, institutional views of isomorphic change are core to more critical views of marketization, which do not view the adoption of market-oriented practices as a way to make them more efficient, but rather as a way to be perceived as legitimate in a changing organizational field. Critics contend that these efforts are at best misguided and at worst a grave threat to core sector values and identity. The following section examines the normative debate surrounding marketization, focusing specifically on the evolution of sector values and stakeholder relationships in public and nonprofit organizations.
4. Identity at Risk? Sector Blurring and the Marketization Debate
The objective rationale for the adoption of market-oriented practices and values in the public and nonprofit sectors stems from both economic theories and strategic management concepts (Boyne, 1998; Brown and Potoski, 2003; Maier, Meyer and Steinbereithner, 2016). In the public sector, the objective rationalization for the adoption of market-oriented practices such as privatization and contracting that stem from the New Public Management and Reinventing
Government movements originates in part from public choice theory which suggests that if government has a monopoly on the production of goods and services, the result will be inefficiency (Brown and Potoski, 2003; Boyne, 1998). As such, by adopting market-oriented practices and values such as devolution, privatization and contracting, policy makers expect to reduce costs, because efficiency will be enhanced, when among other things, market competition is introduced in the equation (Bozeman, 2007). In addition, supporters of both New Public
Management and the Reinventing Government movement believed significant cost savings could be realized by reducing the size of the federal workforce. In fact, “American Vice President Al
48
Gore’s ‘reinventing government’ set a target for reducing federal employment by 252,000,”
(Kettl, 1997, p. 453). Together with overall cost saving, supporters also believed that promoting a decentralized, entrepreneurial, incentive based, and customer-centered style of governance would foster excellence in public organizations and better outcomes for those they serve (Moe,
1994; Osborne and Gaebler, 1993). Overall, champions of marketization in the public sector see the adoption of market-oriented practices and values as a way to realize efficiency gains, contain the size of the federal workforce and save on costs all the while promoting flexibility and innovation in order to address modern challenges and opportunities.
Supporters of marketization in the nonprofit sector see moves to become more market- like as a deliberate, strategic and pragmatic response to changing environmental demands
(Maier, Meyer and Steinbereithner, 2016; Young, Salamon and Grinsfelder, 2012). In a case study of national nonprofit associations Young (1998) finds that commercial initiatives are undertaken in order to promote or disseminate mission-related services and to generate surplus revenue. Similarly, LeRoux (2005) finds that nonprofits are primarily motivated to adopt market- oriented practices, “as a coping strategy when financial circumstances threaten to limit the scope of their service provision,” (p. 360). Further, champions of marketization note that nonprofit involvement in the market brings about considerable benefits to the sector ranging from increased legitimacy and accountability to the attraction of additional funding and the better targeting of services to clients (Aspen Institute, 2001). In general, the rationale for the adoption of market-oriented practices and values builds upon economic, institutional and resource dependence theories that envision marketization as a way to increase resources, legitimacy and efficiency of the nonprofit sector in an increasingly interconnected world that is governed predominantly by market authority.
49
Overall, supporters of marketization in both the nonprofit and public sectors view the adoption of market-oriented values and practices as a way for organizations to respond to changing environmental demands. In general, these approaches champion the importance of managerial values such as efficiency and effectiveness (Rosenbloom, 1983). While a renewed emphasis has been placed on such values in recent decades, expectations for the competent and cost-effective delivery of goods and services are certainly not foreign to government agencies or nonprofit organizations. Citizens have often expressed their desire for government efficiency, effectiveness, reliability, adaptability, and timeliness (Hood, 1991; Jorgensen and Bozeman,
2007; Rosenbloom, 1983). Hood (1991) refers to these citizen values as Sigma-type values.
“From this viewpoint frugality of resource use in relation to given goals is the criterion of success, while failure is counted in terms of instances of avoidable waste and incompetence. If
Sigma-type values are emphasized, the central concern is to 'trim fat' and avoid 'slack,” (Hood,
1991, p. 12). Simply stated, such approaches expect government to focus primarily on meeting demands for efficiency and effectiveness.
Similar expectations for the efficient and effective provision of goods and services have long informed the purpose and practice of nonprofit organizations as well. When transaction costs are too high, information asymmetries too great, or negative externalities too excessive and markets fail, the efficiency of nonprofits is relied upon in order to provide a plethora of goods and services such as education, environmental protection, social services, health, and economic development (Moulton and Eckerd, 2012; Otte and Dicke, 2012). Further, when government is limited in the types of goods and services it can supply because it must meet the demands of the
“median voter” (Weisbrod, 1977) or in instances of contract failure (Hansmann, 1987), nonprofits are often seen as a more effective way to address unmet social needs. While
50 supporters of marketization have embraced managerial values in order to meet public expectations for the competent and cost-effective delivery of goods and services in a global economy, critics argue that an overemphasis on such values has at best displaced and at worst eliminated concern for other values that are foundational to both sector and organizational identity.
While microeconomics has built its theory on maximizing the attainment of efficiency alone (Kettl, 2002); both public administration and nonprofit management have long dealt with diverse expectations that require the maximization of varied, often competing values. In government, both leaders and citizens frequently express their desire for the simultaneous attainment of both competence and responsiveness (Meier and Bohte, 2007). Whereas competence refers to the ability to do something well and champions values such effectiveness, efficiency and reliability, responsiveness refers to an entities ability to act in an appropriate or desired way. Traditionally, citizens have expected government to be responsive to political institutions, the public interest and the law, as well as, moral and ethical standards, and due process (Meier and Bohte, 2007; Jorgensen and Bozeman, 2007). In general, such expectations champion the importance of political and legal values including honesty, fairness, equality and mutuality, which are central to upholding a constitutional democracy (Hood, 1991; Rosenbloom,
1983). Hood (1991) classifies these as Theta-type values where success is measured in terms of rectitude, or morally correct behavior and actions are deemed a failure when marked by distortion, inequity or bias. In general, such approaches expect government to meet public
51 demands not only for efficiency and effectiveness but also for fairness, mutuality, equality, and impartiality in the pursuit of the public interest9.
In addition to their roles as efficient and effective service providers, nonprofit organizations are also expected to meet community needs, serve the common good and uphold values of charity and philanthropy. According to Berger and Neuhaus (1977) voluntary organizations are one of the, “value generating and value maintaining agencies of society,” that act as mediating structures, connecting the market and state with the public interest (p. 7). Thus, they have obligations to be responsive to ethics, morals, and trustworthy behavior (Hodgkin,
1993). Similarly, Lohmann (1989) contends that the fundamental purpose of nonprofit organizations is to engage in purposeful social action and uphold values such as fairness and mutuality. Eikenberry (2009) suggests that this system of organizations encourages citizens to associate and collectively address public problems, which in turn, helps them to build, “networks of trust and reciprocity, the social capital that allows for democratic societies to function effectively,” (Boris, 2006, p. 2). Consequently, nonprofit organizations have long been seen as supporting and furthering values of democracy, inclusion and fairness in the U.S. (Anheier,
2013; Rathgeb-Smith, 2003). In general, these approaches expect nonprofit organizations to fulfill roles as competent and cost-effective service providers but also to serve as value guardians, advocates, civic intermediaries and builders of social capital upholding values of charity, philanthropy, inclusion and democracy.
9 While the government in the United States is responsible for an expansive array of programs and services that deal with issues ranging from national security and environmental safety to human rights and international affairs, in all activities it is expected to act in response to the public interest. Though the concept of public interest has been derided and dismissed by critics as imprecise and expansive, supporters contend that, “the public interest presents no greater theoretical or practical problems than other such ideal concepts,” (Bozeman, 2007, p 12; Denhardt and Denhardt, 2006). Thus, as an ideal concept, public interest has been defined as the highest ethical standard to which a political order should aspire (Cochran, 1974; Cassinelli, 1962) and as “the most elevated aspiration and deepest devotion of which all human beings are capable,” (Appleby, 1950, p34). According to Stone (1988), it is in the active and conscious pursuit of public values that the public interest is recognized.
52
Both public and nonprofit organizations fulfill many roles in society and as such often face multiple competing values and demands centered on a need to show competence in the task at hand and responsiveness to a larger ideal. Critics of marketization in both sectors believe that the rise of market authority and the resultant diffusion of NPM related practices and market- oriented values has displaced democratic values and promoted an ideology based on self-interest rather than the common good (Eikenberry, 2009; Goodsell, 1984). Often, managerial approaches that embrace market values are in tension with social or political approaches that emphasize democratic and responsiveness values. As Rosenbloom (1983) notes, “a socially representative public service may not be the most efficient one,” (p. 221). Similarly, critics see market-oriented models that stress competition and efficiency as incompatible with nonprofit models centered on values of community participation, due process and stewardship (Eikenberry and Kluver, 2004).
From a market-oriented perspective the obligations of the state and civil society are to maximize efficiency, which critics argue promote particularistic advantages and leave little room for the pursuit of the public good (Hood, 1991; Eikenberry, 2009). As Farazmand (1999) notes,
“markets are inherently biased in favor of wealthy people who may not necessarily realize the needs of a healthy society,” (p. 516). At the most fundamental level, critics see the pervasiveness of instrumental, market-oriented values as dangerous and a threat to the collective and democratic identities of public and nonprofit organizations. More specifically however, critics believe that marketization of the public and nonprofit sectors is altering how entities view the fundamental nature of relationships with stakeholders and those they serve by promoting
53 instrumental connections and consumer identities over citizen identities and value-rational relations10.
The transformation of citizen into customer was one of the hallmark components of the
New Public Management and Reinventing Government movements in the public sector
(Denhardt and Denhardt, 2006). As outlined by Gore (1993), this change was envisioned to create a climate of customer service in government that could rival “the best in business” (44).
One of the strongest objections to this role evolution from citizen to customer has to do with accountability (Denhardt and Dendhardt, 2006). In government, citizens are more than just customers, they are service recipients, partners in service provision, taxpayers and owners
(Denhardt and Denhardt, 2006; Kettl, 2002). While the primarily role of a customer or consumer is to choose between products or services, owners, partners and funders determine which courses of action or production are even important enough to engage in (Frederickson, 1992). According to Kaboolian (1998), the role of customer, “assumes an individualist orientation and fixed preferences in contrast with ‘public’ assumptions of political life,” and thus, “reinforcement of the customer role may affect the way citizens see themselves and their obligations, rights in the political regime and relationship with others,” (p. 191). Put another way, “consumers are self- interested individuals making choices to meet their material needs and desires in the marketplace, whereas citizens share in the authority, responsibility and design of public life,”
(Eikenberry and Kluver, 2004, p. 583). In general, critics argue that these instrumental views of
10 Value-rational in this context refers to Weber’s (1968) conceptualization of social action. As such, the term here refers to the belief in the value of something for its own sake, independent of its link to calculated ends or prospects of success.
54 citizens overlook the intricate nature of their relationship in a democracy and have the potential to lead to the alienation of citizens from public life.
The promotion of instrumental connections and consumer identities has found as many critics in nonprofit management as in public administration, who see this aspect of marketization as challenging the fundamental nature of stakeholder relationships in the sector. Instead of drawing from foundational values of charity and philanthropy in order to serve populations with the deepest of unmet needs, critics argue that marketized nonprofits often set priorities in terms of the bottom line rather than in terms of fulfilling traditional roles as advocates of disenfranchised populations and builders of social capital. For example, many critics of marketization argue that an overemphasis on efficiency coupled with more complex accountability and reporting requirements has driven nonprofits away from clients that are difficult to serve and services with outcomes that are difficult to measure (Eikenberry and
Kluver, 2004). Further, Salamon (1993) contends that as nonprofits increasingly rely on commercial revenue and market-oriented practices they tend to target populations that can pay rather than the poor. Overall, critics argue that an instrumental view of nonprofit stakeholders and clients has the potential to erode the fundamental values, goals and mission of the sector and discourage civic participation (Eikenberry and Kluver, 2004).
The marketization debate in the public and nonprofit sectors highlights three important points worth remembering including (1) there are many, often divergent, views that exist about the fundamental values and purposes of both public and nonprofit organizations (2) recent trends in globalization and the rise of market authority have driven organizations in both sectors to focus primarily on their roles as the efficient and effective service providers and less on their roles as guarantors of democratic or collective ideals; and (3) whether for or against
55 marketization, this shift in focus has fundamentally affected the views of individuals and stakeholders that are championed and institutionally sanctioned. This third point is the focus of the remainder of this dissertation. While the marketization debate has spurred the creation of an impressive body of normative research addressing the ways in which values should shape how public and nonprofit organizations understand their role relative to others, little remains known about how organizational members across sectors actually view the fundamental nature of stakeholder relationships. Until we understand how organizational members truly view this relationship in today’s current environment, it is impossible to understand its effects, whether real or symbolic.
5. Organizational Identity Orientation and the Nature of Stakeholder Relationships
Identity orientation is a construct that was first introduced at the individual level of analysis to examine how people view themselves with respect to others (Brewer & Gardner, 1996;
Brickson, 2000). As previously discussed, research in this area suggests that individuals view themselves from three broad perspectives: as distinct and separate entities (individualistic), as dyadic partners (relational), and as members of a larger collective (collectivistic) (Brickson,
2005). At the individual level of analysis, identity orientation askes the question “who am I?” either as an individual, a partner, or as a group member (Brickson, 2000). “Each of these three identity orientations has powerful implications for individuals’ social motivations by cognitively focusing individuals on themselves, their relationship partners and their social groups, respectively,” (Brickson, 2005, p. 576). Whereas individualistic orientations are associated with a motivation to ensure ones’ own welfare, the social motives associated with relational and collectivistic orientations are other-orienting. More specifically, a relational orientation is associated with ensuring the well-being of a particular other or the maintenance of specific
56 relationships, and a collective orientation is associated with the motivation to ensure the welfare of a larger collectivity or group (Brewer & Gardner, 1996; Brickson, 2005).
Research indicates that like individuals, organizations can espouse individualistic, relational and collectivistic identity orientations (separate from their members). As outlined in
Chapter 1, questions of identity orientation at the organizational level focus on the organization as a whole and ask “who are we?”, either as independent entities (individualistic), dyadically interdependent partners (relational) or as group members (collectivistic) (Brickson, 2005). More specifically, “identity orientation refers to the nature of assumed relations between an organization and its stakeholders,” as perceived by members (Brickson, 2005, p. 577).
Organizational Identity Orientation is comprised of four elements including locus of self- definition, social motives, values and comparison referents, which differ depending on how an organization defines itself relative to others. Individualistic organizations compare themselves to other similar organizations and seek to differentiate themselves. They may refer to themselves as
“the best” or “unique and unlike any other”. They are primarily concerned with maximizing the organizations’ welfare or self-interest and thus strive to outshine other similar organizations.
Conversely, characteristics connecting an organization to close partners or a larger group are more salient in relational and collectivistic organizations that use dyadic and collective role standards as comparison referents. For example, a relational organization might be referred to as a caring and compassionate partner” and a collectivistic organization as an organization that
“emphasizes making contributions to its community.” These organizations seek primarily to maximize the well-being of particular others or a larger group, cause or community, respectively.
Organizational Identity Orientation is foundational to the way organizations manage all relationships because it “outlines the fundamental basis for sanctioned action toward […] various
57 audiences or stakeholders,” (Brickson, 2005, p. 602). According to Brickson (2007), “once formed, relationship patterns serve as the conduits through which organizations affect stakeholders. Organizational agents carry out actions toward stakeholders through the structural and normative constraints embodied by and embedded within relationship patterns,” (p. 871).
Simply stated, how organizations view the fundamental nature of stakeholder relationships will affect the way they manage relationships (See Brickson 2007 for a full review). For example, in individualistic organizations where relationships are viewed instrumentally, as a means to an end, relationships may be characterized by weak ties that are managed through impersonal service encounters. Conversely, in relational organizations where relationships are inherently valued, interactions will likely be characterized by strong dyadic ties and managed through frequent interactions driven by a genuine desire to benefit the other. Finally, in collectivistic organizations where relationships are based on a common collective agenda, connections will be characterized by cliquish or coalition-based ties and managed through alliances11.
Moving forward with an understanding of what OIO is and how it can affect the management of stakeholder relationships subsequently highlights what OIO is not. First, because organizations are seen as having “anthropomorphic identities” which are separate from identities of individual leaders or members, it can be understood that OIO “does not refer to the nature of association between top management and other entities, nor to the sum of individuals own identity orientations,” (Brickson, 2005, p. 580). Empirical findings have buttressed theory in this regard by indicating that differences in organizational identity orientation stem primarily from
11 While the discussion here focuses primarily on the influence of OIO on general external stakeholder relationship patterns, it is important to note that the characteristics of each orientation can manifest internally as well. For example, in individualistic organizations the instrumental nature or organizational relationships may be seen through calculative HR policies, or the reliance on transactional psychological contracts; whereas in collectivistic organizations it may be more likely to see employees managed through collective HR practices and ideological psychological contracts (Brickson, 2007). While internal and external orientations can differ, I proceed from the assumption that in general they tend to mirror one another (Brickson, 2005).
58 specific organizational level factors that mold its immediate environment such as client type and cooperative structure; while individual level variables, such as tenure and sex, explain very little between organization variance in identity orientation (Brickson, 2005). Second, while OIO is culturally embedded in an organization, meaning that it is grounded in local meaning and organizational symbols (Hatch and Schultz, 1997), it is distinct from organizational culture since it “involves the meaning of the social system as an entity, rather than meaning within a bounded social system,” (Brickson, 2005, p. 580). Lastly, it is important not to equate organizational identity orientation with organizational identity more broadly. According to Whetten (2006),
“the concept of organizational identity is specified as the central and enduring attributes of an organization that distinguish it from other organizations,” (page 220). Therefore, while OIO is a prominent feature of organizational identity, it refers more specifically to the nature of assumed relations between the organization as a whole and its stakeholders (Brickson, 2005).
The marketization debate can be framed in terms of both identity and identity orientation.
According to Whetten (2006) identity referents, or those qualities which are central and enduring, reflect an organizations’ highest values and deepest commitments across time and circumstances. Further, Gioa (1998) suggests that organizations can embody multiple identities and manifest them according to core values. As previously outlined, both public and nonprofit organizations have long been guided by multiple core values which can be summarized as competence-related (efficiency, effectiveness, reliability) and responsiveness-related (collective good, democracy, inclusion and fairness). Thus, these organizations balance dual identities as both efficient service providers and protectors of the common good. Both identities “make sense” as long as the organizations are acting in a consistent way with what is expected of them from a comparative perspective (i.e. we must engage in x because that is what is expected of all
59 x-type organizations like us), or because they are acting in accordance with normative or historical role standards (i.e. we must do y because it honors the past and is consistent with our organization’s history of strategic choices) (Whetten, 2006 p. 223).
While the identity of the for-profit sector has long been defined by microeconomic theory and the attainment of efficiency alone (Kettl, 2002), the identity of the public and nonprofit sectors has long been defined by historical role standards that center on core values such as inclusion, fairness, democracy and the pursuit of a common good or collective interest. Some of the most enduring and pointed differences between public and private organizations center on the fundamental relationship between the organization and its stakeholders, namely who the prime beneficiaries are, what interests are being served, and whether or not the character and values of the organization show accountability to a greater good (Been and Gaus, 1983; Blau and Scott,
1962; Appleby, 1945; Bozeman, 2007). Further, theories in both public and nonprofit management have long espoused that the fundamental purposes of organizations within these sectors are to act as value guardians and protectors of the public interest. According to Whetten
(2006) organizational identity is a reminder of early developmental choices and purposes in an organization and thus departures from an organizations’ developmental trajectory are uncommon. Further, Brickson (2002) contends that organizational identity orientation is even more stable than identity. Drawing from sector distinction literature and theories of organizational identity and identity orientation, I hypothesize that in line with historical norms and role standards
Hypothesis #1: Organizational members in public and nonprofit sectors will primarily view their organizations as reflecting collectivistic identity orientations whereas organizational members in the for-profit sector will primarily view their organization as reflecting individualistic identity orientations
60
While I expect normative and historical role standards to be reflected in organizational member perceptions of identity orientation, as previously noted, public and nonprofit organizations have long been expected to balance dual identities as both “protectors of the common good” and “efficient and effective service providers”. Arguably, globalization, the rise in prominence of market authority and the marketization of the public and nonprofit sectors has made the identities of public and nonprofits as efficient and effective service providers more salient today than their identities as guarantors of the common good. From a comparative perspective, this identity would “make sense” to stakeholders today because all organizations in the public and nonprofit sectors have increasingly been expected to conform to marketized models and practices (e.g. we must adopt NPM related reforms because that is what is expected of all public organizations like us; or, we must adopt earned income strategies because that is what is expected of all nonprofit organization).
Though organizational identity and identity orientation are generally seen as stable, change is possible since both are shaped in part by the organizations’ relationship with its environment
(Albert and Whetten, 1985; Brickson, 2002; Brickson, 2005; Glynn and Abzug, 2003). More specifically, if changes occur, they most often occur in the wake of prolonged environmental changes or disruptions (Baum, 1996; Brickson, 2002). Arguably, globalization and the rise in market authority around the world has exacted some of the most dramatic and protracted environmental changes in recent history. Organizations have responded to the new environmental demands of a globalized, knowledge-based economy by interacting more. As a result, organizations are increasingly recognizing their common enterprise and becoming more intertwined. Consequently, organizational fields, or those organizations that together make up a
61 recognized area of organizational life, have become more diverse. Actors across sectors that once operated somewhat independently are now facing similar sets of environmental conditions and pressures. Just as for-profits are experiencing “new” demands to act as an “agent[s] of world benefit” (Donaldson and Walsh, 2015, p. 183) nonprofit and for-profit organizations have also experienced pressure to operate as self-interested, economic agents, in line with the neoclassical view of the firm. In other words, influences and environmental pressures have been multi- directional. Isomorphism has led to sector blurring or what I have referred to as a “similar diversity” in culture, structure and output across sectors.
From and identity perspective, empirical evidence suggests that diverse identity orientations are reflected in the for-profit sectors. More specifically, Brickson (2005) finds evidence that that for-profit organizations are not restricted to individualistic orientations as the traditional neoclassical economic view of the firm might suggest, but rather that both relational and collectivistic orientations are also well represented in the sector. In light of the dramatic and protracted environmental changes that have resulted from globalization, and the increased pressures placed on firms to engage in corporate social responsibility and other value-generating initiatives (Donaldson and Walsh, 2015), this finding is not surprising and certainly lends credence to both theories of isomorphism and statements of “similar diversity”. In the new economy, organizations across sectors have affected and have been affected by one another.
Further, macro-level forces have created environments that stress the identities of public and nonprofit organizations as efficient and effective service providers. Drawing from empirical evidence of identity orientation diversity in the for-profit sector (Brickson, 2005) and theories of isomorphism and sector blurring, I expect that diverse identity orientations will be present within each sector. As such, I hypothesize that:
62
Hypothesis #2: All three identity orientations, individualistic, relational and collectivistic, will be reflected by organizational members in the for-profit, nonprofit and public sectors
Although a plethora of theories present varied and often divergent views of the fundamental identities, purposes and motivations for organizational action, in the public and nonprofit sectors (Berger and Neuhaus, 1977; Hood, 1991; Kettl, 2002; Lohmann, 1989;
Rosenbloom, 1983; Weisbrod, 1975) the marketization debate in Public Administration and
Nonprofit Management often treats the question of identity and identity orientation indirectly as an either-or scenario (i.e. you either emphasize competence or responsiveness values and thus you either view the nature of stakeholder relationships from and instrumental or other-orienting perspective). More specifically, supporters of marketization see the adoption of market-oriented practices and values as a way to emphasize a particular facet of their identity in order to survive and gain legitimacy in the face of new environmental demands, However, critics of marketization in the public and nonprofit sector argue is that not only is marketization making one aspect of identity more salient, it is fundamentally changing it and the very nature of how these entities relate to the world. Critics contend that changes to the ways in which organizational members view the fundamental nature of stakeholder relationships do not “make sense” and that organizations are acting out of character with has traditionally been expected of them, thus eroding sector identity. Further, while never addressed directly in these fields, critics of marketization almost always present the view that individualistic orientations will produce negative outcomes for stakeholders and those they serve, while relational or collectivistic orientations will produce positive outcomes.
Rather than making judgements a priori about the values and motivations that should shape stakeholder relationships, the organizational identity orientation framework recognizes that
63 diverse relationship patterns exist, each with the potential to have positive or negative influences.
For example, while organizations with individualistic orientations have the potential to overemphasize the importance of wealth, leading to excessive commodification they also have the potential to contribute to social value through innovation and by generating wealth and re- investing it into social initiatives (Brickson, 2007). Conversely, while collectivistic organizations have the potential to build social capital and a spirit of citizenship they may also champion unidimensional values and pressure others to conform to their collective agenda (Brickson,
2007). Given that the needs of society are varied and complex, and that many organizations address only a subset of these needs, it is likely that diversity is needed in order to meet social needs (Brickson, 2007).
As noted by Brickson (2007), “in the same way that ecology requires diversity to function properly, so does our equally complex society,” (p. 883). As such examining the variability of organizational identity orientation within and across sectors is critical not only to understanding what the landscape looks like in world dominated by market authority, but also to assess both the negative and positive potential of each orientation. Chapter 3 shifts from examining the potential variability of organizational identity orientation at the community or sector level to focusing on the sources of variability and homogeneity among organizational populations and sub-populations in order to more fully uncover its central properties.
.
64
Chapter 3 - Variability or Homogeneity: A Population and Sub-Population Perspective on Organizational Identity Orientation 1. Introduction
In an age of protracted environmental change resulting from globalization, a shifting balance of authority world-wide and the diminished significance of boundaries, broadly construed; once clear distinctions between the market, state and civil society have become muddled. Chapter 2 proposed that sector blurring is a form of isomorphism that has in part been driven by environmental forces that have promoted increased interactions among diverse organizations and the adoption of non-traditional structures, cultures and identities. From an identity perspective, while I hypothesize that traditional sector norms will be related to member perceptions of organizational identity orientation, because organizations have long balanced dual identities and have become more intertwined as a result of larger environmental changes, we should also expect variation within each sector. Focusing attention on the communities of organizations that make up economic sectors (e.g. nonprofits, for-profits, government organizations) and their relationship to larger social, political and economic conditions, as
Chapter 2 does, reminds us that, “organizations are affected not only by local but by distant actors and forces,” and that they, “operate in systems composed of both similar and diverse forms,” (Scott, 2008, p. 435). However, are the similarities and differences in identity orientation expected at the sector level also reflected among specific organizational populations and sub- populations within these larger organizational communities? Stated another way, what factors might help to explain the similarities and differences that are expected across sectors? Theories of organizational ecology aim to answer this question by focusing on the sources of variability and homogeneity among organizational communities, populations and sub-populations (Hannan and Freeman, 1989).
65
In general, organizational ecology, “aims to explain how social, economic and political conditions affect the relative abundance and diversity of organizations,” (Baum and Amburgey,
2002, p. 304). From an ecological perspective, organizations are thought to be hierarchically nested. More specifically, communities of organizations, also referred to as sectors or organizational fields, are thought to be composed of many diverse organizational populations and sub-populations (Astley, 1985; Carroll, 1984; Carroll and Hannan, 1995). Organizational fields are, “a set of interdependent populations of organizations participating in the same cultural and social sub-system,” (Scott, 2008, p. 434). Populations exist within communities and can be conceptualized as groups of organizations that are similar in form (Hannan and Freeman, 1977).
Sub-populations then represent crucial distinctions among these. For example, the nonprofit sector might represent an organizational community made up of specific populations such as hospitals, higher education institutions, and homeless service organizations. Within the realm of homeless service organizations might exist those primarily concerned with finding immediate housing for individuals or those primarily engaged in advocacy and policy change. These would be considered sub-populations. Figure 2 provides a visual depiction of this nesting.
66
Figure 2: Ecological Nesting of Organizations
As was previously highlighted, Chapter 2 focused on communities of organizations and relative diversity in identity orientation expected to be reflected among organizations in the public, nonprofit and for-profit sectors. However, while organizational populations often reflect characteristics similar to others in their larger community, because organizational populations are seen as autonomous units with unique properties and environmental relationships, some characteristics may not be unitary across the two levels (Carroll and Hannan, 2005). In other words, while a community can be made up of many, sometimes divergent organizational populations, because organizations within populations reflect similar forms and depend similarly on their environment, population level characteristics can act as an insular force for
67 organizations, to some degree shaping and directing levels of variability within a population, despite the level of overall diversity that characterizes their larger community.
The industry that an organization belongs to is thought to be one important population- level characteristic that might shape its unique environmental relationship. More specifically, because organizational patterns and activities within an industry are to some degree context dependent, organizations in industries tend to homogenize according to their immediate and salient environment (Astley, 1985). For example, nonprofit associations may be more likely to mimic the activities of other nonprofit associations (Bromley and Orchard, 2016) and industry- relevant collaborators and competitors than they are to mimic the activities and patterns of nonprofit social clubs or homeless service providers. At the sub-population level, organizational diversity can also be limited by the types of individuals that an organization serves and the centrality of the client to production processes. For example, the patterns of activity and normative order expected of government or nonprofit organizations that serve mostly corporations and other businesses are likely to be markedly dissimilar from the activities and norms expected of organizations whose primary clients are individuals and families (Brickson,
2005). Similarly, how central an organizations clients or customers are to production processes likely informs, at a fundamental level, the structure of an organizations relations with others.
While these statements may seem self-evident, often research makes no distinction between trends or characteristics occurring among organizations at the community level, population level and sub-population level. Therefore, while Chapter 2 focused on the presence and variability of diverse identity orientations among nonprofit, government and for-profit organizations at the community or sector level, factors such as industry, an organizations primary clients or stakeholders, and the centrality of the client relationship to organizational operations
68 may help to explain the variability or homogeneity of organizational identity orientation at the population or sub-population levels. Simply stated, the unique social and material milieu faced by organizational populations and sub-populations within each sector may help to explain sources of variability and homogeneity in terms of organizational identity orientation that have been hypothesized at the sector level. This chapter draws from theories of isomorphism, organizational ecology and identity to examine the sources of variability and homogeneity among organizational populations and sub-populations. I begin exploring the importance of industry membership, one important population level factor that may inform an organization’s identity orientation. Then, taking a sub-population perspective, I examine whether who an organization serves and how central their clients are to production processes might bear on member perceptions of identity orientation. Three hypotheses are offered in this section.
2. Industry, Insularity and Implications for Identity Orientation: A Population Level Perspective Before examining the relationship between organizational populations and identity orientation, it is first necessary to discuss the defining characteristics of organizational populations, generally construed, and the varied ways in which they can be conceptualized. As previously indicated, organizational populations refer to groups of organizations that are similar in form (Hannan and Freeman, 1977). “Form serves as the organizational ecologist’s analogue to the biological ecologist’s species. Form summarizes the core properties that make a set of organizations ecologically similar,” (Carroll and Hannan, 1995, p. 29). According to Hannan and
Freeman (1977) form can refer to an organization’s formal structure, patterns of activity or the normative order. Thus, organizational populations are, “specific time and place instances of organizational forms,” (Carroll and Hannan, 1995, p. 29). For example, an organizational population might refer to a particular set of automobile producers, auditors, environmental
69 regulatory agencies, labor unions, voluntary organizations, hospitals or mental health agencies
(Hannan and Freeman, 1993; Hasenfeld, 2009, Hannan, 2005). In this way, organizational populations often resemble industries (Carroll and Hannan, 1995). Thus, at a broad level, organizational populations must be alike in some respect and have some sort of unitary character
(Hannan and Freeman, 1977).
According to Hannan and Freeman (1993) among organizational populations, “the most salient kind of unitary character […] is common dependence on the material and social environment,” (p. 45). In other words, groups of organizations can be considered a population if member organizations rely in similar ways on their environment (Hannan and Freeman, 1993).
Or, to put it another way, organizational populations are thought to share a common fate with regards to environmental variations (Hannan and Freeman, 1977). As such, organizational populations have not only been defined according to industrial boundaries (Carroll and Hannan,
1995), but also according to whether they are generalists or specialists in their field (Hannan and
Freeman, 1993) and what their primary inputs and outputs are (Beard and Dess, 1988; Brickson,
2005). The picture that emerges is one in which populations can vary from investigation to investigation depending on ones’ analytical focus (Hannan and Freeman, 1977). Thus, in terms of identifying and examining a population, one need simply to array forms along an analytic continuum and pay particular attention to variations along that continuum (Hannan and Freeman,
1993).
Examining organizational identity orientation at the population level is particularly important because internal forces make it such that some populations respond to their environment differently. For example, while normative expectations and sector blurring may lead to the presence of diverse identity orientations at the community level in the nonprofit, for-
70 profit and public sectors, as was posited in Chapter 2, homeostatic processes at the population level may have implications for the variability of identity orientation and speak to the similarities and differences expected within each community. In this section I begin by exploring general processes of technological insularity and mimesis among organizational populations from an industry perspective. I then examine the linkages between industry, identity and identity orientation more specifically and propose a general hypothesis for further study.
Organizational populations are characterized by what Hannan and Freeman (1977) refer to as relative inertia, which assumes that the core characteristics that define membership in an organizational population are relatively stable. Thus, in general, populations persist as organizational species which are defined by their technical and managerial know-how (Astley,
1985). A corollary of this is that the technology or know-how specific to an organizational population acts as an isolating mechanism that helps it to retain its distinctive character (Astley,
1985; Beard and Dess, 1988). Sahal (1981) terms this isolating process the “principle of technological insularity”. More specifically, because technology or know-how, “seems to be in large part product and industry specific” and because, “industries face significant costs not only in the search for technologies developed elsewhere, but in adapting those technologies to the new conditions in which they are to be used,” the influx of new technology within an industry is reduced which limits organizational variability within populations or industries and helps it to retain its form over time (Astley, 1985, p.227).
Technological insularity can manifest in many forms. It may be that personnel acquire skills gradually though participation in industry specific production processes and rely on certain information channels for information which in turn can limit the range of information about the environment that organizations can access (Astley, 1985; Carrol and Hannan, 1995). Know-how
71 can also manifest in idiosyncratic language, identities or cultures within a population which may deepen divides between insiders and outsiders (Hannan and Freeman, 1993). Further, when industries form associations or become institutionally legitimated forms, they produce a sense of collective identity that further acts to unite population members and differentiate them from other organizational populations. According to Hannan and Freeman (1993) attempts to create copies of legitimated forms should be common within populations. This tendency to replicate and copy successful others is what DiMaggio and Powell (1983) refer to as mimetic isomorphism. According to Haveman (1993), “organizations imitate organizations within their populations, as the actions of these organizations tend to be more salient than the actions of organizations in other populations,” (p. 596). In other words, within organizational populations
(e.g. industries) there is a “bandwagon effect” of sorts whereby the probability that an organization will alter their form or introduce a new technique is a function of the organizations already taking the same actions (Astley, 1985). Processes of mimetic isomorphism thus reinforce and stabilize the identities of members within an organizational population, and also act as a potential differentiating mechanism between populations (Astley, 1985).
There are many examples of mimesis within organizational populations in the public sector. For example, research indicates that the implementation of diversity management programs in public schools are often the direct result of mimetic institutional pressures (Pitts,
Hicklin, Hawes and Melton, 2010). More specifically, Pitts et al., (2010) found that the adoption of diversity management measures among public schools in Texas resulted in part from a desire to mimic the strategies of other school districts and influential actors in their immediate environment. Similarly, in examining the catalysts of the formalization and centralization of public schools in New York City, Carolan (2008) found that organizational changes were
72 prompted in part out of a desire to be seen as legitimate in comparison to other urban public school districts such as those in Boston and Chicago. Within the corrections industry Moynihan
(2005) also found mimetic pressures to be one important driver of the implementation of managing for results reforms. Lastly, in an examination of the motivations for e-government implementation by local municipalities in the U.S. Jun and Weare (2011) found that local government organizations, “endeavor to fulfill institutional expectations by adopting practices employed by peer institutions,” (p. 18). Taken together, these findings indicate that the diffusion of forms and techniques within populations of organizations in the public-sector drives processes of mimetic isomorphism that unite and define organizational members within a population and have the potential to differentiate them from others.
Similar trends of imitation are also prevalent among organizational populations within the nonprofit sector. For example, Barman and MacIndoe (2012) posit that the evaluative techniques that nonprofits choose to assess the impact of their organizations’ programs will be based on the practices of successful peer organizations within their industry. Eckerd and Moulton
(2011) find that nonprofit organizations in Ohio adopt evaluation practices based on perceptions of what other nonprofits that do similar work are doing. Among homeless service providers
Mosely (2012) also found that the proclivity of an executive director to participate in insider tactics to achieve advocacy goals is partially based on desires to mimic and remain competitive with other similar organizations. Lastly, Bromley and Orchard (2016) found that when state nonprofit associations began adopting formal ethical codes of conduct, it led other state associations that had not yet adopted codes to emulate their peers.
A number of important axioms in organizational theory are reinforced by these overall findings. First, these studies re-orient us to the fact that organizational populations, while similar
73 at a broad level, are all autonomous units facing their environment. As such, each population depends in a common way on their environment and through processes of imitation and mimesis attempt to respond to their unique environment in a similar way. However, though organizations within each population respond in similar way to their environment, each population (1) is defined by different core technologies, (2) has different needs and priorities and (3) thus has a unique relationship with the larger environment. This is important because while a similar diversity in organizational identity orientation might be reflected across communities of organizations at the sector level, the unique social and material milieu faced by organizational populations within each sector, and the tendency of organizational members to imitate organizations within their population, as these examples have shown, may have implications for the presence and variability of identity orientation. The remainder of this section explores the relationship between identity orientation and industry, an important population level factor that may help explain the variance expected within organizational communities at the sector level.
Just as certain aspects of individual identity are thought to emerge in part as a result of group comparison and identification (Brewer and Garder, 1996), organizations also form and maintain their identities over time, in-part through processes of inter-organizational comparisons
(Albert, 1977; Gioa, Patvardhan, Hamilton and Corley, 2013). This makes sense since at its most basic level, “the natural domain of organizational identity is the study of how organizations define themselves in terms of what they share in common with certain other organizations, and how they are different from all other organizations,” (Whetten and Mackey, p. 397). More specifically, research suggests that, “organizations form identities that afford them a unique position within an industry, while still being similar enough to other firms to define themselves as legitimate members,” (Gioa et. Al, 2013, p. 156). Thus, one of the primary external influences
74 on the formation of identity are the peer organizations in ones’ environment. When efforts are made to emulate similar organizations, comparisons are most often made to other organizations within the same industry, group or social class (Gioa, 1998).
Arguably, industries represent the institutionalization of a group of organizations that perform a particular type of work. According to Selznick (1957) as institutionalization progresses, organizations begin to embody a unique character. This character then becomes the foundation of an organizations identity. Consequently, inter-industry comparisons act as socialization mechanisms that orient groups of organizations toward similar norms, values and expectations which in turn fosters a sense of collective identity among them (Brickson, 2002;
Gioa, 1998; Gordon, 1991). Thus, an organization’s industry can in turn affect an organization’s identity orientation, one important aspect of identity (Brickson, 2002, 2005).
Numerous studies indicate that forming and maintain an identity similar to other like organizations is critical for organizational success. This collective identity then provides organization with the legitimacy needed to survive. For example, Czarniawska and Wolff (1998) found that between two new universities the one that survived developed an identity similar to others in the industry and were thus accepted by peer organizations as “one of us”. Conversely, failure to reflect the accepted industry identity led the other university to be labeled as a stranger, negatively impacting their legitimacy and ultimately leading to demise (Czarniawska and Wolff,
1998). Similarly, Glynn and Abzug found that, “even an organization’s name, which is typically viewed as a powerful and distinctive symbol representing ‘who we are as an organization’ is highly influenced by institutional pressures for conformity […] suggesting that organizations and their identities cannot be fully differentiated from the institutions within which they are embedded,” (Gioa et. Al, 2013, p. 162). These studies reinforce the idea that mimesis and
75 conformity to industry identity norms is critical if organizations hope to obtain and maintain legitimacy in their environments. This is not to say that identity will be completely uniform within an industry or that organizations cannot temporarily focus on one identity over another in order to respond to environmental variation or temporary crisis (Brickson, 2002). However, some stability across organizations in an industry is required for ultimate survival, especially in terms of its identity orientation as, “changes to or incongruities in how entities relate to the world are more problematic to their entity than are changes or incongruities in their entity’s identity more generally,” (Brickson, 2002, p. 14).
While empirical studies linking member perceptions of organizational identity orientation to industry specifically are limited, research suggests that industry is an important predictor of an organization’s identity orientation. For example, Brickson (2005) finds that for-profit organizations in beverage manufacturing and legal services exhibit fundamentally different identity orientations. More specifically, organizational members in the for-profit legal services industry perceive their organizations as having a significantly more relational and individualistic orientation than those in the beverage manufacturing industry (Brickson, 2005). Additional studies indicate that an organization’s emphasis on distinct, yet like constructs, such as individualistic or collectivistic cultures and normative or utilitarian identities can depend on factors such as industry classification (Chatman and Barsade, 1995; Lee and Bourne, 2017). In a study of ten top U.K. charities undergoing rebranding, those emphasizing purely normative identities during the process focused on heritage, purpose and core values and could be classified as religious organizations or those focused on disability prevention and treatment. Conversely, those that emphasized purely utilitarian identities during the process focused on market position,
76 awareness and income generation and could be classified as international affairs and development and medical research organizations (Lee and Bourne, 2017).
As Chapter 2 proposed, while organizations in each sector, nonprofit, public or for-profit are apt to lean individualistic or collectivistic, there is likely wide variance in all three sectors.
Based on theories of mimesis and technological insularity and the proclivity of organizations to form identities in part based on inter-industry comparisons, one factor contributing to such variance is likely the industry an organization operates within. As such, I propose a general hypothesis which posits differences in identity orientation among organizational populations within the for-profit, nonprofit and public sector.
Hypothesis #3: Member perceptions of organizational identity orientation will differ significantly within each sector based on the industry that their organization is a part of. 3. Audiences, Expectations and Implications for Identity Orientation: A Sub-Population Perspective
According to organizational ecologists, populations are comprised of organizations that reflect a similar form (Hannan and Freeman, 1977). Within sets of forms, sub-forms also exist.
Thus, from an industry perspective, sub-forms might represent sub-industries or specialized producers within a larger population, (Hsu and Hannan, 2005). For example, consider craft- brewers and micro-brewers. While both types of brewers are members of the larger brewing industry there are important differences between craft-brewers and micro-brewers that would designate each as a unique sub-form within their population. Or, consider homeless service agencies providing immediate relief services to individuals and homeless service agencies that focus solely on lobbying and advocacy for affordable housing. Again, both agencies are members of the larger industry, yet important differences between the two types of agencies
77 would designate each as a sub-population. Simply stated, subforms reflect crucial distinctions among organizations within a specific population. Among organizations in a population, who the organization serves and how close they are to production processes, are two sub-population level factors that will likely inform the structure of an organizations relationship with stakeholders and thus may be, “particularly influential in shaping organization’s perceived role and obligations toward others,” (Brickson, 2005, p. 583). The remainder of this section explores the relationship between these two factors and organizational identity orientation. I begin by examining at a broad level how organizational production processes may inform the structure of an organizations relationship with others and then look more closely at how these processes relate to identity and identity orientation more specifically. I then explore how the type of client an organization serves might bear on the structure of an organization’s relationships with others and thus impact its identity orientation.
It has long been known that the production processes, or the inputs and outputs involved in producing goods are different from those involved in the provision of services (Mills and
Margulies, 1980; Mills and Moberg, 1982). At a basic level, production-oriented organizations produce a product at one point in time for consumption at another (Mills and Margulies, 1980).
Conversely, in service-oriented organizations consumption occurs at the same time as production
(Mills and Moberg, 1982). From and ecological perspective, this means that the material and social milieu that production and service-oriented organizations face is “markedly dissimilar”
(Brickson, 2005). One of the most important differences between these types of organizations is proximity of the consumer or client to the producer or provider. In traditional production- oriented organizations, “outputs can be physically created independently of users and inventoried for the ultimate purchase of relatively anonymous consumers,” (Brickson, 2005, p. 583).
78
However, in service-oriented organizations the service provider or producer must interact at some level with the client or customer in order for services to be delivered (Mills and Margulies,
1980). Because stakeholder relationships at a fundamental level define organizational identity orientation, the centrality of such relationships to production processes likely has implications for an organizations’ identity orientation.
According to Brickson (2005), organizations engaged in service-oriented and production- oriented work will engender a very particular and distinct type of client-member relationship. For example, organizations engaged in production-oriented work where the primary product is created largely independently of the client or consumer, would likely exhibit very different stakeholder relationship patterns than organizations engaged in service-oriented work where the role of the client is central to the production process. In fact, Brickson (2005) finds that relational identity orientations are significantly more likely to be reflected in legal service firms where individual client relationships are central to production processes, than in non-alcoholic beverage companies where production occurs largely independently of consumers (Brickson, 2005).
While Brickson’s (2005) findings provide an important baseline understanding of organizational identity orientation among production-based and personal-service based organizations, a logical next step theoretically would be to examine additional organizations that are a part of service- production continuum in each sector, where the centrality of the client relationship to the production process differs. This is an important extension of the theory in itself, but also important given the diversity of organizations that exist today. I will draw from Mills and
Margulies’s (1980) classic typology of service organizations to begin to parse out these differences.
79
According to the core typology of service organizations developed by Mills and Margulies
(1980), service organizations can be categorized as either maintenance-interactive, task- interactive or personal-interactive. Table II highlights core components of each type of organization. Among the three types, client relationships are the least central to production processes in maintenance-interactive organizations. Maintenance-interactive organizations provide clients with routine, stable and predictable services. Relationships tend to be instrumental and short in duration, allowing the organization to provide uniform, reliable services for a relatively large number of customers or clients relatively quickly. As such, employee interactions are interchangeable and identification with clients is low. Examples of maintenance-interactive organizations might include a local bank, museum or the department of motor vehicles. In task-interactive organizations, the centrality of the client relationship to production processes is moderate. Services provided in task-interactive are centered on the provision of technical knowledge, expertise and problem-solving. Often client relationships are concentrated but have a definite end. Employee identification with the client is moderate and interchangeable insofar as another “expert” can provide similar services. Examples of task- interactive organizations might include engineering firms, international development organizations or community and economic development agencies.
TABLE II: CORE COMPONENTS OF SERVICE-ORIENTED ORGANIZATION
Centrality of Primary Organizational Duration of Org-Type Client Outputs Interaction Relationship Personal-Interactive High Improvement of client or Long-term groups intrinsic, personal well- being Task-Interactive Moderate Provision of technical Concentrated, knowledge, expertise and with definite end problem-solving
80
Maintenance-Interactive Low Meet or sustain routine, Short predictable, instrumental needs Production Indirect Provide a product with Sporadic minimal, indirect or little client input Source: Adapted from Mills and Margulies (1980)
Lastly, in personal-interactive service organizations, client relationships are central or core to production processes. These are the types of service organizations examined by Brickson (2005).
Services provided in personal-interactive organizations are geared toward the direct improvement of the client or client group’s intrinsic, personal well-being. Client relationships are often long-term and deep and thus employee identification with clients is high. Personal- interactive organizations might include human service organizations, schools, law-firms, counseling agencies or medical facilities. While the centrality of the client relationship varies based on each of these service orientations, what all three have in common is the fact that the production function is based on some form of reciprocal interaction and influence between the organization and the service recipients. This is of course markedly different than in traditional production-oriented organizations, where as was previously discussed, production can occur somewhat independently of anonymous consumers (Mills and Margulies, 1980).
As outlined in Chapter 2, organizational identity can be understood as those attributes which are most central, enduring, and distinctive about an organization (Albert and Whetten, 1985).
Thus, an organization’s identity acts as a set of rules or social codes that delineate how the organization is expected to act (Pólos et al., 2002; Whetten, 2006). More specifically, “these codes represent default expectations held by audiences about organizational properties and constraints over properties,” (Hsu and Hannan, 2005, p.475). Audiences can be understood simply as internal or external organizational stakeholders that can affect or are affected by the organization’s success and failure (Hsu and Hannan, 2005). Because audience expectations can
81 impact both symbolic and material resources needed by organizations, they can in fact influence and shape core features of organizations. In this way, organizational identity can be seen as something that is contested and negotiated among both internal and external stakeholders (Gioia,
1998; Hatch and Schultz, 2002; Scott and Lane, 2000).
According to Gioia (1998) organizational identity, “develop[s] over time in interaction with internal and external parties,” (p. 45). External stakeholders, for their part, establish expectations about how they believe an organization should relate to its environment, which can impact its values and play a role in the identity negotiation process (Brickson, 2005). Internal stakeholders incorporate stakeholder expectations and constituent feedback based on whether or not demands are in line with that which is considered to be most core, enduring and distinctive about the organization (Whetten and Mackey, 2002). As such, stakeholders seek out organizations that maintain a consistent identity in line with preferred values and organizations likely cater to stakeholders aligned with their identity. Subsequent stakeholder expectations and perceptions about whether or not the organization is satisfying or violating identity codes then lock the organization into distinct behavioral patterns (Brickson, 2002; Hsu and Hannan, 2005).
Simply stated, organizational identity shapes and is shaped by stakeholder relationships. Because organizational identity orientation is one important aspect of organizational identity, a corollary of this is that the alignment between stakeholders and identity should be reflected in member’s perceptions of identity orientation (Brickson, 2005; Brickson, 2007).
The centrality of key stakeholders (e.g. clients and customers) to the production process speaks directly to the structure of an organization’s relationship with others. Consequently, not only do these stakeholders influence identity formation and maintenance, but they likely inform the organizations perceived roles and obligations toward others, which gets to the heart of
82 identity orientation. As such, the centrality of the client relationship to production process should be related to an organization’s identity orientation. More specifically, when organizations are focused primarily on the improvement of a client or groups intrinsic and personal well-being as is characteristic of personal-service organizations, it is likely that it is motivated first to improve the benefit or particular others, as is characteristic of relational identity orientations. Because clients or customers are central to production processes in these organizations, and their personal wellbeing is at stake, it is likely that they expect the organization to be a good, trustworthy and compassionate partner, thus playing a key role in shaping both central features (identity) of the organization and the structure of an organizations relationship with others (identity orientation).
As such, I hypothesize that, regardless of sector:
Hypothesis #4: Employees in organizations proving highly personal services will perceive their orientations to be more relational than employees in organizations that do not provide highly personal services.
Another crucial distinction among service-oriented organizations is the type of clients served. According to Brickson (2005) whether an organization, “primarily serves corporations, families and individuals, or nonprofit organizations, public agencies, and citizens’ groups likely says something about its identity orientation,” (p. 584). Thus, it is not only how central clients or key stakeholders are to organizational operations that matters, but who they are. In an increasingly interconnected and demanding world, organizations often fulfill varied and diverse roles simultaneously. As such, they are increasingly faced with the demands of multiple stakeholder groups whose interests and values may differ (Balser and McClusky, 2005; Guo and
Musso, 2007; LeRoux, 2009; Zammutto, 1984). For example, private for-profit entities may face varied demands from regulatory agencies, stockholders and customers, while nonprofits and government organizations may deal with varied expectations from individual clients,
83 constituency groups, contractors, interest groups, citizens, other governments and the public at large. Thus, it may seem that answering the question, “who are we as an organization vis-à-vis our stakeholders,” (i.e. what is our identity orientation) would become exponentially more difficult for organizations to answer and diverge across audiences. However, research suggests that for many organizations, the answer to the question, “who are we as an organization vis-à-vis our stakeholders” is shaped in part by its relationship to its core constituency or clients.
In the case of one nonprofit organization in the Midwest, Balser and McClusky (2005) found that the organizations’ relationship with and devotion to its core constituency acted as a filter for the way the organization approached all stakeholder relationships. More specifically, because the organization viewed itself first as community-oriented youth development organization all other relationships were approached from a similar rationale (Balser and
McClusky, 2005). For example, when deciding whether to partner with a large for-profit corporation the Executive Director first asked questions such as, “are these the right people?” and “are the missions the same?” (p. 304). Similarly, when deciding whether or not to collaborate with government agencies the Executive Director reported weighing not whether the costs would outweigh the benefits to the organization, but whether or not the costs would outweigh the benefits for its core constituency. Thus, the overall approach to stakeholder relationships was driven by how the organization viewed itself in relationship to its core constituency. While not identified as such by Balser and McClusky (2005), from a purely descriptive standpoint, one might conclude that this organization can be characterized as having a collectivistic identity orientation.
In a similar case of four nonprofit organizations whose primary clients are defined by organizational members as the “Latino community”, Ospina, Diaz and O’Sullivan (2002) found
84 that the organizations’ relationship with its core constituency helped to shape the ways in which they approached other stakeholder groups. More specifically, they found, that the expectations or needs of their core constituency or clients shaped organizational responses to other key stakeholders such as funders. For example, not only did the organization prioritize the values of core constituency when responding to various stakeholder demands and beginning new projects, organization members reported turning down funding and partnership opportunities that were not geared towards the needs of the core constituency. “In this way negotiations with other stakeholders of the accountability environment are often passed through the filter of this core relationship,” (Ospina, Diaz and O’Sullivan, 2002, p. 28). Similar to the youth-development organization, the answer to the question, “who are we as an organization vis-à-vis our stakeholders,” tended to be shaped, at least in part, by the organizations core client group.
In a study of public organizations, Franklin (2001) examined the nature of stakeholder relationships among federal cabinet level departments (Energy, Housing and Urban
Development, Transportation, Veterans Affairs, Environmental Protection, Agriculture,
Commerce, Health and Human Services, Interior, Justice, Labor and Treasury), particularly related to the development of strategic organizational plans as mandated by the Government
Performance and Results Act of 1993. Unlike the previous nonprofit cases, these organizations largely identified their core constituencies, or the stakeholders with whom the organization usually interacts, as policy-oriented interest groups, other government entities and for-profit corporations, not individual service recipients or constituent groups. Their interactions with such groups were often characterized as uniform and the primary value created was often identified as being instrumental to the workings of the organization and/or creating an impactful organizational community (Franklin, 2002). Handley and Moroney (2010) also examined the
85 nature of stakeholder relationships in government, but at the local level. Their findings suggest that who an organization views as its core constituency does influences broader stakeholder interaction patterns. More specifically, they found that when organizational members in community development organizations identified citizens as the core constituency to which the organization was most accountable (as opposed to other entities such as individual program recipients, government organizations or elected representatives) there were higher levels of citizen participation in local government hearings and budgeting processes related to the implementation. These findings indicate that the type of client an organization serves may have implications for how the organization views itself vis-à-vis others. While these studies do not specifically address identity orientation, their findings indicate that when citizens (collectively) are viewed as the primary client group of public organizations, interaction patterns and the type of value created tend to reflect a collectivistic orientation; whereas both collectivistic and individualistic orientations are reflected when the primary constituency is identified as interest groups, other government organizations, elected officials or corporations.
Among different types of production and service-oriented organizations, one critical distinction is the type of client or core constituency served by the organization. These studies indicate that whether an organization views citizens (as groups), corporations, or other government and nonprofit organizations, as the primary stakeholder likely has implications or its identity orientation or how the organization understands and defines itself vis-à-vis its stakeholders. According to Brickson (2005), “large corporations are apt to value a high status and more aggressive identity, common foci among individualistic firms. Families and individuals
[…] likely seek nurturing and concern in their representation [and] nonprofits, public agencies, and citizens’ groups would arguably favor professional service providers who appreciate and,
86 through their service, aim to advance the broad causes at stake, as opposed to focusing on firm profits or the relationship itself,” (p. 584). Further, research findings indicate that among legal service firms in the for-profit sector, those serving corporations were more individualistic and those serving nonprofits, public agencies and citizen groups were more collectivistic (Brickson,
2005).
As previously discussed, organizational identity shapes and is shaped by stakeholder relationships. Therefore, this process tends to produce alignment between organizational stakeholders and identity, and thus identity tends to be consistent across audiences (Brickson,
2005; Brickson, 2007). These studies speak to this very point. Because organizational identity orientation is one important aspect of organizational identity, a corollary of this is that the alignment between stakeholders and identity should be reflected in member’s perceptions of identity orientation, which is also expected to be consistent across stakeholders (Brickson, 2005;
Brickson, 2007). In line with the literature and previous empirical findings, I propose that organizational identity orientation will vary significantly between service-based organizations depending on how often they serve particular types of clients. More specifically I propose that:
Hypothesis #5: Members in organizations that frequently provide goods and services to for-profit businesses will view their organization’s identity orientation as more individualistic, those in organizations that frequently serve individuals and families will see them as more relational, and those in organizations that frequently serve nonprofits and public agencies will view them as more collectivistic.
87
Chapter 4 - Research Design and Methodology
1. Overview
While the previous chapters explore the theoretical and conceptual foundations of this study, Chapter 4 details the overall study design used to address the primary research questions and hypotheses. This discussion will explain in detail the multi-phase, mixed-methods approach being utilized for the overall study. In general, the study includes two phases, both of which utilize a concurrent-embedded mixed methods approach. In addition to describing the overall approach and design, this chapter will also address the data sources and outline collection procedures used in each phase. Preliminary results from the Phase 1 study that are applicable to the design of Phase 2 will be also be discussed.
2. Research Methodology and Study Design
Purpose and Methodology
As previously outlined, this research is designed to take place in two phases. The purpose of the first phase of this research is to obtain baseline information about the presence and frequency of varied individualistic, relational and collectivistic identity orientations across sectors and to begin developing a quantitative measurement model of the Organizational Identity
Orientation construct that can be used to further address the hypotheses outlined in Chapters 2 and 3. The second phase of the study is designed to re-test and validate the quantitative measurement model, addressing any issues with the data that arise in the first phase. In addition, the second phase will also allow for the collection of any additional data not collected in phase 1, that can aid in developing a more robust understanding of the OIO construct.
88
Both phases use a concurrent embedded mixed methods design. A concurrent embedded mixed method design is one that focuses on the simultaneous collection of both qualitative and quantitative data. In concurrent embedded models, a primary method guides the project
(qualitative or quantitative) and the secondary method (qualitative or quantitative) is embedded or nested within the predominant method (Creswell, 2009). One key purpose of this approach is to integrate and compare qualitative and quantitative information in order to gain a broader perspective of the issues at hand (Creswell, 2009). More specifically, this approach may allow the researcher to see if subjective participant views converge or diverge from standardized measurement instruments.
To date, the measurement of Organizational Identity Orientation has drawn upon qualitative approaches (Brickson, 2005). While rich insight can be gained from these approaches the ability to quantitatively measure OIO and verify the convergence of these measures with qualitative data would add to the valuable knowledge gained from this body of work and allow for a more generalizable assessment of the construct across different communities and populations of organizations. Drawing from previous research in social psychology, management and organizational theory (Brickson, 2005; Kashima & Hardie, 2000; Kuhn & McPartland, 1954;
O’Reilly, Chatman & Caldwell, 1991), and guided by the concurrent-embedded mixed method approach, I have designed and administered a number of surveys in order to test a series of both qualitative and quantitative identity statements that can be used to develop a measurement model of the Organizational Identity Orientation construct that can be used to assess its existence and variability within and across organizational sectors, populations and sub-populations. For the purposes of this study, qualitative items are embedded in surveys that take a predominantly
89 quantitative approach. A brief timeline of the study components that will be discussed in this chapter can be found in Table III.
TABLE III: TIMELINE OF ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTITY ORIENTATION STUDY
The first Organizational Identity Orientation survey instrument is designed with the construct originator and Winter/Spring 2015 PHASE 1 independently reviewed by two members of UIC’s Survey Research Laboratory in order to ensure web survey standards are adhered to.
The first pre-test of the Organizational Identity Summer 2015 PHASE 1 Orientation survey is launched in July in order to ensure survey functionality (e.g. skip logic, quotas, etc.).
The final Organizational Identity Orientation survey is Autumn 2015 PHASE 1 live on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk Platform from September 8th until September 12th
Phase 2 Organizational Identity Orientation survey instruments are designed based on the Phase 1 results. There are two primary instruments developed that include Summer 2017 PHASE 2 (1) a survey to test/re-test only the measures to be used in the development of the quantitative measurement model and (2) a re-administration of the full Phase 1 survey, with some additions and other minor changes
Two independent pre-tests of the Organizational Identity Orientation measurement model surveys are launched on Summer 2017 PHASE 2 Amazon’s Mechanical Turk in order to test and refine measures
The final Phase 2 Organizational Identity Orientation Autumn 2017 PHASE 2 survey is live on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk Platform from September 11th until September 15th
Survey Design
Development of the original Organizational Identity Orientation survey instrument began in the spring of 2014. Research suggests that Organizational Identity Orientation can be assessed by examining the types of identity statements that members make when describing their
90 organizations, (Brickson, 2005; Brickson, 2007). For example, statements such as “my organization is unique and unlike any other” (individualistic), “my organization is concerned with being a considerate and thoughtful partner” (relational) or “my organization emphasizes the importance of contributing to the larger community” (collectivistic) all highlight distinct assumptions about how an organization defines itself and its relations relative to others.
Identity statements were incorporated into a survey using a number of different formats including 10 qualitative open ended response items based on an adaptation of Kuhn and
McPartland’s (1954) Twenty Statements Test, 36 factor-oriented quantitative identity statements based on four elements that comprise the OIO construct, and 15 quantitative ranked statements adapted from Kashima and Hardie’s (2000) Relational, Individual and Collective self-aspects scale and Brickson’s (2005) Organization as a Person question. In addition, measures to test for convergent and discriminant validity based on O’Reilly, Chatman and Caldwell’s (1991)
Organizational Culture Profile, as well as measures to test for social desirability (Crown and
Marlow, 1960) were included. Many of the initial measures identified for inclusion were derived from Brickson’s (2005) seminal study on Organizational Identity Orientation. Five out of seven of Brickson’s (2005) original questions were replicated or adapted for inclusion in this study.
The five questions from Brickson’s (2005) study incorporated into this survey were derived from the Ten Statements Test, The Relational, Individual, Relational and Collective self-aspect scale
(RIC), and the Organization as a Person Question. Each of these measures, along with the additional survey items outlined above, and their purpose will be briefly explained. The full
91 survey instruments for this phase (Phase 1) and later phases (Phase 2) can be found in Appendix
A12.
Ten Statements Test
Brickson’s (2005) Ten Statements Test is derived from Kuhn and McPartland’s (1954)
Twenty Statements Test which investigates self-attitudes by asking individual to respond to the question, “Who am I” twenty times. Brickson’s adaptation of the Twenty Statement Test at the organizational level asks individuals to complete the statement, “My organization is___,” ten times. The purpose of embedding this qualitative question within the larger quantitative survey design of this project is to examine the identity statements that members make when describing their organizations, and determine whether participant answers converge or diverge from quantitative responses. The TST was the first question to appear in the survey, so that specific cognitions would not be activated by the explicit quantitative measures also being tested in the survey.
The Relational, Individualistic and Collectivistic Scale
Three items included in the survey were derived from Brickson’s (2005) adaptation of
Kashima and Hardie’s RIC scale (2000). The original scale was developed to measure relational, collective and individual self-aspects. However, Brickson’s (2005) measures, as well as the ones included here, focus on that which is central, distinctive and enduring about organizations.
12 The measures included or referenced here are the final versions that respondents received as part of the survey. Prior to their finalization all measures were first reviewed for theoretical accuracy by Shelley Brickson, who first introduced the construct of identity orientation at the organizational level (See Brickson, 2005). In addition, the instrument was independently reviewed by two members of UIC’s Survey Research Laboratory to ensure the design met generally accepted standards for web surveys. As a result of the reviews items were edited so as not to rely on agree-disagree scales and all double-barreled questions were removed.
92
Specifically, respondents were asked to answer each question by ranking three individualistic, relational and collectivistic statements as either (1) most like my organization (2) second most like my organization or (3) least like my organization13. For example, respondents were shown the phrase “it is most important that my organization work toward”, and they had to rank the following three items, “promoting and maintaining its own welfare” (e.g. the organizations own advantage and wellbeing) (individualistic), “improving the welfare of others with whom the organization has close relationships (e.g. employees, contractors, clients, customers, and stakeholders) (relational), or “promoting the welfare of a group, cause or community it values or belongs to (e.g. those with who it interacts as a common group; a group of like organizations; society) (collectivistic). There are two central reasons for the inclusion of these measures (1) to encourage precise decisions from respondents about the relative importance of different individualistic, relational and collectivistic identity statements in order to obtain unique values that can provide clear baseline information about the presence and frequency of varied identity orientations across sectors, and (2) in order to assess convergent and discriminant validity of the measurement models for individualistic, relational and collectivistic organizational identity orientation.
The Organization as a Person Question
Brickson (2005) employed three short qualitative, short-answer essay questions in her survey design. One of these was called the Organization as a Person Question. Brickson’s (2005) original question asked, “If your company were a person, describe him or her.” According to
Brickson (2005), “the organization as a person question is based on the principle that members
13 In Brickson’s (2005) study respondents are asked to choose only one response that seemed to reflect what was central, distinctive and enduring about their organization. However, in consultation with Brickson it was determined that allowing individuals to choose multiple answers would better reflect reality and provide for more robust data.
93 tend to anthropomorphize organizations,” (p. 586). Based on recent research by Brickson (2013) two quantitative adaptations of this question were included in my survey. Like the RIC scale questions, respondents were asked to rank individualistic, relational and collectivistic items as either (1) most like my organization (2) second most like my organization or (3) least like my organization. For example, individuals were shown the phrase, “if my organization were a person, I would describe it as,” and then they had to rank the following three items, “An athlete: strong, competitive and confident: focused on standing out, being the best and maximizing its own welfare,” (individualistic), “An activist: unified, conscientious and just; focused on being a team player and promoting the welfare of a larger group or cause,” (collectivistic) and, “A best friend: understanding, committed and trustworthy; focused on being a caring and dependable partner that takes care of the personal needs of others,” (relational). Like the RIC ranked items, the purpose of including these measures is to assess the baseline presence and variability of OIO across sectors and to help verify the validity of rated identity statements, which will be discussed next.
Quantitative Adaptation of the Ten Statements Test
As indicated by Table I in Chapter 1, Organizational Identity Orientation is comprised of four elements including (1) the locus of organizational self-definition (2) salient traits and values
(3) primary motivations and (4) comparison referents (Brickson, 2007). I used these four elements, along with qualitative responses derived from Brickson’s original codebook as a guide in the construction of 36 identity statements, representing individualistic, relational and collectivistic organizational identity orientation. Respondents were asked to read each of the statements carefully and indicate how well each describe the organization that they currently work for (1= Not at all like my organization, 2=Not very much like my organization,
94
3=Somewhat like my organization, 4=A great deal like my organization, and 5=Completely like my organization). See Table IV for a listing of all 36 measures tested. These measures are intended to form three scales, one for Individualistic Organizational Identity Orientation, one for
Relational Organizational Identity Orientation and one for Collectivistic Organizational Identity
Orientation.
TABLE IV: MEASURES OF OIO (PHASE 1)
Organizational My Organization… Identity Orientation emphasizes differences rather than similarities with other like organizations wants to be seen as an unrivaled leader in its field is primarily motivated to maximize its own good fortune, prosperity, well-being, welfare sacrifices personal relationships in order to be the best mainly promotes individual values such as power, ambition and independence Individualistic does not work hard to differentiate itself from competitors (r) embodies a sense of superiority competes with other similar organizations in order to be the best is concerned first with maximizing its own welfare, rather than the welfare of others is exceptional and rare forms relationships simply as a means to help the organization excel forms relationships primarily to ensure the organization's welfare is ordinary, few factors set it apart from other similar organizations (r) is mostly concerned with being a conscientious team player is focused on building consensus around a larger cause, ideological objective, or set of shared values is divided and struggling to come together around a common agenda exemplifies the shared values of a unified group, collective, or Collectivistic collaborative mostly promotes collective values such as unity, belonging, and community is primarily motivated to pursue ideological objectives, values, or causes is largely concerned with developing relationships based on the pursuit of a collective agenda or ideological objective
95
is concerned with maximizing the welfare of a group, cause, or community it values expresses a sense of unity around collective goals and ideological objectives emphasizes the importance of contributing to the organization's larger community forms relationships based on a desire to make a joint contribution to a larger cause or collective agenda emphasizes similarities rather than differences with other like organizations is indifferent to the personal needs of others with whom it has close relationships (r) mostly promotes relational values as sincerity, empathy, and compassion is personable, where relationships are based on mutual concern and trust is primarily motivated to connect in a close and personal way with others is mainly concerned with being a considerate and thoughtful partner emphasizes the importance of understanding the individual needs of Relational others with whom it has close relationships does not stress relationship loyalty is genuinely concerned with ensuring the success of others, especially those with whom it has close relationships emphasizes the importance of forming strong interpersonal relationships forms relationships simply because close ties and connections are fundamentally valued sees inherent value in forming deep relationships and connections with others
*No*Note: Based on the results of numerous analyses, these measures will change in the phase 2 survey. All measures tested in phase 2 can be found on page 123
The Organizational Culture Profile
16 measures derived from O’Reilly, Chatman and Caldwell’s (1991) 54 item
Organizational Culture Profile were included as another way to ensure the validity of the 36 quantitative TST measures. While Organizational Identity Orientation is distinct from organizational culture (Brickson, 2005), the Organizational Culture Profile assess the extent to which certain values characterize an organization. As previously identified, salient organizational
96 traits and values are central components of Organizational Identity Orientation. As such, certain values in the OCP should align with individualistic, relational and collectivistic identity orientation. For example, values such as demanding and achievement oriented should correlate with an individualistic orientation; whereas values such as supportive and fair should be associated with a relational orientation and those such as team oriented and socially responsible should relate to a collectivistic orientation.
Quality Controls and Checks for Social Desirability
Six true/false measures were included in the survey in order to test for social desirability.
These measures were derived from the 33 item MC-SDS scale developed by Crown and
Marlowe (1960) to assess whether respondents answer questions truthfully or willfully misrepresent themselves in order to manage their self-presentation. Examples include: “before voting I thoroughly investigate the qualifications of ALL candidates,” No matter who I’m talking to I’m ALWAYS a good listener,” and I am ALWAYS willing to admit when I make a mistake.”
In addition to these measures, I also included two quality checks in the survey to ensure that respondents were actively participating. Specifically, I asked respondents to “please answer completely like my organization to this question.” Not only is this a way to ensure active participation but also to improve respondent attention since they will not know whether a similar question would appear again within the survey (Kaufmann and Tummers, 2013).
Personal Characteristics
Lastly, respondents were asked to respond to identify a number of personal items about themselves including their race, highest level of education, sex, annual income, tenure, and major occupational group. The last question was optional and asked participants to provide the
97 name of the organization that they work for. Please see Appendix B for the full Phase 1 and
Phase 2 surveys.
3. Survey Administration, Sample Characteristics and Preliminary Results
Both Phase 1 and Phase 2 surveys were administered using Amazon’s Mechanical Turk
(MTurk) platform. Mturk is an online marketplace for work where employers (referred to as requesters) post Human Intelligence Tasks (HITS) to be completed by Mturk workers. Tasks can range from categorizing products and translating text, to completing academic surveys and participating in online experiments. Workers are compensated based on a pre-determined amount posted by the requester and accepted by the workers, depending on how long the task takes to complete. A typical assignment might take between five and ten minutes to complete, for which workers would receive a small payment ranging from .05 to .50 cents. While Mturk samples are non-random and therefore not representative of any pre-specified population, research findings indicate that Mturk samples are often more diverse than standard internet samples and samples of
American college students (Buhrmester, Kwang & Gosling, 2011; Jilke, Van Ryzin & Van de
Wall, 2015, Marvel, 2014).
Research shows Mturk data to be reliable as well, even at low compensation rates
(Buhrmester, Kwang & Gosling, 2011). Further, scholars have been able to successfully replicate both surveys and laboratory tested behavioral experiments using the Mturk platform, finding few substantial differences (Berinsky, Huber, and Lenz, 2012; Mason & Suri, 2012). Based on these results, scholars have concluded that generalizable causal inferences using convenience samples such as Mturk are reliable (Mullinix, Druckman and Freese, 2014). Mturk samples have been used with increasing frequency in Public Administration research (Jilke, Van Ryzin and Van De
Wall, 2016; Marvel, 2014; Marvel, 2016; Marvel and Girth, 2016; Pedersen and Stritch, 2016),
98
Business Administration Research (Berg, 2016; Chua, 2013; Kilduff, Galinsky, Gallo and Reade,
2016; Welsh and Ordonez, 2014) and Nonprofit Management (Hoogervorst, Metz, Roza and van
Baren, 2016; Zheng and Weberling McKeever, 2016; Aydinli et al., 2016).
The reminder of this Chapter outlines the survey administration processes used in Phase 1 and Phase 2, and presents preliminary findings from the Phase 1 survey which were used to refine the Phase 2 survey. I will begin by discussing Phase 1 survey administration processes, sample characteristics and preliminary findings and will then explain how these findings informed the survey administered in Phase 2. Phase 2 sample characteristics will also be discussed.
Phase 1 Phase 1 included both a pretest survey and a final survey on Organizational Identity
Orientation. Mechanical Turk workers (i.e. survey respondents) had to live and work in the U.S. and be over the age of 18 to participate in the surveys. In addition, pre-test respondents were precluded from taking part in the final survey to ensure independent results. The purpose of the pre-test was to test the functionality of the survey. Sixty participants, evenly distributed across the for-profit, nonprofit and government sectors completed the pretest survey from 07/28/15 –
8/1/15, for which they received .75 cents. Slight changes were made to survey functionality based (e.g. skip logic) on the pretest. The final survey was live on Mturk from 9/08/15 – 9/12/15.
In total 296 responses were collected (100 for-profit, 100 nonprofit and 96 government). Of the
296 responses, 54 were not usable because the individuals participated in the pretest and tried to participate again in the final survey, attempted to take the survey more than once, submitted their survey before it was complete or failed to correctly respond to the quality control items included in the survey. In total, 58 additional responses were needed based on the non-useable responses
99 and 4 missing government responses (29 for-profit, 12 nonprofit and 17 government). The final survey was re-opened on 9/13/15. Of the extended batch, 10 responses were not useable due to failure of quality control tests, previous completion of the survey, or general mistakes. The batch was extended to allow for 10 additional responses (4 for-profit, 4 government and 2 nonprofit).
Of the final 300 responses (100 government, 100 for-profit, and 100 nonprofit) one response was removed for failing a quality control item which was not caught during the earlier analysis and three were coded as partial responses (all for-profit respondents) for a final N=296. All respondents that fully and accurately answered the survey received .75 as compensation.
The predefined population size (n=300) was chosen in order to ensure that the data would be suitable for factor analysis. While there are no hard and fast rules regarding the sample to variable ratio (i.e. the number of participants to the number of variables or items to be tested) for factor analysis, Gorsuch (1983) suggests that samples sizes should exceed 100, and Tabachnick and Fidell (2007) rule of thumb is that a sample size of at least 300 for factor analysis is ideal.
Based on feedback from UIC’s survey research laboratory, I determined that a sample of 300 would be sufficient as this would ensure a near 10:1 sample to variable ratio.
Sample Characteristics and Preliminary Results – Phase 1
Sample characteristics from the Phase 1 survey show a relatively diverse Mturk sample completed the survey. As indicated in Table V, the percentage of female respondents (55%) is similar to that of standard internet samples (57%) (Buhrmester, Kwang & Gosling, 2011).
Similar to the national population, White/Caucasians make up approximately 75% of our Mturk sample. Compared to national estimates, Hispanic (5%) and African American (9%) populations are slightly underrepresented in our sample, whereas Asian populations are overrepresented
(9%). On average, our Mturk sample is more educated than the national population with over
100
60% of respondents reporting a 4-year college degree or a master’s degree. Income distribution is fairly even across all categories, with the largest proportion of respondents (20%) making between 30-39k annually.
TABLE V: SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS (PHASE 1)
Education Percent 101 While the actual name of the respondent’s organization was an optional survey question, many responded. The following are examples of organizations within the public, for-profit and nonprofit sectors that respondents worked for. Public Sector: Department of Defense, U.S. Navy, University of California Davis Medical Facility, State of Utah Department of Finance, Buffalo Public Schools, the United States Department of Agriculture, U.S. Army, United States Postal Service, U.S. Air Force. Nonprofit Sector: Salvation Army, American Public Media Group, Johnston Health, 4-H, Kansas City Zoo, March of Dimes, Cole Community Church, Habitat for Humanity, Red Cross, Ten Thousand Villages, Humane Society, Children’s Miracle Network, Planned Parenthood. For-Profit Sector: Liberty Mutual, Verizon, Universal Orlando, K & L Gates, Lockheed Martin, More Furniture for Less, Panera Bread, Google Inc., Home Depot, Microsoft, DB Schenker, The Venetian, Blueline Security, Conestoga Bank, Target, Country Visions Cooperative. As previously outlined, one of purpose of Phase 1 survey is to gather data that can help to obtain baseline information about the presence and frequency of varied identity orientations across sectors. In order to establish a baseline understanding of the presence and variability of individualistic, relational and collectivistic identity orientations within and across for-profit, nonprofit and public sector, I examined five survey questions each comprised of three identity statements representing individualistic, relational and collectivistic identity orientations, which respondents were required to rank as either “most like my organization”, “second most like my organization” or “least like my organization”. While, ranking may force respondents to make 102 choices between objects that they feel similarly about, more so than other types of measures, they prompt respondents to think carefully about each item and rate different items differently (Krosnick, 1999). As a result, because a unique value is assigned to each item in rank-order questions, the ability to clearly discern differences is enhanced. Given the need to establish a baseline understanding of the types of OIO statements that respondents within and across sectors ascribe to their organizations, and the need to be able to clearly differentiate whether or not these statements are aligned with individualistic, relational or collectivistic orientations, an analysis of rank-ordered items will provide the clearest picture. Table VI indicates that a number of organizational members in all three sectors (i.e. for- profit, nonprofit and public) believe individualistic identity statements better characterize their organization than relational or collectivistic statements. Nearly one-quarter (24%) of members in nonprofit organizations, over a quarter (30%) in government organizations and over half (51%) of members in the for-profit sector would characterize their organization as an athlete that is strong, competitive, confident and focused on being the best, standing out and maximizing its own welfare. Similarly, over half of all respondents (51%) in the for-profit sector, nearly a quarter (23%) in the public sector and almost one-fifth (19%) in the nonprofit sector indicate that it is most important that their organization work towards promoting and maintaining its own welfare and well-being, as opposed to the well-being of others. However, while respondents across all sectors assign individualistic identity statements to their organizations a significant portion do not believe these types of statements characterize their organization as well as other types of relational or collectivistic identity statements. For example, while over half (51%) of the organizational members in the for-profit sector would describe their organization as a competitor that is driven, self-motivated, aggressive and focused on achieving individual goals, over half 103 (54%) of public sector respondents and nearly two-thirds (65%) of nonprofit respondents believed their organization would be better characterized as an activist that is focused on promoting the welfare of a larger cause or group, or a best friend that was focused on taking care of the personal needs of others. TABLE VI: PERCEPTIONS OF INDIVIDUALISTIC OIO STATEMENTS (PHASE 1) Second Least Most Like Most Like Like My My Org My Org Org ***Org. As A Person: Athlete For-profit 50.89% 17.86% 31.25% Nonprofit 24.47% 10.64% 64.89% Government 30.00% 15.56% 54.44% ***Org. As A Person: Competitor For-profit 51.35% 17.12% 31.53% Nonprofit 15.96% 18.09% 65.96% Government 23.33% 20.00% 56.67% ***Org. Primarily Viewed As: Exceptional Entity For-profit 32.43% 36.04% 31.53% Nonprofit 27.66% 27.66% 44.68% Government 20.00% 18.89% 61.11% ***Essential for Org. to Maintain: Its Distinctiveness For-profit 32.43% 29.73% 37.84% Nonprofit 14.89% 19.15% 65.96% Government 11.11% 14.44% 74.44% ***Most Important for Org. To: Promote Own Welfare For-profit 50.89% 10.71% 38.39% Nonprofit 19.15% 15.96% 64.89% Government 23.33% 15.56% 61.11% p < .01***, p < .05**, p < .10+ Chi-square tests indicate that all of the differences within and across the sectors are statistically significant (p < .05). These preliminary tests confirm that members in for-profit, nonprofit and public sectors view individualistic identity statements as both accurate and poor characterizations of their organizations. Therefore, while these preliminary findings indicate a baseline presence of 104 individualistic identity orientations across sectors, they also confirm that no one sector can be characterized solely as individualistic. Lastly, the results of the Chi-square tests indicate that that organizational members within and across the sectors differ significantly in their views of the relevance of individualistic identity indicators. More specifically, on the whole, organizational members in the for-profit sector tend to ascribe individualistic identity orientation statements to their organizations more frequently than do members in the nonprofit and for-profit sector. Table VII examines the frequency with which organizational members across sectors assign collectivistic identity statements to their organization. Perhaps unsurprisingly, 85% of members in nonprofits and 60% of members working in government organizations believe that their organization is better described as an advocate or idealistic change agent that is focused on promoting a sense of belonging and meaning with a group and championing its interests, than a competitor who is focused on achieving individual goals or a confidant who is focused on understanding the needs of close others. While over 40% of organizational members in the for- profit sector rate the advocate characterization as least like their organization, 20% rate it as most like their organization. Similarly, nearly one-quarter (25%) of organizational members in the for- profit sector believe it is more essential for their organization to maintain its connection with a larger group, cause or community that it values rather than close relationships or its distinctiveness from other similar organizations. TABLE VII: PERCEPTIONS OF COLLECTIVISTIC OIO STATEMENTS (PHASE 1) Second Least Most Like Most Like Like My My Org My Org Org ***Org. As A Person: Advocate For-profit 19.82% 38.74% 41.44% Nonprofit 84.94% 34.04% 7.45% Government 60.00% 26.67% 13.33% 105 ***Org. As A Person: Activist For-profit 17.86% 42.86% 39.29% Nonprofit 42.55% 46.81% 10.64% Government 46.67% 42.22% 11.11% ***Org. Primarily Viewed As: Unified Member For-profit 23.42% 18.02% 49.55% Nonprofit 42.55% 34.04% 23.40% Government 50.00% 56.67% 15.56% ***Essential for Org. to Maintain: Connection to Cause For-profit 24.11% 34.82% 41.07% Nonprofit 52.13% 35.11% 12.77% Government 57.78% 31.11% 11.11% ***Most Important for Org. To: Promote Group Welfare For-profit 18.58% 41.59% 39.82% Nonprofit 54.26% 34.04% 11.70% Government 51.11% 35.56% 13.33% p < .01***, p < .05**, p < .10+ Lastly, over half of all nonprofit (54%) and government (51%) respondents believe that it is MOST important for their organization to work toward promoting the welfare of a group, cause or community it values or to which it belongs, rather than improving the welfare of specific others with whom the organization has close relationships or promoting and maintain its own welfare. This contrasts with many (40%) for-profit members who do not believe this to be the most important thing that their organization work toward. As with the individualistic identity statements, Chi-square tests indicate that the differences both within and between sectors are statistically significant (p < .05). Taken together, these preliminary findings indicate that members across all sectors assign collectivistic identity orientation statements to their organizations. Chi-square tests signal however that in most instances members in the nonprofit and government sectors do so more frequently than members in the for-profit sector. Regardless, on the whole, it is clear that no one sector can be characterized solely as collectivistic. 106 The data presented in Table VIII, tell a similar overall story to those in Table VII and Table VI in that it is clear that members across all sectors assign relational identity orientation statements to their organizations. However, what becomes clear is that most often relational identity orientation statements are seen as the middle choice (second most like my organization) between other individualistic and collectivistic choices. There are of course exceptions to this overall trend. More specifically, the data indicate that over forty percent of members in the for- profit sector believe that their organization is more so viewed as a devoted partner to those with whom it interacts, rather than an exceptional entity that stands out from others or a unified member of a larger group, cause or community. Similarly, over forty percent of organizational members in the for-profit sector also indicated that it is more essential for their organization to maintain close relationships rather than its distinctiveness or connection to larger groups or causes. TABLE VIII: PERCEPTIONS OF RELATIONAL OIO STATEMENTS (PHASE 1) Second Least Most Like Most Like My Org Like My My Org Org Org. As A Person: Best Friend For-profit 31.25% 39.29% 29.46% Nonprofit 32.98% 42.55% 24.47% Government 23.33% 42.22% 34.44% Org. As A Person: Confidant For-profit 28.83% 44.14% 27.03% Nonprofit 27.66% 46.81% 25.53% Government 17.78% 52.22% 26.67% Org. Primarily Viewed As: Devoted Partner + For-profit 44.14% 36.94% 18.92% Nonprofit 29.79% 38.30% 31.91% Government 30.00% 46.67% 23.33% Essential for Org. to Maintain: Close Relationships + For-profit 43.24% 35.14% 21.62% Nonprofit 32.98% 45.74% 21.28% 107 Government 30.00% 46.67% 23.33% Most Important for Org. To: Promote Welfare Close Others For-profit 30.36% 47.32% 22.32% Nonprofit 26.60% 50.00% 23.40% Government 25.56% 48.89% 14.44% p < .01***, p < .05**, p < .10+ Chi-square tests indicate that most of the differences related to relational identity orientation statements are not significant within or across sectors, with the exception of how the organization is primarily viewed and what is most essential for the organization to maintain (p < .10). It should be noted that while relational identity orientation statements were most often rated as “second most like my organization” by organizational members across sectors, in every case over 65% of respondents indicated that relational identity orientation statements were either most like or second most like their organization. A brief examination of qualitative answers to the Ten Statements Tests provided by individuals supports these results overall. For example, a large portion of organizational members from the for-profit sector describe their organization using individualistic identity statements such as “My organization is”: a powerhouse, efficient, profitable, successful, powerful, innovative, demanding, and distinctive. However, statements from organizational members in the for-profit sector also sometimes reflect relational and collectivistic orientations. For example, my organization is caring, honest, close-knit and friendly (relational) and, my organization is moral and charitable (collectivistic). Similarly, many organizational members in the nonprofit and public sectors frequently use collectivistic identity statements such as my organization is charitable, respected in the community, communal, purposeful, focused on a good cause, just, and for the people. However, oftentimes statements also reflect individualistic or 108 relational orientations. For example, one public sector employee described his/her organization as competitive and money driven (individualistic), whereas another referred to theirs as a family, a brotherhood and warm (relational). Many individuals in the nonprofit sector refer to their organization as helpful, caring, supportive, loyal and trustworthy (relational), though a few also cite characteristics such as money-focused, competitive, and prestigious (individualistic). Overall, this baseline analysis indicates that (1) most often a significantly larger portion of organizational members in the for-profit sector see individualistic identity orientation statements as better characterizing their organization than relational or collectivistic identity orientation statements; (2) a significantly larger portion of individuals working in nonprofit and public sector organizations see collectivistic identity statements as better descriptors of their organizations than individualistic or relational statements; and (3) no one sector can be characterized solely by individualistic, relational or collectivistic identity orientation statements. Rather all three identity orientations were found to be present, to some extent, within all three sectors. Phase 2 Phase 2 consisted of three surveys. The purpose of the first two surveys is to refine and test the measures from Phase 1in order to construct measurement models for individualistic, relational and collectivistic organizational identity orientation. Because the pre-test surveys were used only for the purpose of measurement model development, they will be detailed in Chapter 5, which discusses that process in great detail. The administration of the final, full Phase 2 survey will be detailed here. 109 The final Phase 2 survey can be envisioned as a re-administration of the Phase 1 Organizational Identity Orientation Survey, with a few substantial changes. First, while the Phase 2 survey still begins with the qualitative Ten Statements Test question so that specific cognitions are not activated by the explicit quantitative OIO measures that follow, respondents are asked to provide five words (instead of 10) that describe their organization. They are also then asked provide a brief explanation of as to why the particular trait was provided. Another substantial change, are the quantitative TST questions that are included. As previously stated, one of the primary purposes of the Phase 1 survey is to begin to develop measures of Individualistic, Relational and Collectivistic Organizational Identity Orientation. Thus, based on the results of the analysis of Phase 1 TST scale measures, the measures were updated and re- tested in Phase 2. A detailed discussion of this process is detailed in Chapter 6, which is devoted to the development of the measurement models. All other questions from the Phase 1 survey, with the exception of the Crowne and Marlowe (1960) social desirability set, are included in the Phase 2 survey. In addition to the original survey items, a number of items will also be added to the survey in order to obtain data relevant to the research questions and propositions presented in Chapter 3 that focus on the variability of organizational identity orientation when considering the industry within which organizations operate, the primary clients served, and whether or not the organization provides highly personal services. To participate in the final Phase 2 survey respondents were required to live and work in the U.S and be over the age of 18. Respondents that completed the survey accurately and completely received 0.85 cents. The survey was live on Mturk from 09/11/17 – 9/15/17. I performed four quality checks on the data collected in Phase 2. First, any respondents that attempted to take the survey more than once, for any reason were rejected and not paid. Second, if a respondent failed 110 either quality check item within the survey, their response was also rejected and removed from the dataset. Third, I reviewed all qualitative statements entered by the respondents to ensure that uniform text was not entered as a way to advance through the survey. Lastly, all numeric response items for individuals who or excessive uniformity. Any responses that failed these checks were rejected and removed from the survey population. In total 62 responses were rejected and reopened for new respondents during the time the survey was live on Mturk. During one final round of data cleaning, I researched the organization if a name was provided by the respondent and compared it to the self-identified organizational sector. In total, 12 responses that self-identified as non-profit were actually government organizations and were recoded as such. Thus, the final sample for the Phase 2 survey includes 212 government organizations (35.27%) 188 non-profit organizations (31.28%) and 201 for-profit organizations (33.44%) n = 601. As indicated in Table IX, sample characteristics show that a relatively diverse Mturk sample completed the survey. Of those who responded, approximately 60% were women and 40% were men. This is similar to standard internet samples that are approximately 57% female (Buhrmester, Kwang & Gosling, 2011). Most (68%) report ages from 22-40, with the next largest group (22%) being aged 41-52. Over 70% of respondents have a 4-year College Degree or Higher and the mean salary falls within the 50-59K range. Whites/Caucasians make up approximately 76.9% of the Mturk sample, a number equal to the national average in 2016 (Census, 2016). Compared to national estimates, Hispanic (5%) and African American (7%) are underrepresented in our sample, whereas Asian populations are slightly overrepresented (6%). Approximately two thirds of the samples have worked for their organization between 1 and 10 years, with 46% falling to the lower end of that range (1-5 years). Just about 55% of 111 respondents’ report being salaried employees, managers/directors or executives. Organizational size is fairly evenly distributed across all categories with the largest percentage of respondents indicating that they work in organizations with 50-250 employees. TABLE IX: SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS (PHASE 2) Education Percent 112 72+ 0 Tenure <1-year 11.58 1-5 years 46.14 6-10 years 20.97 11-15 years 11.41 16-20 years 5.37 20+ years 4.53 Position Temporary Employee 2.52 Independent Contractor/Consultant 2.85 Hourly Employee 38.26 Salaried Employee 45.47 Manager 6.88 Director or Senior Manager 2.85 Executive 0.67 Other 0.50 Organization Size 1-49 18.06 50-250 22.40 251-500 11.11 501-1000 15.80 1001-4999 12.85 5000+ 19.79 While the actual name of the respondent’s organization was an optional survey question, many responded. The following are examples of organizations within the public, for-profit and nonprofit sectors that respondents worked for. Public Sector: United States Postal Service, Social Security Administration, United States Navy, Homeland Security Investigations, Chicago Public Schools, U.S. Department of State, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Sallie Mae, Broward County Schools, City of Richmond, Michigan State Police, Department of Motor Vehicles, UCLA, Snohomish County Superior Court Nonprofit Sector: The Pittsburgh Zoo & PPG Aquarium, Hawkeye Valley Area Agency on Aging and Disability, Houston Grand Opera, The Salvation Army, Johns Hopkins Hospital, 113 American Public Media, Pathway Community Church, Harvard Law School, Hero House, Goodwill Industries For-Profit Sector: AT & T, Holiday Inn, Gateway, SunTrust Bank, Target, Raterlabs, Costco, Walmart, Apple, Sylvan Learning, Thompson Reuters, Walgreens, Diamond Brothers Capital, Leo Burnett, P & L Railway, Aramark, Meditech, Commercial Real Estate Services Worldwide 4. Overview of Analytic Methods The following section briefly discusses important elements of the data analysis approach used in this study. A more detailed description of each of the methods used to analyze the data is embedded within Chapters 5 and 6. Overall, the data analysis approach for this study aims to do three things (1) create a quantitative measurement instrument for the organizational identity orientation construct (2) explore the nature of organizational identity orientation at the community or sector level, as well as, the population level (3) examine whether or sub- population level attributes such as client-type and service orientation are associated with variation in perceptions of organizational identity orientation within each sector. To achieve the aforementioned aims, I first establish empirical measurement models for each of the organizational identity orientation constructs (Chapter 5). In order to create quantitative measure instruments for the individualistic, relational and collectivistic organizational identity orientation constructs, I use factor analytic procedures to identify composite structures among core sets of items, and perform additional tests of validity to establish both convergence and discrimination. Next, using the newly created identity orientation constructs, I explore perceived differences in organizational identity orientation among employees in the public and nonprofit sectors as compared to the for-profit sector based 114 normative and historical role standards (Chapter 6). Because I’m interested in exploring the differences between the two communities (i.e. public & nonprofit vs. for-profit) in order to better understand the nature of the organizational identity orientation construct at the sector level, as opposed to testing established relationships, a one-way analysis of variance test (ANOVA) is used first in order to gather baseline information about differences between the three sectors. Then, I perform a planned pairwise comparison of means test to parse out the differences. I also examine the frequency with which organizational members within and across sectors ascribe individualistic, relational or collectivistic identity orientation statements to their organization and use a chi-square tests to determine whether there is a significant difference between the expected and observed frequencies. These three sets of analyses act at a meta-level to establish an empirical measurement model of the organizational identity orientation construct and better understand its nature when examined among communities of organizations at the sector level. Based on the results of these analysis, I then turn to examining the nature of the constructs at the population level in order to better understand factors within each sector that might help to explain both the variability and homogeneity illuminated at the sector level (Chapter 6). To do so, I examine perceived differences in organizational identity orientation based on industry groupings within each sector. Again, the aim is to explore differences between the groups, not to test known relationships or perform a planned comparison of means. Because industry is a categorical variable, there are more than three industry groups within each sector, and the intention is to examine whether perceptions of organizational identity orientation differs significantly according to industry membership a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) is the most appropriate method to use (Acock, 2012). Post-hoc mean comparisons are then performed on industry groups if the overall ANOVA results are significant. For example, if ANOVA results 115 indicate that perceptions of individualistic identity orientation vary across industries in the for- profit sector, a post-hoc pairwise comparison of means is performed in order to better understand how perceptions vary between specific industry groups. However, if ANOVA results indicate that perceptions of individualistic identity orientation do not significantly vary across industries in the for-profit sector, post-hoc mean testing is not performed. After examining the nature of the construct at the community and population level, I then approach the data from a sub-population perspective, in order to better understand if attributes such as client-type and service orientation are associated with significantly different perceptions of identity orientation within each sector (Chapter 6). Here, both two-sample difference of means tests, as well as one-way ANOVA’s are used to examine average differences among various groups. More specifically, a series of two-sample difference of means tests are used to examine whether average perceptions of relational identity orientation within each sector vary according to whether or not organizations provide highly personal services. I use ANOVA to examine average differences in perceptions of organizational identity orientation in each sector based on client-type. Taken together, these baseline analyses provide a better understanding of the nature of the organizational identity orientation construct. More specifically, they paint a picture of average differences in perceptions of organizational identity orientation at the community, population and sub-population levels. Based on these results, I then run a series of ordinary least squares (OLS) regression models to assess the quantitative relationship between these predictors and perceptions of organizational identity orientation within each sector, all else being equal (Chapter 6). I chose to use OLS models because they are most appropriate method give that the dependent variables (e.g. individualistic, relational and collectivistic identity orientation) are 116 averaged measures derived from Likert-type scale items. All other specific model details, such corrections for heteroscedasticity are discussed along with the model results in Chapters 5 and 6. 117 Chapter 5 – Development of the Measurement Models 1. Overview Because the study of Organizational Identity Orientation has to date drawn upon primarily qualitative approaches, empirical work on the topic has not kept pace with the rich theoretical work being published. As was previously stated, one of the primary purposes of this research is to translate the theoretical dimensions of individualistic, relational and collectivistic organizational identity orientation into scales that can be used to produce systematic, generalizable research on across different organizational communities, populations and sub- populations. This chapter is devoted solely to detailing the methods used in the development of individualistic, relational and collectivistic Organizational Identity Orientation scales. I begin by addressing the scale development work undertaken in phase 1 of this study and then discusses how the results were used to inform phase 2. I then detail the additional work done on scale development in phase 2, including the surveying and testing of refined measures, the factor analytic procedures that produced the final scales, and the additional tests performed to ensure convergent and discriminant validity. 2. Scale Development (Phase 1) As was previously stated, one of the primary aims of the first phase of this study was to collect data that could be used to begin developing a theoretically-based quantitative measurement model of individualistic, relational and collectivistic organizational identity orientation. To do so, I analyzed survey responses from approximately 300 respondents across the nonprofit, for-profit and public sectors to 36 quantitative identity statements representing four elements (1) the locus of organizational self-definition (2) salient traits and values (3) primary motivations and (4) comparison referents (Brickson, 2007) comprising Organizational 118 Identity Orientation (Please see page XX for a list of all measures tested in Phase 1 and a discussion of how they were developed). While factor analysis is the primary method used for scale construction, I first examined correlation matrices, and used Bartlett’s test of Sphericity and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of Sampling Adequacy to ensure the data were well suited for this method (Williams, Onsman, and Brown, 2010). Tabachnick and Fidell (2007) recommend when examining a correlation matrix prior to factor analysis, the focus should be on ensuring that the majority of correlation coefficients are over .30. The matrices for the relational and collectivistic items met this threshold, while many in the individualistic matrix fell below. Despite the low correlations among many of the items, all three sets of measures met the requirements for the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Test (KMO) for sampling adequacy and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity. Table X presents the results from these tests. KMO tests return results between 0 and 1. Results between .79 and 1 indicate that the sampling is adequate, values from .7 to .79 are considered middling and any value less than .6 indicates sampling to be mediocre or unacceptable (Kaiser, 1974). Both the relational and collectivistic sets of measures fall within the acceptable KMO range, and the individualistic set of measures does not fall below the .60 cutoff. TABLE X: FACTOR ANALYSIS SUITABILITY TESTS (PHASE 1) Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Bartlett’s Test Individualistic OIO 0.77 p < 0.001 Relational OIO 0.96 p < 0.001 Collectivistic OIO 0.94 P < 0.001 119 For data to be suitable for factor analysis, Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity should be significant (p < .05). All three sets of measures returned significant results from Bartlett’s test (p < .01). Based on these results, I proceeded to run a factor analysis for each set of items. I used principal component factor analysis with varimax rotation, an exploratory method, to examine each set of items in order to determine if they each tap a single dimension. This method does not carry any expectations regarding the nature or structure of the items, and is recommended when no prior model exists (Pett et al, 2003). This is a popular method to establish preliminary solutions and is often used for scale construction and data reduction purposes (Acock, 2013). For each group of measures, factor extraction was based on Kaiser’s criteria (i.e. eigenvalues greater than 1). More specifically, for each set of measures, I examined the factor loadings associated with each item on a factor with eigenvalues greater than one. Upon initial analysis, it was clear that the reverse coded items were loading erratically on their respective factors, so I made the decision to remove the reverse coded items and rerun the analysis. Table XI presents the results from the factor analysis of the relational measures. All items loaded on the first factor (eigenvalue 6.78) which accounted for approximately 68% of the variance. Variable loadings ranged from 0.60 to 0.88. Because none fell below the .40 cutoff all items were retained (Cronbach’s α = 0.95). Table XII presents the results of the factor analysis of the collectivistic measures. All items loaded on the first factor (eigenvalue 5.89) and all variable loadings ranged between 0.63 and 0.84 (Cronbach’s α = 0.92). The factor accounted for approximately 59% of the variance. Table XIII presents the last set of results for the individualistic OIO measures. Unlike the relational and collectivistic measures which all initially load on the first factor, the individualistic measures loaded on three factors (all with eigenvalues greater than 1). 120 TABLE XI: RELATIONAL OIO FACTOR ANALYSIS RESULTS (PHASE 1) Variable Relational OIO Measures Loadings Forms relationships because close ties are inherently valued 0.60 Mainly concerned with being a considerate and thoughtful partner 0.80 See inherent values in forming deep relationships and connections 0.88 Above all is devoted to being a good relationship partner 0.88 Genuinely concerned with ensuring the success of others 0.86 Emphasizes importance of understanding individual needs 0.77 Emphasizes importance of forming strong interpersonal relationships 0.86 Primarily motivated to connect in a close and personal way 0.84 Is personable where relationships are based on mutual concern/trust 0.87 Promotes relational values such as sincerity, empathy, compassion 0.82 Initial Eigenvalues 6.78 % of variance explained 67.82 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax TABLE XII: COLLECTIVISTIC OIO FACTOR ANALYSIS RESULTS (PHASE 1) Collectivistic OIO Measures Variable Loadings Focused on building consensus around a larger cause 0.76 Forms relationships in order to contribute to common agenda 0.79 Emphasizes the importance of contributing to larger community 0.84 Develops relationships out of concern for collective agenda 0.63 Primarily motivated to pursue ideological objectives/values/causes 0.64 Mostly concerned about being a conscientious team player 0.73 Exemplifies shared values of unified group 0.81 Expresses a sense of unity around collective goals 0.82 Concerned with maximizing the welfare of group/cause/community 0.82 Promotes collective values such as unity, belonging and community 0.82 Initial Eigenvalues 5.89 % of variance explained 58.92 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax There was no theoretical meaning to the three factors retained and many items had cross- loadings. I first removed one measure “my organization is exceptional and rare” because it did 121 not load at .40 or above on any factor and reran the analysis. After removing this item, the variables loaded onto only two factors (eigenvalues greater than 1). After examining the rotated factor loading I then removed the item “my organization embodies a sense of superiority” because it loaded moderately (.40 or above) on both factors. Two factors were still retained after removing this item. I then removed the item “my organization wants to be seen as an unrivaled leader in the field” for the same reason and reran the analysis. I followed this process two more times removing only one item each time for moderate cross-loadings (“my organization competes with other organizations in order to be the best” and “my organization mainly promotes individual values such as power, ambition and independence”). In the end, two factors were retained. TABLE XIII: INDIVIDUALISTIC OIO FACTOR ANALYSIS RESULTS (PHASE 1) Individualistic OIO Measures Factor 1 Factor 2 Competes with other similar organizations in order to be the best 0.03 0.76 Emphasizes differences rather than similarities like organizations 0.16 0.72 Forms relationships simply to help organization excel 0.76 -0.01 Primarily motivated to maximize its own good fortune and welfare 0.77 0.31 Is concerned first with maximizing its own welfare 0.67 0.30 Forms relationships primarily to ensure the organizations welfare 0.81 -0.04 Initial Eigenvalues 2.29 1.29 % of variance explained 38.25 21.49 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax Factor 1 is comprised of four items that explain approximately 38% of the variance (Cronbach’s α = 0.70). From a theoretical standpoint, these measures reflect the motivational component of organizational identity orientation. Factor 2 is comprised of two items and explains 21% of the 122 variance. These items reflect the comparison referent dimension of organizational identity orientation. Based on the preliminary EFA results, I have confirmed the reliability of both the relational and collectivistic items, however tests indicate that the two scales are highly correlated. Further, the individualistic measures, while reliable, do not present a single factor solution that would represent a theoretically robust measure of the construct. As such, next steps in terms of data collection and analysis will include (1) the testing of new/edited items in order to lower the inter-scale correlation between the collectivistic and relational scales, as well as to develop a more theoretically robust individualistic identity orientation scale and (2) additional tests of reliability and validity of all scale measures. 3. Scale Development (Phase 2) While scale development began in Phase 1 with an initial test of 36 quantitative TST items, based on the results, it was clear that a second phase of analysis was needed in order to refine and retest the measures. Because all three scales required substantial edits, new items, which were derived from the originals, were created and tested. In total 90 new items were tested in two independent pre-tests. These items were derived from those tested in Phase 1, but were refined further for theoretical accuracy with the help of Shelley Brickson, the construct originator. See Table XIV for a detailed list of the items tested in Phase 2. Just as in the first phase, the items tested in Phase 2 for each scale represented four theoretical dimensions of the OIO construct including; dimensions/traits, locus of self-definition, comparison referents and motivational basis. 123 TABLE XIV: OIO FACTOR MEASURES (PHASE 2) My Organization… Views itself primarily as a good member of a larger community Views itself primarily as a good member of society Views itself primarily as a good member of a societal group with similar missions Emphasizes the importance of its affiliation with a group, cause or broader community Aspires, above all, to be a good member of a larger community or societal group Defines success according to how well it serves a broader cause or community Defines success according to how well our societal group serves a broader cause or community as compared to other groups Considers itself to be doing well when it contributes to the well-being of a broader group, cause or community Considers itself to be doing well when it advances a larger cause, ideological objective or set of shared values Forms relationships primarily to make a joint contribution to a larger community or Collectivistic cause Seeks out relationships with others based on shared values or purpose Seeks out relationships with others based on shared ideology Is largely concerned with advancing the welfare of a broader community or cause Is extremely motivated to pursue broader ideological objectives, values or causes Is extremely motivated to advance the welfare of a broader community or cause (added in pretest 2) can be described as a social activist can be described as an advocate can be described as unified around ideological objectives can be described as community-oriented can be described as cause driven can be described as a community Views itself primarily as an exceptional entity that stands out from other similar organizations Views itself primarily as distinct and standing out from other similar organizations Emphasizes how different it is from other similar organizations Emphasizes how superior it is compared to other similar organizations Emphasizes the importance of differentiating itself from other similar organizations Aspires, above all, to stand out from other similar organizations Individualistic Defines success according to how favorably it compares to other similar organizations Considers itself to be doing well when it is seen as an unrivaled leader in its field Considers itself to be doing well when it stands out from other similar organizations Considers itself to be doing well when it maintains its distinctiveness from other similar organizations Forms relationships primarily to help the organization advance itself Seeks out relationships with others based on their ability to help the organization excel Is largely concerned with maximizing its own welfare 124 Is extremely motivated to outshine other similar organizations Is extremely motivated to excel relative to others like it Is extremely motivated to maximize its own good prosperity and good fortune can be described as an athlete can be described as a competitor can be described as exceptional can be described as aggressive can be described as a "proving ground" can be described as unique and unlike any other can be describe as the best Views itself primarily as a devoted partner to individual clients, customers, citizens or stakeholders that it directly interacts with Views itself primarily as a good relationship partner to particular clients, customers, citizens or stakeholders that it directly interacts with Emphasizes the importance of deep interpersonal relationships Aspires, above all to be a good relationship partner to individual clients, customers, citizens, or stakeholders Defines success according to how well it treats individual clients, customers, citizens or stakeholders Considers itself to be doing well when it contributes to the well-being of individual clients, customers, citizens or stakeholders Considers itself to be doing well when it is able to maintain close relationships with individual clients, customers, citizens or stakeholders Relational Considers itself to be doing well when it treats individual clients, customers, citizens or stakeholders well (added in pretest 2) Forms relationships because close ties and connections with others are inherently valued Seeks out relationships with others based on their potential to be deep and long-lived Is largely concerned with ensuring the welfare of others with whom it has close and personal relationships Is extremely motivated to connect with others in a close and personal way can be described as a best friend can be described as a confidant can be described as empathic can be described as warm can be described as a family can be described as kindhearted Like the survey administered in Phase 1, both pretests that were conducted using Amazon’s Mturk platform to collect data. Respondents were required to live and work in the U.S. and be over the age of 18 to participate in the survey. Because the measures being tested 125 were all considered new and no comparisons will be made to previous surveys, respondents who had participated in the 2015 survey were allowed to participate in phase 2 if they wished. Pretest 1 The first pre-test was live from 8/10/17-8/24/17. 180 respondents across for-profit, nonprofit and government sectors ultimately took the survey, because 30 responses were rejected. Reasons for rejection included, (1) the respondent tried to take the survey more than once (2) the respondent failed quality checks included in the survey or (3) the respondent provided uniform or near uniform answers to all of the questions. After a few late removals, the total samples included 53 respondents from the for-profit sector, 48 from the nonprofit sector and 46 from the government sector. Prior to performing a factor analysis, I first performed a thorough examination of the item correlations for all of the potential scale items that could end up representing each orientation. This process was more extensive than the initial correlation analysis performed in Phase 1. As previously outlined, Tabachnick and Fidell (2007) suggest that items be correlated at .3 or above to be included in a factor analysis. My requirements in this phase were slightly more stringent due to the quantity of items tested and a desire for the scales to be theoretically representative but also parsimonious. To be included in the factor analysis, scale items had to be correlated at .4 or above with at least one item in each of the other theoretical elements (dimension/trait, locus of self-definition, comparison reference and motivational basis) (Full correlation tables provided upon request). This is because the scales require all four elements to be present in order to be considered theoretically robust. In addition, items were not considered for the factor analysis if they were too highly correlated with other items since this would indicate that they may be representing the same idea. For example, the items my organization can be described as “warm” 126 and my organization can be described as “gentle” were correlated at .83. In most instances, the choice of which item to keep was objective as only one of the highly correlated items was also correlated at .4 or above with at least one item in every other theoretical group. In addition to examining correlation matrices, I also used Bartlett’s test of Sphericity and the Kaiser-Meyer- Olkin measure of Sampling Adequacy to ensure the data were well suited for factor analysis (Williams, Onsman, and Brown, 2010). Table XV presents the results of these tests. All sets of measures fall within the acceptable KMO range (see pages 118-119 for a full discussion of criteria and cutoff points) and returned significant results from Bartlett’s test (p < .01). Based on these results, I proceeded to run a factor analysis for each set of items. TABLE XV: PRETEST 1 FACTOR ANALYSIS SUITABILITY TESTS (PHASE 2) Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity Individualistic OIO 0.74 p < 0.001 Relational OIO 0.79 p < 0.001 Collectivistic OIO 0.82 P < 0.001 I used principal component factor analysis with varimax rotation, an exploratory method, to examine each set of items in order to determine if they each tap a single dimension. The results of each factor analysis can be found in Tables XVI-XVII. Table XVI presents the results of the factor analysis of the individualistic measures. Al items loaded on the first factor (eigenvalue 2.41) which accounted for approximately 60% of the variance. Variable loading ranged from .72 to .84 and Cronbach’s α = .78 so all items were retained. The items representing the relational identity orientation construct can be found in Table XV. Factor loadings ranged from .79 to .91 and the Cronbach’s α = .85. Together, these items account for nearly 70% of the variance. Table XVII presents the results of the factor analysis of the collectivistic measures. All 127 items loaded on the first factor (eigenvalue = 2.80) which accounted for nearly 70% of the variance. Factor loadings ranged from .78 to .87 and the Cronbach’s α = .85. In addition to being empirically sound scales, all three are theoretically robust in that all four elements (trait/dimension, locus of organizational self-definition, comparison referent and motivational base) are represented. TABLE XVI: PRETEST 1- INDIVIDUALISTIC OIO FACTOR ANALYSIS RESULTS (PHASE 2) Individualistic OIO Measures Variable Loadings My organization can be described as unique and unlike any other 0.76 My organization emphasizes how different it is from other similar organizations 0.78 My organization considers itself to be “doing well” when it maintains its distinctiveness from other similar organizations 0.84 My organization is extremely motivated to outshine other similar organizations 0.72 Initial Eigenvalues 2.41 % of variance explained 60.30 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax TABLE XVII: PRETEST 1- RELATIONAL OIO FACTOR ANALYSIS RESULTS (PHASE 2) Relational OIO Measures Variable Loadings My organization can be described as warm 0.80 My organization emphasizes the importance of deep interpersonal relationships 0.83 My organization defines success according to how well it treats individual clients, customers, stakeholders or citizens 0.79 My organization is extremely motivated to connect with others in a close and personal way 0.91 Initial Eigenvalues 2.78 % of variance explained 69.50 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax 128 TABLE XVIII: PRETEST 1 - COLLECTIVISTIC OIO FACTOR ANALYSIS RESULTS (PHASE 2) Collectivistic OIO Measures Variable Loadings My organization can be described as cause-driven 0.78 My organization emphasizes the importance of its affiliation with a group, cause or broader Community 0.84 My organization considers itself to be “doing well” when it advances a larger cause, ideological objective or set of shared values 0.87 My organization is largely concerned with advancing the welfare of a broader community or Cause 0.85 Initial Eigenvalues 2.80 % of variance explained 69.96 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax In order to ensure that each scale was valid and represented a distinct construct (individualistic, relational and collectivistic), all measures were then included into a single-item exploratory factor analysis. Table XIX indicates that when all items are included in the factor analysis, three factors should be retained based on their eigenvalues. Further, each individual item does in fact load highly on its intended factor (individualistic, relational, collectivistic) and does not cross-load. Based on this I created three averaged scales representing each orientation respectively and analyzed their correlations as one more check of validity. The largest correlation, which is still considered moderate, was between the relational and collectivistic scales (.61). Theoretically, this makes sense as both orientations are “other-orienting” in nature. Together, these analyses indicate that the scales for the relational, individualistic and collectivistic identity orientation are valid, reliable and theoretically robust. Based on these results, it was determined that an additional pre-test should be completed in order to (1) ensure that the results could be replicated and (2) to see if the addition of two additional slightly edited measures would produce three sets of measures with identical pre-fixes (e.g. “my organization 129 can be described as”, “My organization emphasizes”, “My organization considers itself to be doing well when” and “My organization is extremely motivated to.”) The largest correlation, which is still considered moderate, was between the relational and collectivistic scales (.61). Theoretically, this makes sense as both orientations are “other- orienting” in nature. Together, these analyses (correlational analyses, principal-component factor analyses and the single-item exploratory factor) analysis indicate that the scales for the relational, individualistic and collectivistic identity orientation are valid, reliable and theoretically robust. Based on these results, it was determined that an additional pre-test should be completed in order to (1) ensure that the results could be replicated and (2) to see if the addition of two additional slightly edited measures would produce three sets of measures with identical pre-fixes (e.g. “my organization can be described as”, “My organization emphasized”, “My organization considers itself to be doing well when” and “My organization is extremely motivated to.” 130 TABLE XIX: PRETEST 1 - SINGLE ITEM EFA OF ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTITY ORIENTATION MEASURES (PHASE 2) All OIO Measures Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Uniqueness Collectivistic My organization can be described as cause-driven 0.62 0.22 0.23 0.51 My organization emphasizes the importance of its affiliation with a 0.67 0.34 0.09 0.38 group, cause or broader community My organization considers itself to be “doing well” when it advances 0.76 0.29 0.12 0.31 a larger cause, ideological objective or set of shared values My organization is largely concerned with advancing the welfare of a 0.72 0.36 0.01 0.35 broader community or cause Relational My organization can be described as warm 0.31 0.63 0.14 0.42 My organization emphasizes the importance of deep interpersonal 0.31 0.67 0.16 0.37 Relationships My organization defines success according to how well it treats 0.31 0.62 0.13 0.47 individual clients, customers, stakeholders or citizens My organization is extremely motivated to connect with others in a 0.35 0.78 0.19 0.24 close and personal way Individualistic My organization can be described as unique and unlike any other 0.23 0.36 0.54 0.44 My organization emphasizes how different it is from other similar 0.06 0.19 0.64 0.48 Organizations My organization considers itself to be “doing well” when it maintains 0.27 0.21 0.71 0.36 its distinctiveness from other similar organizations My organization is extremely motivated to outshine other similar organizations -0.10 -0.00 0.67 0.52 Initial Eigenvalues 2.48 2.43 1.85 % of variance explained 39.32 38.49 29.24 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax 131 Pretest 2 The second pretest went live on Mturk from 8/31/17 -9/07/17. Like the first pretest, the second was set up to accept 150 total respondents divided evenly across for-profit, nonprofit and government sectors. The same qualifications were used. However, because all 88 measures from the first pre-test, plus two slightly edited new items, were included in the second pretest respondents that participated in the first pre-test were prohibited from participating in the second pretest. If it was determined during the initial data inspection that they had participated in the prior pretest, their response was removed. This ensured that the sample contained 150 new respondents. In total, 177 responses were collected because 27 had to be eliminated. Again, responses were eliminated if the respondent (1) tried to take the survey more than once (2) failed quality checks included in the survey or (3) provided uniform or near uniform answers to all of the questions. After a few late removals, the total sample included 53 respondents from the for- profit sector, 49 from the nonprofit sector and 45 from the government sector. The procedure for data analysis as it relates to the second pre-test identically mirrors the processes used for the first pre-test in Phase 2. Thus, I first performed a correlational analysis and other factor suitability tests of each group of. Table XX presents the results of the factor analysis suitability tests for pretest 2. As with the previous test all three groups of measures meet the acceptability criteria for the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (.6 and above acceptable) and Bartlett’s test of Sphericity (significant results indicating data are suitable for factor analysis). TABLE XX: PRETEST 2 – FACTOR ANALYSIS SUITABILITY TESTS (PHASE 2) Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity Individualistic Identity Orientation 0.79 p < 0.001 Relational Identity Orientation 0.81 p < 0.001 132 Collectivistic Identity Orientation 0.80 P < 0.001 These tests were followed by a series of principal-component factor analyses and single-item exploratory factor analysis. Tables XXI-XXIII present the results of the varied factor analyses performed on the data. The scale results for the individualistic measures were exactly replicated and can be found in Table XXI. The alpha increased from .78 in the first pretest to .82 in the second pretest. Table XXII includes the factor analysis results for the relational identity orientation measures. In conjunction with the correlational analysis and factor analysis results suggest that the item “My organization defines success according to how well it treats individual clients, customers, citizens or stakeholders,” be replaced with “My organization considers itself to be doing well when it is able to maintain close relationships with individual clients, customers, citizens or stakeholders”. With the change, the alpha increased from .85 in the first pretest to .87 in the second pretest. Lastly, Table XXIII presents the factor analysis results of the collectivistic identity orientation measures. Two slight changes from the first pretest resulted. First the item “my organization is largely concerned with advancing the welfare of a broader community or cause was replaced with, “my organization is extremely motivated to advance the welfare of a broader community or cause”. Second, the item “My organization considers itself to be doing well when it advances a larger cause, ideological objective, or set of shared values” was replaced with “My organization considers itself to be doing well when it contributes to the well-being of a broader group, cause or community”. The alpha increased from .85 in the first pretest to .86 in the second pretest following these changes. TABLE XXI: PRETEST 2- INDIVIDUALISTIC OIO FACTOR ANALYSIS RESULTS (PHASE 2) 133 Individualistic OIO Measures Variable Loadings My organization can be described as unique and unlike any other 0.79 My organization emphasizes how different it is from other similar organizations 0.77 My organization considers itself to be “doing well” when it maintains its distinctiveness from other similar organizations 0.83 My organization is extremely motivated to outshine other similar organizations 0.80 Initial Eigenvalues 2.56 % of variance explained 64.10 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax TABLE XXII: ANALYSIS PRETEST 2- RELATIONAL OIO FACTOR ANALYSIS RESULTS (PHASE 2) Relational OIO Measures Variable Loadings My organization can be described as warm 0.82 My organization emphasizes the importance of deep interpersonal relationships 0.86 My organization considers itself to be “doing well” when it is able to maintain close relationships with individual clients, customers, citizens or stakeholders 0.83 My organization is extremely motivated to connect with others in a close and personal way 0.87 Initial Eigenvalues 2.86 % of variance explained 71.53 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax TABLE XXIII: PRETEST 2- COLLECTIVISTIC OIO FACTOR ANALYSIS RESULTS (PHASE 2) Collectivistic OIO Measures Variable Loadings My organization can be described as cause-driven 0.79 My organization emphasizes the importance of its affiliation with a group, cause or broader Community 0.76 My organization considers itself to be “doing well” when contributes to the well-being of a broader group, cause or community 0.90 My organization is extremely motivated to advance the welfare of a broader community or Cause 0.91 Initial Eigenvalues 2.84 % of variance explained 71.08 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax 134 Following the principal component factor analyses of each scale, all measures were tested in a single-item exploratory factor analysis to ensure validity. Table XXIV indicates that when all items are included in the factor analysis, three factors should be retained based on their eigenvalues. Further, as the results of the first pre-test indicated each individual item does in fact load highly on its intended factor (individualistic, relational, collectivistic). One item, “My organization is extremely motivated to connect with others in a close and personal way,” which loads on the relational scale (0.72) also has a moderate loading (0.42) on the collectivistic scale. This association will be checked again in the final dataset. Based on these results, I created three averaged scales representing each orientation respectively and analyzed their correlations as one more check of validity. The findings mirrored those in from the first pretest with the largest correlation occurring between the relational and collectivistic scales (.62). Given that the results across pretests demonstrate a reasonably acceptable level of continuity, only those items bearing the pre-fixes “my organization can be described as”, “my organization emphasizes”, “my organization considers itself to be doing well when” and “my organization is extremely motivated to” are included in the final survey. 135 TABLE XXIV: PRETEST 2- SINGLE ITEM EFA OF ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTITY ORIENTATION MEASURES (PHASE 2) All OIO Measures Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Uniqueness Collectivistic My organization can be described as cause-driven 0.65 0.23 0.07 0.44 My organization emphasizes the importance of its affiliation with a group, cause or broader 0.57 0.27 0.14 0.50 Community My organization considers itself to be “doing well” when it contributes to well-being of a 0.82 0.26 0.17 0.22 broader group, cause or community My organization is extremely motivated to advance the welfare of a broader community or 0.83 0.32 0.12 0.18 Cause Relational My organization can be described as warm 0.28 0.64 0.17 0.37 My organization emphasizes the importance of deep interpersonal relationships 0.30 0.75 0.15 0.32 My organization considers itself to be “doing well” when it is able to maintain close 0.39 0.60 0.23 0.37 relationships with individual clients, customers, citizens or stakeholders My organization is extremely motivated to connect with others in a close and personal way 0.42 0.72 0.14 0.29 Individualistic My organization can be described as unique and unlike any other 0.25 0.35 0.59 0.41 My organization emphasizes how different it is from other similar organizations 0.05 0.26 0.62 0.50 My organization considers itself to be “doing well” when it maintains its distinctiveness from 0.20 0.15 0.74 0.37 other similar organizations My organization is extremely motivated to outshine other similar organizations 0.10 0.03 0.73 0.45 Initial Eigenvalues 2.70 2.35 2.00 % of variance explained 39.66 34.52 29.41 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax 136 Final Scale Development Procedures I performed a final series of factor analyses on the measurement model items following the final survey to ensure that I could again replicate the results from two previous Phase 2 pre-tests (See the discussion beginning on page 109 for full final survey design and administration details). The data analytic procedures related to scale development in the final phase exactly mirror those used in the pre-tests. More specifically, I first analyzed the correlations between the scale items and performed two factor analysis suitability tests including Bartlett’s test of Sphericity and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO). As a reminder, the KMO test measures the proportion of variance among the variables that might be common and returns a score between 0 and 1, with those above .6 considered adequate (Williams, Onsman, and Brown, 2010). Bartlett’s test of Sphericity also tests the relatedness of the variables. A significant result indicates that the correlation matrix is not an identity matrix, and thus the data are suitable for factor analysis. As Table XXV indicates, the factor data do in fact pass both tests, as it did in the pre-testing phases. Based on these results, I proceeded to run a factor analysis for each set of items. TABLE XXV: FACTOR ANALYSIS SUITABILITY TESTS (PHASE 2) Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity Individualistic Identity Orientation 0.76 p < 0.001 Relational Identity Orientation 0.81 p < 0.001 Collectivistic Identity Orientation 0.78 P < 0.001 I used principal component factor analysis with varimax rotation, an exploratory method, to examine each set of items in order to determine if they each tapped a single dimension. Table XXVI presents the results of the factor analysis of the individualistic measures. All items loaded on the first factor (eigenvalue 2.41) which accounted for approximately 60% of the variance, the 137 same as in the pre-test phase. Variable loadings ranged from .64 to .84, a slightly larger range than in the pre-test phase (.72-.84). The Cronbach’s remained the same (α = .78). The items representing the relational identity orientation construct can be found in Table XXVII. Similar to pre-test findings, the factor loadings ranged from .79 to .88 and the Cronbach’s remained the same (α = .85). Together, these items account for nearly 85% of the variance. Table XXVIII presents the results of the factor analysis of the collectivistic measures. All items loaded on the first factor (eigenvalue = 2.69) which accounted for 67% of the variance. Factor loadings ranged from .71 to .89 and the Cronbach’s α = .83, which was just slightly lower than in during pre- testing (α = 0.85). This series of testing indicates that for a third time the scales of each identity orientation construct, have met all necessary requirements in order to be considered empirically sound. TABLE XXVI: INDIVIDUALISTIC OIO FACTOR ANALYSIS RESULTS (PHASE 2) Individualistic OIO Measures Variable Loadings My organization can be described as unique and unlike any other 0.67 My organization emphasizes how different it is from other similar organizations 0.79 My organization considers itself to be “doing well” when it maintains its distinctiveness from other similar organizations 0.84 My organization is extremely motivated to outshine other similar organizations 0.80 Initial Eigenvalues 2.41 % of variance explained 60.21 Cronbach’s Alpha .78 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax 138 TABLE XXVII: RELATIONAL OIO FACTOR ANALYSIS RESULTS (PHASE 2) Relational OIO Measures Variable Loadings My organization can be described as warm 0.82 My organization emphasizes the importance of deep interpersonal relationships 0.85 My organization considers itself to be “doing well” when it is able to maintain relationships with individual clients, customers, citizens or stakeholders 0.79 My organization is extremely motivated to connect with others in a close and personal way 0.88 Initial Eigenvalues 2.78 % of variance explained 69.61 Cronbach’s Alpha .85 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax TABLE XXVIII: COLLECTIVISTIC OIO FACTOR ANALYSIS RESULTS (PHASE 2) Collectivistic OIO Measures Variable Loadings My organization can be described as cause-driven 0.71 My organization emphasizes the importance of its affiliation with a group, cause or broader Community 0.80 My organization considers itself to be “doing well” when it contributes to well-being of a broader group, cause or community 0.87 My organization is extremely motivated to advance the welfare of a broader community or Cause 0.89 Initial Eigenvalues 2.69 % of variance explained 67.28 Cronbach’s Alpha 0.83 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax Following the principal component factor analyses where the aim was to explain as much of the variance in the set of items as possible with one dimension; all measures (individualistic, relational and collectivistic) were included into a single-item exploratory factor analysis to ensure that each item loads on its own respective factor and does not cross-load onto the others, thus indicating that there are in fact interpretable dimensions among the three constructs. Table XXIX indicates that none of the respective scale items load highly (> 0.40) onto any other 139 TABLE XXIX: SINGLE ITEM EFA OF ALL OIO SCALE MEASURES (PHASE 2) All OIO Measures Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Uniqueness Collectivistic My organization can be described as cause-driven 0.52 0.22 0.03 0.60 My organization emphasizes the importance of its affiliation with a group, cause or broader 0.62 0.25 0.09 0.49 Community My organization considers itself to be “doing well” when it contributes to well-being of a 0.77 0.32 0.19 0.29 broader group, cause or community My organization is extremely motivated to advance the welfare of a broader community or 0.80 0.29 0.07 0.27 Cause Relational My organization can be described as warm 0.30 0.66 0.07 0.42 My organization emphasizes the importance of deep interpersonal relationships 0.27 0.71 0.17 0.37 My organization considers itself to be “doing well” when it is able to maintain close relationships 0.37 0.58 0.19 0.47 with individual clients, customers, citizens or stakeholders My organization is extremely motivated to connect with others in a close and personal way 0.39 0.72 0.17 0.30 Individualistic My organization can be described as unique and unlike any other 0.19 0.24 0.46 0.61 My organization emphasizes how different it is from other similar organizations 0.08 0.11 0.65 0.53 My organization considers itself to be “doing well” when it maintains its distinctiveness from 0.13 0.19 0.73 0.41 other similar organizations My organization is extremely motivated to outshine other similar organizations 0.01 0.09 0.72 0.47 Initial Eigenvalues 2.40 2.23 1.82 % of variance explained 40.60 37.64 30.87 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax 140 factor14. Based on these results, I created three averaged scales to represent individualistic identity orientation, relational identity orientation and collectivistic identity orientation. Table XXX summarizes the descriptive statistics for each. Additional tests will be performed in order to ensure convergent and discriminant validity of each scale. TABLE XXX: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR OIO CONSTRUCTS Observations Mean Std. Dev. Min Max Individualistic OIO 601 3.32 0.87 1 5 Relational OIO 601 3.67 0.94 1 5 Collectivistic OIO 601 3.85 0.91 1 5 Tests of Convergent and Discriminant Validity The first test of convergent and discriminant validity looks at the correlations between the Organizational Identity Orientation Scales and items from the Organizational Culture Profile. While Organizational Identity Orientation is distinct from organizational culture (Brickson, 2005), the Organizational Culture Profile assess the extent to which certain values characterize an organization. As previously identified, salient organizational traits and values are a central component of Organizational Identity Orientation. As such, certain values in the OCP should align with individualistic, relational and collectivistic identity orientation. For example, values such as competitive and achievement oriented should have a moderate correlation with individualistic OIO, but not with relational OIO; and, values such as supportive or fair, should have a moderate correlation with relational OIO but not individualistic OIO and perhaps less so with collectivistic OIO. As indicated by Table XXXI, these assertions are largely confirmed. For example, we see that OCP traits and values such as “achievement-oriented”, “competitive”, 14 One relational item, “My organization is extremely motivated to connect with others in a close and personal way” does load onto the collectivistic factor at 0.39, which while very close to the cutoff is lower than in the final pretest where the loading was 0.42. 141 “opportunistic”, and “aggressive”, have moderate correlations with the individualistic organizational identity orientation scale, but very weak correlations with the relational and collectivistic scales. Similarly, we see that relational-type OCP variables such as “people- oriented”, “supportive”, and “fair” while moderately correlated with the collectivistic OIO scale, are most highly correlated with the relational scale. In the same vein, we see that the OCP value “socially responsible”, which would align most closely with the collectivistic identity orientation, correlates at 0.66 with that scale. While many of the relational-oriented OCP traits are also moderately correlated with the collectivistic OIO scale and many of the collectivistic- oriented traits are also moderately correlated with the relational items, theoretically this is expected based on the other-orienting nature of the constructs. What is likely more important to zero in on for the validity discussion is the fact that the highest correlations between OCP traits and OIO scales fall in line with general theoretical expectations. TABLE XXXI: CONVERGENT AND DISCRIMINANT VALIDITY TESTS OF OIO SCALES Individualistic Relational Collectivistic Organizational Culture Profile Items Achievement Oriented 0.43 0.29 0.29 Competitive 0.59 0.13 0.05 Opportunistic 0.37 0.22 0.15 Risk-Taking 0.41 0.21 0.17 Aggressive 0.39 -0.04 -0.06 Autonomous 0.25 0.22 0.25 Demanding 0.27 -0.13 -0.01 Innovative 0.51 0.52 0.41 People Oriented 0.24 0.72 0.59 Respectful of Individual Rights 0.25 0.63 0.54 Supportive 0.30 0.72 0.58 Tolerant 0.17 0.51 0.46 Fair 0.28 0.64 0.51 Team Oriented 0.37 0.58 0.52 Socially Responsible 0.23 0.58 0.66 142 Collaborative 0.29 0.54 0.53 RIC Scale Measures Average Individualistic RIC Score 0.26 -0.07 -0.20 Average Relational RIC Score -0.35 0.41 0.01 Average Collectivistic RIC Score -0.44 0.10 0.37 Qualitative TST Scores Individualistic TST 0.19 -0.06 -0.14 Relational TST -0.18 0.14 0.07 Collectivistic TST -0.24 0.02 0.23 The second set of validity tests examined the relationship between the adapted Relational, Individualistic and Collective Self-Aspect ranked items included in the survey and the organizational identity orientation scales. Derived from previous studies on identity orientation at the individual and organizational levels (Brickson, 2005; Kashima and Hardie, 2000), the 5 RIC questions included in the survey measure the individual, relational and collectivistic aspects of organizations that are most central, distinctive and enduring. For example, respondents were shown the phrase “it is most important that my organization work toward”, and they had to rank (1 = most like my organization, 2= second most like my organization, 3 = least like my organization) the following three items, “promoting and maintaining its own welfare” (individualistic), “improving the welfare of others with whom the organization has close relationships (relational), or “promoting the welfare of a group, cause or community it values or belongs (collectivistic). To test the correlations between the RIC and OIO scales, I first recoded the RIC questions so higher values indicated that they better described the respondent’s organization. Then, each respondent received an individualistic, relational and collectivistic RIC score based on how they ranked each item. Ultimately, the RIC scores used for testing validity are averaged scales comprised of the five survey items for each orientation, respectively. The correlations between the RIC scores and the OIO scales are promising. As indicated in Table 29, the Average Individualistic, Relational and Collectivistic RIC scores all have a moderate positive 143 correlation with each of their respective OIO scales and are do not have a strong or moderate correlation with the others. These results confirm again convergent and discriminant validity for each of the OIO scales. The last test of convergent and discriminant validity examines the relationship between the OIO scales and quantitative scores derived from each of the 3,006 qualitative responses provided by the respondents to the Ten Statements Test questions. Derived from previous studies (Brickson, 2005; Kuhn and McPartland, 1954) the Ten Statements Test asked respondents to provide an answer to the statement, “My organization is___,” five times. For the purposes of this this study, responses could receive only one code (individualistic, relational or collectivistic) in order to keep comparisons pure. Thus, if a person indicated that their organization was “profit- oriented”, the response would be coded a one for individualistic and a zero for relational or collectivistic. Similarly, if a person indicated that their organization was “caring”, they would be coded as one for relational and zero for individualistic and collectivistic. If a respondent indicated that their organization was “big” they would receive no code for any of the three orientations. The coding scheme followed the guidelines explained in Brickson’s (2005) seminal study on organizational identity orientation which drew from several analytic techniques such as microscopic data examination. As such, “statements setting the organization apart from others or implying a focus on maximizing the organizational welfare were coded as individualistic […] those connecting the organization to particular stakeholders or emphasizing concern for the particular others welfare were coded as relational […] and statements tying the organization to the larger whole or demonstrating concern for the welfare of a larger collective were coded as individualistic,” (Brickson, 2005, p. 588). 144 Table XXXI presents the results of the analysis comparing OIO and TST scores. While the correlations are weak, the largest correlation between each OIO scale and its respective TST score is the strongest among all comparisons. For example, while the correlation between the collectivistic TST score and collectivistic OIO scale is weak (0.23), the collectivistic TST score is negatively associated with individualistic OIO scale (-0.24) and not correlated with the relational OIO scale (0.02). This is the same for each of the other comparisons as well. Ideally, these correlations should be much higher so I offer two possible explanations. First, many individuals received no score at all because they did not provide any valid characteristics. For example, one individual’s responses included “investment strategies” “retirement planning” “mutual funds” “investing” and “core functions”. As such, the overall sample size for comparisons was reduced. Second, the low correlations could be the result of different coding structures between the qualitative and quantitative items. Despite these drawbacks it is important to reiterate that correlations that do exist between TST scores and OIO scales fall in line with general theoretical expectations in that individualistic measures correlate with one another but not with the other scales, the relational measures correlate with one another but not with other scales and the collectivistic measures correlate with one another but not with the other scales. Taken together, the results of the measurement model pre-tests in conjunction with the final factor analyses and related validity tests indicate that the scales for individualistic, relational and collectivistic organizational identity orientation are theoretically robust, empirically sound and replicable. Scale reliabilities remained consistently high throughout all testing phases, and additional tests of convergence and discrimination have to a reasonable degree established construct validity. 145 Chapter 6 – Results of Hypothesized Relationships This chapter presents the qualitative and quantitative findings relating to the theory and hypotheses outlined in Chapters 1 through 3. I present a series of analyses and discuss results related to each of the hypotheses laid out in chapters 2 and 3. More specifically, I first present and discuss the results of the analysis of variance tests (ANOVA), differences of means tests, and pairwise comparisons of means. Then, I move on to examine the results of the OLS regression models. The chapter concludes with a review of every hypotheses outlined and whether or not they were confirmed. It should be noted that all of the analyses in this Chapter use data only from the full final Phase 2 survey. 1. Sector Level Analysis of OIO The first purpose of this analysis was to determine if organization members in the public and nonprofit sectors view the identity orientation of their organizations differently than members of organizations in the private, for-profit sector. More specifically, I hypothesized that organizational members in the for-profit sector would view their organizations as more individualistic than those in the public and nonprofit sectors; and, conversely, that those in the public and nonprofit sectors would perceive their organizations as more collectivistic than members in the for-profit sector. The results of two, one-way ANOVAs help to provide some answers to this question. Table XXXII, displays the results from the models examining perceived differences in individualistic and collectivistic organizational identity orientations across sectors. More specifically, the results of the one-way ANOVA indicate that members in the for-profit, nonprofit and public sectors, significantly differ in their perceptions of individualistic and collectivistic identity orientation. On average, individuals in the for-profit sector view their organizations as more individualistic (m =3.43) than those in the public (m=3.20) and nonprofit 146 sector (3.34). Conversely, those in the public (m = 3.95) and nonprofit sectors (m = 4.18), view their organizations as more collectivistic than members of the for-profit sector (m=3.43), on average. In addition, it is important to point out that sector differences account for less variation when it comes to perceptions of individualistic identity orientations than collectivistic orientations. Given that the overall F test is marginally significant for both perceptions of individualistic and collectivistic organizational identity orientations, I performed a planned pairwise comparison of means. Table XXXIII presents the results from this analysis. When considering how organizational members view individualistic identity orientations across sectors, the contrast of -0.09 indicates that organizational members in the nonprofit sector perceive their organizations to be less individualistic than do members in organizations in the for-profit sector, however this difference is not significant. Organizational members in the public sector also see their organizations as less individualistic than members in the for-profit sector (-0.23), a difference which is statistically significant (t = 2.68, p < 0.05). TABLE XXXII: ANOVA RESULTS OF SECTOR DIFFERENCES IN PERCEPTIONS OF OIO Sector Mean OIO Score Individualistic Collectivistic For-Profit 3.43 3.43 Nonprofit 3.34 4.18 Public 3.20 3.95 % Variance explained by 3.2 11.7 sector differences F-Statistic and Significance F = 3.68, p < 0.05 F = 39.51, p < 0.01 147 TABLE XXXIII: PAIRWISE COMPARISON OF MEANS ACROSS SECTORS Contrast Std Err t Individualistic Nonprofit v For-Profit -0.09 0.09 -1.00 Public v For-Profit -0.23 0.09 -2.68 ** Public v Nonprofit -0.14 0.09 -1.62 + Collectivistic Nonprofit v For-Profit 0.73 0.09 8.63 *** Public v For-Profit 0.52 0.08 6.16 *** Public v Nonprofit -0.23 0.09 -2.68 *** When considering how organizational members view collectivistic identity orientations across sectors, contrasts of (0.73) and (0.52) indicate that organizational members in the nonprofit and public-sector view perceive their organizations to be more collectivistic than do organizational members in the for-profit sector, (t=8.63; t=6.61, p < 0.01). Interestingly, the results indicate that organizational members in the public sector perceive their organizations to be both significantly less individualistic and less collectivistic than organizational members in the nonprofit sector. These findings are partially consistent with Hypothesis #1 which posits that, in line with normative and historical role standards, organizational members in the public and nonprofit sectors will primarily view their organization as reflecting collectivistic identity orientations that center on values such as the pursuit of a common good, whereas organizational members in the for-profit sector will primarily view their organizations as reflecting individualistic identity orientations that center on values of efficiency and differentiation. More specifically, the data do indicate that organizational members in the public and nonprofit sectors view their organizations as significantly more collectivistic than organizational members in the for-profit sector. Further, organizational members in the for-profit sector on average view their organizations as more individualistic than members in the public and nonprofit sectors. However, there is no significant 148 difference between average views of individualism among organizational members in the nonprofit and for-profit sectors, and there is less variation in the mean individualistic scores across all sectors. From a theoretical perspective, the lack of significance between members views of individualism in the nonprofit and for-profit sectors make sense given that nonprofit organizations have historically been accountable to values and traits represented by both orientations. Further, for decades nonprofit organizations been exposed to environmental influences that emphasize their roles as efficient service providers and have pushed them to conform to marketized models and practices emblematic of for-profit sector norms and individualistic models of identity orientation. Similarly, while isomorphic processes have also pushed actors in the for-profit sector to be global changes agents and promoters of collective benefit (Donaldson and Walsh, 2015), arguably, the adoption of such models and practices have not been as central to survival in the new economy which is largely dominated by market authority. As such, the mean score related to collectivistic identity orientation remains significantly lower for organizational members in the for-profit sector as compared to members in the public and nonprofit sectors. The implications of these findings will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 6. The second purpose of this study is to explore whether or not diverse identity orientations are reflected within each sector. Table XXXIV helps to shed light onto this facet of organizational identity orientation by examining the percentage of individuals within each sector who indicate that individualistic, relational and collectivistic identity orientations are either not very much, somewhat or completely like their organization. In line with the previous discussion we see that a greater percentage of organizational members in the for-profit sector (45%) believe 149 that an individualistic identity orientation very much or completely describes their organization as compared with those in the nonprofit (37%) or public (34%) sectors. Conversely, that data shows that a greater percentage of organizational members in the nonprofit (79%) and public (68%) sectors believe that a collectivistic identity orientation very much or completely describes their organization, as compared with only 44% of for-profit members. TABLE XXXIV: MEMBER VIEWS OF ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTITY ORIENTATION Not at all or Not Somewhat Very Much or Very Much Like Like My Completely Like My Organization Organization My Organization Individualistic*** For-profit 10.45% 44.78% 44.78% Nonprofit 11.70% 51.60% 36.70% Government 22.17% 43.40% 34.43% Relational*** For-profit 11.44% 31.34% 57.21% Nonprofit 3.19% 28.19% 68.62% Government 14.62% 33.49% 51.89% Collectivistic*** For-profit 17.41% 38.81% 43.78% Nonprofit 2.13% 19.15% 78.72% Government 3.77% 27.83% 68.40% p < .01***, p < .05**, p < .10+ Individualistic Model Pearson chi2(4) = 16.1583 likelihood-ratio chi2(4) = 15.5577 Pr = 0.004 Relational Model Pearson chi2(4) = 19.4713 Pr = 0.001 likelihood-ratio chi2(4) = 21.9688 Pr = 0.000 Collectivistic Model Pearson chi2(4) = 69.0262 Pr = 0.000 likelihood-ratio chi2(4) = 68.2059 Pr = 0.000 However, what these results also show is that over 50% of members in the nonprofit sector and nearly 45% in the public sector believe that an individualistic orientation at least somewhat describes their organizations. Similarly, nearly 40% of for-profit members believe that a collectivistic orientation can somewhat describe their organization. Further, over half of all respondents indicated that a relational identity orientation very much or completely describes 150 their organization. Chi-square test indicate that these differences are statistically significant (p < 0.001). When examining the frequency with which organizational members within and across sectors assign specific individualistic, relational and collectivistic identity orientation statements to their organization, similar results are found. Table XXXV examines the frequency with which organizational members across sectors ascribe motivational traits related to each identity orientation to their organization. Perhaps unsurprisingly, over 60% of organizational members in the nonprofit and public sectors believe it is more important to work toward promoting the welfare of close others (relational) or a group, cause or community it values (collectivistic), rather than promoting and maintaining its own welfare (individualistic). This contrasts with nearly half of all for-profit members (48%) who believe organizational welfare is more important. However, the data also indicate that nearly 20% of public sector respondents view promoting and maintaining the organization’s welfare as paramount and over half (53%) of for- profit respondents believe it is most important for their organization to promote the welfare of a group, cause, or community it values. Chi-square test indicate that these differences are statistically significant (p < 0.001). TABLE XXXV: MEMBER PERCEPTIONS OF MOTIVATION RELATED IDENTITY STATEMENTS Second Least Most Like Most Like Like My My Org My Org Org Most Important for Org. To: Promote Own Welfare (Individualistic)*** For-profit 47.76% 25.87% 26.37% Nonprofit 15.43% 19.15% 65.43% Government 18.87% 20.80% 60.85% 151 Most Important for Org. To: Promote Welfare Close Others (Relational) For-profit 36.82% 42.29% 20.90% Nonprofit 37.77% 44.68% 17.55% Government 34.91% 44.81% 20.28% Most Important for Org. To: Promote Group Welfare (Collectivistic)*** For-profit 15.42% 31.84% 52.74% Nonprofit 46.81% 36.17% 17.02% Government 46.23% 34.91% 18.87% p < .01***, p < .05**, p < .10+ Own welfare Pearson chi2(4) = 83.9343 Pr = 0.000 Likelihood-ratio Chi2(4) = 85.0881 Pr = 0.000 Other welfare Pearson chi2(4) 1.0434 Pr = 0.903 Likelihood-ratio chi2(4) 1.0570 Pr=0.90. Grp welfare Pearson chi2(4) 90.9771 PR = 0.000 likelihood ration chi2(4) 92.7428 Pr 0.0000 The data in Table XXXVI tell a similar story to those in table XXXIV and XXXV. For example, over 50% of members in government organizations and 60% of nonprofit members believe that their organization is better characterized as a best friend (relational) or activist (collectivistic) than an athlete who is focused on standing out, being the best and maximizing his/her own welfare (individualistic). In the public sector, nearly half (46%) identify the best characterization being an advocate or an idealistic change agent focused on creating positive change for society or a broader group. In nonprofits, 46% identity the best characterization as being a best friend who is understanding, committed and focused on being a caring and dependable partner. However, the data also highlight diversity in how members within and across sectors view the applicability of different individualistic, relational and collectivistic traits to their organization. For example, 20% of for-profit respondents would describe their organization first as an activist and 46% as a best friend. Similarly, nearly 20% of public and nonprofit members would describe their organization first as an athlete focused on maximizing his/her own welfare. Chi-square test indicate that these differences are statistically significant (p < 0.001). 152 TABLE XXXVI: MEMBER PERCEPTIONS OF TRAIT RELATED IDENTITY STATEMENTS Second Least Most Like Most Like Like My My Org My Org Org ***Org. As A Person: Athlete (Individualistic) For-profit 34.33% 31.34% 34.33% Nonprofit 18.62% 17.02% 64.36% Government 19.81% 24.06% 51.41% **Org. As A Person: Best Friend (Relational) For-profit 45.77% 34.33% 19.90% Nonprofit 43.62% 39.36% 17.02% Government 32.08% 45.28% 22.64% ***Org. As A Person: Activist (Collectivistic) For-profit 19.90% 34.33% 45.77% Nonprofit 37.77% 43.62% 18.62% Government 48.11% 30.66% 21.23% p < .01***, p < .05**, p < .10+ Athlete Pearson chi2(4) = 39.2487 Pr = 0.0000 Likelihood ration 39.8096 Pr = 0.000 Best Friend Pearson chi2(4) = 10.2709 Pr = 0.036 Likelihood ratio 10.4744 Pr = 0.033 Activist Pearson chi 2 (4) = 59.7442 Pr = 0.000 Likelihood ratio 59.3864 Pr = 0.000 Taken together, these analyses produce powerful results with regards to better understanding the nature of the organizational identity orientation construct at the sector level. First, they confirm that members within the for-profit, nonprofit and public sectors view specific individualistic, relational and collectivistic identity orientation statements, as both accurate and poor characterizations of their organization. Second, while a greater percentage of organizational members in the for-profit sector view an individualistic identity orientation as better representative of their organizations, and members in the nonprofit and public sectors view collectivistic identity orientations as better representative of their organizations, there is a baseline presence of all three orientations in each sector. This means that no one sector can be characterized as solely individualistic, relational or collectivistic. These findings are in line with theory which suggests that organizations have long faced competing demands to reflect multiple, sometimes conflicting values and orientations. Further, because many organizations across sector 153 are facing a similar set of environmental conditions in the new economy, a “similar diversity” in culture, structure and output is reflected. Importantly, this confirms Hypothesis #2 which posits that all three identity orientations will be reflected simultaneously in organizational member perceptions of identity orientation in the for-profit, nonprofit and public sectors. 2. Population Level Analysis of OIO If organizations operate in systems composed of both similar and diverse forms as the results thus far seem to suggest, how are we to make sense of such diversity? This brings us to the third purpose of this study which is to better understand the factors that might help to explain the similarities and differences that we are seeing both within and across sectors by investigating the nature of the organizational identity orientation construct among organizational populations. For the purpose of this analysis, populations are conceived of as industries. Thus, in this section, I examine the relationship between organizational identity orientation and industry within each sector. I begin by examining these linkages in the for-profit sector and then explore them in the nonprofit and public sectors. Table XXXVII shows the frequency and percentage of respondents in each of ten major industry groups in the for-profit sector as well as the results of a series of one-way ANOVAs. The industries represent career clusters defined by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Employment and Training Administration’s O*NET database. The O*NET database is comprised of standardized occupation-specific descriptors that align with the industries outlined in the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) which were surveyed for this research. Overall, the data indicate that approximately 50% of respondents are divided among three industries including professional, technical and scientific (19.90%), health and human services (15.92%) and marketing, sales and services (13.43%). The other 50% of respondents come from 154 seven other diverse industries such as transportation, distribution and logistics and arts, audio- visual, technology and communications. The industry with the highest average individualistic identity orientation score is transportation, distribution and logistics (m=3.82) and the lowest is education and training (m=3.07). The industry with the highest relational identity orientation mean is health and human services (m=3.94) and the lowest is manufacturing and construction (m=3.53). Lastly, the industry with the highest collectivistic identity orientation mean is arts, audio-visual, technology and communications whereas the lowest is manufacturing and construction. While mean differences in organizational identity orientation can be seen across industries in the for-profit sector, ANOVA results suggest that none of these differences are statistically significant. While ANOVA is robust to moderate departures from normality and unequal variance so long as the largest standard deviation is less than double the smallest (Sullivan, 2011), as is the case with this data, balanced sample sizes are ideal when using this method. This fact, in conjunction with previous studies (Brickson, 2005) which indicate that perceptions of organizational identity orientation can significantly vary according to industry, suggest that these relationships require additional testing, and that the finding here should be interpreted with some caution. However, it should be noted that assumption violations related to sample size and unequal variance, especially when smaller samples have larger standard deviations, again as is the case with this data, run the risk of falsely reporting significant results (Miller, 1986). Here the findings indicate the opposite. 155 TABLE XXXVII: ONE-WAY ANOVA: PERCEPTIONS OF OIO IN FOR-PROFIT INDUSTRIES For-Profit Industries Frequency Percent Mean OIO Score INDV REL COLL Agriculture, Food and Natural 8 3.98% 3.56 3.63 3.43 Resources Arts, Audio-Visual, Technology 19 9.45% 3.61 3.57 3.82 and Communications Business Management and 9 4.48% 3.28 3.36 3.61 Administration Education and Training 14 6.97% 3.07 3.52 3.45 Health and Human Services 32 15.92% 3.34 3.94 3.59 Hospitality and Tourism 11 5.47% 3.66 3.66 3.52 Professional, Technical and 40 19.90% 3.34 3.64 3.27 Scientific Manufacturing and Construction 24 11.94% 3.29 3.53 3.13 Marketing, Sales and Service 27 13.43% 3.53 3.62 3.38 Transportation, Distribution and 11 5.47% 3.82 3.59 3.55 Logistics F(10,190) F(10, 190) = F(8,196)=1.51 = 0.50 0.50 Note: “other” industry category was not included in the analysis so percent may not sum to 100% While the data indicated the mean differences in member perceptions of individualistic, relational and collectivistic identity orientation do not significantly vary across for-profit industries, results suggest that such differences do exist when examining organizational identity orientation among industries in the nonprofit sector. Table XXXVIII shows the frequency and percentage of respondents in each industry in the nonprofit sector as well as the results of a series of one-way ANOVAs examining the relationship between perceptions of organizational identity orientation by industry. The industries listed in Table XXXVIII represent the nine major groups used by the National Taxonomy of Exempt Entities (NTEE), the Internal Revenue Service, and the Foundation Center to classify nonprofit organizations. The North American Industry Classification System which was used to classify the for-profit industries does not currently differentiate between different types of nonprofit organizations, which is why this more robust 156 classification system was used to analyze nonprofit industries. Perhaps unsurprisingly, over 75% of respondents in the nonprofit sector are employed in the education (25.39%), health (35.23%) and human services (14.51%) industries. This representation closely mirrors other studies examining the distribution of nonprofit jobs across the U.S. (LeRoux and Feeney, 2015, p 286- 287). The other six industries range from environment and animal related to arts, culture and humanities. The industry with the highest average individualistic identity orientation score is arts, culture and humanities (m=3.58) and the lowest is environment and animal related (m=2.99). Religious organizations have the highest mean relational identity orientation score. Lastly, environmental and animal related organizations have the highest mean collectivistic identity orientation score (m=4.67), and mutual membership and benefit organizations such as professional societies and associations, insurance providers, pension and retirement funds and fraternal societies have the lowest (m=3.81). The results of the one-way ANOVAs suggest that there is a marginally significant different between the mean individualistic and collectivistic orientation scores across nonprofit industries (p < 0.10). TABLE XXXVIII: ONE-WAY ANOVA: PERCEPTIONS OF IDENTITY ORIENTATION IN NONPROFIT INDUSTRIES Nonprofit Industries Frequency Percent Mean OIO Score INDV + REL COLL + Environment and Animal 6 3.10% 2.99 4.00 4.67 Related Arts, Culture and Humanities 13 6.74% 3.58 3.98 3.88 Education 49 25.39% 3.41 3.83 4.09 Health 68 35.23% 3.43 3.84 4.19 Human Services 28 14.51% 3.33 3.89 4.14 Public and Societal Benefit 11 5.70% 3.27 4.11 4.54 Religious 14 7.25% 2.71 4.34 4.30 Mutual Membership and 4 2.07% 3.44 3.81 3.81 Benefit 157 F(7,185) = F(7, 185) = F(8,196)=1 2.01 (p < 0.10) 0.92 .51 (p < 0.10) Note: “other” category was not included in the analysis so percent may not sum to 100 Given that the overall F test is marginally significant for both individualistic and collectivistic organizational identity orientation, I performed a post-hoc pairwise comparison of industry means. In total, twenty pairwise comparisons were made between industries. Table XXXIX presents only the significant results from this analysis. When considering how organizational members view individualistic identity orientations across industries, the contrast of 0.62 indicates that organizational members in arts, culture and humanities organizations perceive their organizations to be more individualistic than do members in organizations in the animals and environment industry (t = 1.66, p < 0.10). Similarly, the contrast of 0.72 indicates that organizational members in mutual membership and benefit organizations perceive their organizations to more individualistic than those in religious organizations (t= 1.69, p < 0.10). Overall, the data also indicate that members in religious organizations perceive their organizations to be significantly less individualistic than members in arts, culture and humanities organizations (t = -2.97, p < 0.05), educational organizations (t = -3.06, p < 0.05), health related organizations (t = -3.24, p < 0.05) and organizations in the public and societal benefit industry (t = -1.84, p < 0.10). When considering how organizational members view collectivistic identity orientation across industries, the contrast of 0.66 indicates that organizational members in the public and societal benefit industry which includes civil rights organizations, community improvement organizations and voter education and registration organizations, perceive their organizations to be more collectivistic than do members in organizations in the arts, culture and humanities industry (t = 2.29, p < 0.05). Similarly, organizational members in the public and 158 societal benefit industry also perceive their organization to be more collectivistic than members in the education industry (t = 1.95, p < 0.10). The data also indicate that organizational members in three industries including arts culture and humanities, education and mutual membership and benefit perceive their organizations to be less collectivistic than do members in organizations dealing with animals or the environment. TABLE XXXIX: PAIRWISE COMPARISON OF MEANS ACROSS NONPROFIT INDUSTRIES Std. Contrast t Err Individualistic Arts, Culture and Humanities VS Animals and Environment 0.62 0.37 1.66+ Religious VS Arts, Culture and Humanities -0.86 0.29 -2.97** Religious VS Education -0.70 0.23 -3.06** Religious VS Health -0.71 0.22 -3.24** Religious VS Human Service -0.32 0.25 -2.50** Religious VS Public and Societal Benefit -0.55 0.30 -1.84+ Mutual Membership and Benefit VS Religious 0.72 0.43 1.69+ Collectivistic Arts, Culture and Humanities VS Animals and Environment -0.78 0.35 -2.25** Education VS Animals and Environment -0.58 0.34 -1.90+ Mutual Membership and Benefit VS Animals and -0.85 0.45 -1.88+ Environment Mutual Membership and Benefit VS Public and Societal -0.73 0.41 -1.78+ Benefit Public and Societal Benefit VS Arts, Culture and Humanities 0.66 0.29 2.29** Public and Societal Benefit VS Education 0.46 0.23 1.95+ Lastly, we turn our attention to government industries and examine whether this population level factor can help to explain identity orientation variation in the public sector. Table XL shows the frequency and percentage of respondents in each government industry as well as the results of a series of one-way ANOVAs. The industries represented here have been drawn from those defined as part of the “public administration” industry by the NAICS system. Almost half (45%) of government respondents are members of the education industry. The next 159 three largest industry representations include public health, the administration of human resources and veteran’s affairs (15%) justice, public order and public safety (15%) and economic programs, which includes consumer protection and small business development organizations (10%). The mean identity orientation scores indicate that organizational members in national security and international affairs industries have the highest average individualistic identity orientation score (m=4.07) among all government industries. The education industry has the highest average relational score (m=3.81) and the executive, legislative and other government support group has the highest average collectivistic identity orientation score (m=4.38). The results of the one-way ANOVAs suggest that there is a significant difference between the mean relational identity orientation scores across government industries (p < 0.05) and marginally significant difference between mean collectivistic orientation scores. (p < 0.10). TABLE XL: ONE-WAY ANOVA: PERCEPTIONS OF IDENTITY ORIENTATION IN GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIES Government Industries Frequency Percent Mean OIO Score INDV REL*** COLL+ Executive, Legislative and Other 8 3.90 2.78 3.25 4.38 Government Support (Governor’s office, Mayor’s Office, President’s Office) Justice, Public Order and Public Safety 30 14.63 3.00 2.84 3.60 Public Health, Administration of 31 15.12 3.13 3.40 4.05 Human Resources, Veterans Affairs Environment 3 1.46 3.00 3.17 3.67 Housing, Urban Planning and 4 1.95 3.19 3.75 3.95 Community Development Economic Programs (consumer 21 10.24 2.90 3.18 3.64 protection, small business dev., etc.) National Security and International 7 3.41 4.07 3.07 4.11 Affairs Education 93 45.37 3.25 3.81 4.08 United States Postal Service 8 3.90 3.69 3.31 3.75 160 F(8,196) F(8, 196) F(8,196)=1.89, = 1.62 = 3.93, p p < 0.10 < 0.01 Note: “other” category left out so percentage might not sum to 100 I performed a pairwise comparison of industry means given that the overall F test is significant or marginally significant for both perceptions of relational and collectivistic identity orientations across government industries. In total, thirty-six pairwise comparisons were made between industries. Table XLI presents only the significant results from this analysis pertaining to relational and collectivistic identity orientations. The contrast of 0.56 indicates that organizational members in the public health, administration of human resources, and veteran’s affairs view their organizations as more relational than those in justice, public order and public safety organizations (t = 2.30, p < 0.05). Similarly, a contrast of 0.91 indicates that organizational members in the housing, urban planning and community development industry view their organizations as significantly more relational than individuals in justice, public order and public safety organizations (t = 1.85, p < 0.10). The data also indicate that organizational members in the educational industry view their organizations as significantly more relational that individuals in justice, public order and public safety (t = 5.00, p < 0.01), public health, administration of human resource and veteran’s affairs (t = 2.12, p < 0.01), economic programs (t = 2.83, p < 0.05) and national security and international affairs (t = 2.04, p < 0.05). When considering how organizational members view collectivistic identity orientation across industries, the contrast of -0.78 indicated that individuals in the justice, public order and public safety industry and those in organizations dealing with economic programs view their organizations as significantly less collectivistic than those in executive, legislative and other government support organizations (t = -2.43; t = -2.20, p < 0.05). Conversely, individuals in the 161 health and education industries view their organizations as significantly more collectivistic than those in justice, public order and public safety (t = 2.18; t = 2.85, p < 0.05). TABLE XLI: PAIRWISE COMPARISON OF MEANS ACROSS GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIES Std. Contrast t Err Relational Public Health, Administration of Human Resources, Veterans Affairs VS 0.56 0.24 2.38** Justice, Public Order and Public Safety Housing, Urban Planning and Community Development VS Justice, Public 0.91 0.49 1.85+ Safety and Public Order Education VS Justice, Public Order and Public Safety 0.96 0.19 5.00*** Education VS Public Health, Administration of Human Resources, Veterans 0.41 0.19 2.12** Affairs Education VS Economic Programs (consumer protection, small business 0.63 0.22 2.83** dev, etc.) Education VS National Security and International Affairs 0.74 0.48 2.04** Collectivistic Justice Public Order and Public Safety VS Executive, Legislative and other -0.78 0.32 -2.43** Government Support Economic Programs (consumer protection, small business dev., etc.) VS -0.73 0.33 -2.20** Executive Legislative, and Other Government Support Economic Programs (consumer protection, small business dev., etc.) VS -0.41 0.23 -1.79+ Health, Administration of Human Resources, Veterans Affairs Health, Administration of Human Resources, Veterans Affairs VS Justice, 0.45 0.21 2.18** Public Order and Public Safety Education VS Justice, Public Order and Public Safety 0.48 0.17 2.85** Education VS Economic Programs (consumer protection, small business 0.44 0.19 2.26** dev. Etc.) In sum, these analyses show mixed results with regards to whether or not the variance we see in organizational identity orientation within each sector can in part be explained by the industry an organization operates within. The data indicate that no significant differences exist between organizational member perceptions of identity orientation and industry in the for-profit sector. However, as previously stated given the experimental nature of this research I think this 162 finding should be interpreted with caution. The sampling methodology used in this study, which results in unequal numbers of respondents in each industry is a limitation for this type of comparison. Continuing to examine similarities and differences among industries within the for- profit sector is important, especially when sampling allows for the controlled comparison of industry representation as other studies have shown (Brickson, 2005). While the data indicate that no significant differences exist in average perceptions of identity orientations across industries in the for-profit sector, the findings show that there is a statistically significant difference between mean individualistic and collectivistic scores in the nonprofit sector and between mean relational and collectivistic scores in the public sector. More specifically, a pairwise analysis of nonprofit industry differences indicates that on average, individuals working in religious organizations tend to view their organizations as significantly less individualistic than almost any other nonprofit industry and that individuals working in the arts, culture and humanities industry view their organizations as more individualistic than those working for organizations related to animals or the environment. Because these findings are the result of post hoc analysis that and their associations not previously outlined by theory, I offer some possible explanations of the findings related to perceptions of individualistic orientations. The findings related to nonprofit industries, particularly related to views of individualism, make sense from a theoretical perspective for a number of reasons. First, some scholars have noted that arts organizations, at least in theory, were not created for charitable purposes (Kim, 2017). Rather, it is argued that arts and culture organizations tend to incorporate as nonprofits primarily so that they can solicit donations to support their operations, the cost of which ticket sales alone cannot cover (Hansmann, 1980). According to Toepler (2001) there is a, “long tradition of arguing the value of the arts and thinking of the arts economically,” (p. 517). 163 Further, the industry, like many in the nonprofit sector has had to manage increased pressures related to marketization and commercialization in recent decades (Eikenberry and Kluver, 2004; Toepler, 2001). Taken together, a long history of thinking economically about the arts, and recent pressures to commercialize, promote unique value and compete for resources help to explain why members in nonprofit arts organizations view their organizations as more individualistic from an identity orientation standpoint, than members in other industries. Still, it is important to keep in mind that the mean relational and collectivistic organizational identity orientation scores for organizational members in the arts and culture industry is higher than its individualistic score. Qualitative identity statements provided by organizational members in this industry confirm the importance of this point, as organizational members referred to their organizations not only as renowned, important, innovative, influential and the best of its kind but also as caring, generous, open, inclusive and honest. The findings related to member perceptions of organizational identity orientation in religious organizations are also supported theoretically. More specifically, religious organizations have long been identified as value generating institutions that promote charity, philanthropy and associationalism. Berger and Neuhaus (1977) point out that, the development of many social programs and institutions are “inseparable from the church” and “a great bulk of social welfare services function under religious auspices,” (p. 187). According to Whetten (2006) organizational identity is a reminder of early developmental choices and purposes in an organization and thus departures from an organizations’ developmental trajectory are uncommon. Further, Brickson (2002) contends that organizational identity orientation is even more stable than identity. Taken together, findings that show perceived levels of individualism to 164 be lower in religious organizations than in other types of nonprofit industries, seem to be supported theoretically. Overall in the public sector, we see a statistically significant difference between mean relational and collectivistic scores. The pairwise analyses indicate that on average individuals working in public order and public safety view their organizations as less relational and less collectivistic than individuals in many other government industries. Conversely, individuals working in the education industry on average view their organization as more relational than individuals in many other government industries. Interestingly, a larger number of street-level bureaucrats work in both the education and public safety industries. What these findings seem to indicate is that while often individuals in both populations have discretion in how they shape relationships with stakeholders, their fundamental orientations towards them differ. This makes sense in as much as organizations in the justice, public order and public safety industry often must behave in highly specified ways as set forth by statutes and regulations, and must uphold values of equity and due process (Lipsky, 1980). In this regard, it might be more troubling if perceptions of collectivistic identity orientations are on average lower among members in this industry than other industries. Our data indicate that mean collectivistic identity orientation scores are only lower among members in this industry than in the executive, legislative and other government support industry and education. It is also worth noting again that these analyses are exploratory and the sampling methodology poses limitations. As such, all findings should be interpreted as a starting point for understating differences in perceptions related to identity orientation, rather than any sort of confirmation. As the findings from the analyses have so far indicated, while organizational members in public and for-profit sectors on average tend to view their orgs as more collectivistic than 165 members in the for-profit sector, and conversely those in for-profit sector are more likely to view their organization as more individualistic than those in the public and nonprofit sector, there is wide variance in all three sectors, and no significant difference between views of individualistic identity orientations between for-profit and nonprofit members. As chapter two laid out, theories of mimesis and technological insularity and the proclivity of organizations to form identities, in part based on inter industry comparisons, indicate that industry is likely an important factor in contributing to such variance. The findings here find mixed support for these assertions, indicating that in some instances industry is associated with member’s views of individualism and collectivism in the nonprofit sector, and relationalism and collectivism in the public sector. As such, Hypothesis #3 is partially confirmed. 3. Sub-Population Level Analysis of OIO Other factors that might help to shed light on the nature of the OIO construct at the sub- population level include how close clients/customers are to organizational operations and who those primary client groups are. Table 38 presents the results of a two-sample difference of means test examining the average differences in member perceptions relational identity orientation based on the nature of an organizations services and how close clients/customers are to organizational operations. More specifically, the data in Table XL show whether, on average individuals working in organizations that provide “highly personal” services see their organization as more relational than individuals working in organizations that provide technical- project based or practical everyday services. In this context, “highly personal” refers to services that directly help improve a client/customers intrinsic, personal well-being and therefore employee interactions with clients/customers are deep, long-lasting and often highly complex. Examples of organizations providing these types or services would be schools, hospitals, and counseling centers. Everyday services can be understood as routine, uniform and reliable 166 services that help clients/customers accomplish everyday tasks, where employee interactions with clients/customers are often short and not complex allowing the organization to serve relatively large numbers of people, relatively quickly. A museum, restaurant, or the department of motor vehicles would be examples of organizations that provide practical, everyday services. Lastly, technical project-based services refer to specialized or technical services that help clients/customers accomplish a project or acquire expertise and problem-solving capabilities. In these types of organizations employee interactions with client's customers are moderate in duration and relatively complex. Examples of organizations providing these types of services include engineering firms, economic development agencies and advocacy groups. The variable “primarily provides highly personal services” is a dichotomous variable where 1 = “highly personal” best describes the nature of the services provided by the organization and 0 = the nature of services provided by the organization are better described as technical or practical. Approximately 89% of respondents in the Mturk sample indicated that their organizations are service oriented and 11% indicated that their organizations are production oriented. Of the 89% of respondents who indicated that their organizations primarily provide good or services to clients or customers, 61% indicated that “highly personal” best describes the nature of the services the organization provides. The results of a two-sample difference of means tests, displayed in Table XLII consistently indicate that on average, individuals working in organization that provide technical or everyday services view their organizations as significantly less relational than individuals working in organizations that primarily provide highly personal services. These differences are statistically significant when examining mean differences among all organizational members regardless of sector (t = -5.37, p < 0.01), as well as when examined 167 in the for-profit sector (t = 3.08, p < 0.05), nonprofit sector (t = -1.95, p < 0.10) and public sector (t = -3.74, p < 0.01). TABLE XLII: TWO-SAMPLE TTEST – PERCEPTIONS OF RELATIONAL IDENTITY ORIENTATION IN ORGANIZATIONS THAT PROVIDE HIGHLY PERSONAL SERVICES Std. Obs Mean t Err All Sectors Primarily Provides Highly Personal Services 328 3.89 0.05 Does not Primarily Provide Highly Personal -5.37*** 207 3.44 0.07 Services For-Profit Sector Primarily Provides Highly Personal Services 69 3.99 0.11 Does not Primarily Provide Highly Personal -3.08** 80 3.53 0.10 Services Non-profit Sector Primarily Provides Highly Personal Services 133 4.03 0.07 Does not Primarily Provide Highly Personal -1.95+ 46 3.81 0.09 Services Government Sector Primarily Provides Highly Personal Services 126 3.68 0.08 Does not Primarily Provide Highly Personal -3.74** 86 3.17 0.11 Services +p < 0.10, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.001 Overall, these findings indicate that when organizations provide highly personal services, members will on average view their organizations as more reflecting of relational identity orientations that members in organizations providing other types of services. In other words, in highly-personal organizations that are motivated to improve the intrinsic, personal well-being of others, organizational members on average view their organizations as more relational than members in organizations where a client’s personal well-being are less central to organizational operations. 168 This brings us to the final purpose of this study, which is to understand the ways in which different types of audiences might inform the nature of the identity orientation construct. The results of a series of two-way ANOVAs examining organizational member perceptions of individualistic, relational and collectivistic identity orientations and client-type are presented in Table XLIII. The results indicate that members perceptions of identity orientation in the for- profit sector on average, significantly differ according to how frequently the organization serves non-paying service recipients (F= 2.24, p < 0.10) families (F = 2.66, p < 0.05), and government organizations (F = 3.06, p < 0.05). An analysis of the marginal means shows that individuals working in for-profit organizations that always serve non-paying service recipients view their organizations as less individualistic (m =3.43) than those working in organizations that never serve non-paying service recipients (m =3.56) a difference which is significant (p < 0.01). Similarly, the data indicate that individuals working in for-profit organizations that always serve families view their organizations as significantly more relational (m = 4.07, p < 0.01) than those working in organizations that never serve families (m = 3.32). Lastly, the marginal mean of individuals working in for-profit organizations that always serve government organizations (m =4.47) indicates that they view their organizations as significantly more collectivistic (p < 0.01) than those working in organizations that never serve government organizations (m = 3.30). TABLE XLIII: TWO-WAY ANOVA OF IDENTITY ORIENTATION BY HOW OFTEN CLIENTS ARE SERVED (F-STATISTICS) Corporations Non-Paying Government Nonprofit & Other For- Paying Service Families R2 Organizations Organizations Profit Customers Recipients Businesses Individualistic For-Profit 0.82 0.99 0.17 0.28 2.24+ 1.22 15.29 Nonprofit 0.46 1.15 0.37 1.25 1.76 0.73 17.02 169 Government 2.47** 0.63 0.13 2.06+ 0.61 1.36 18.02 Relational For-Profit 1.14 1.43 0.53 0.13 0.70 2.66** 18.01 Nonprofit 0.69 0.64 1.91 0.25 2.91** 3.06** 24.70 Government 1.52 0.44 0.37 2.19+ 2.14+ 1.16 22.63 Collectivistic For-Profit 3.06** 1.50 1.14 0.34 0.63 2.03+ 24.72 Nonprofit 0.80 2.96** 2.70** 0.37 1.55 3.64** 29.27 Government 0.60 0.53 0.94 1.73 0.58 1.37 14.83 In nonprofit organizations, views of identity orientation significantly differ depending on whether individuals work in organizations that primarily serves non-paying service recipients (F = 2.91, p < 0.05) families (F = 3.06, p < 0.05; F = 3.64, p < 0.05), other nonprofit organizations (F=2.96, p < 0.05) and corporations (F=2.70, p < 0.05). More specifically, an analysis of the marginal means shows that individuals working in nonprofits that serve non-paying individuals view their organizations as significantly more relational (m = 4.15) than individuals working in nonprofit organizations that never serve this population (m = 3.60). Similarly, individuals working in nonprofits that often serve families view their organizations as significantly more relational (m = 3.80) and significantly more collectivistic (m= 4.18) than individuals working in nonprofit organizations that rarely serve families (m = 3.66/4.03). The marginal means also indicate that individual working in nonprofits that serve corporations and other for-profit organizations view their organizations as significantly less collectivistic (m=3.43) than those who work in organizations who never serve corporations and other for-profit entities (m=4.02). Conversely, those individuals working in nonprofit organizations that primarily serve other nonprofits perceive their organizations to be significantly more collectivistic (m = 4.29) than those individuals working in organizations that never serve other nonprofits (m = 3.97). 170 In government organizations significantly, different views of identity orientation occur depending on whether the organization primarily serves other government organizations (F = 2.47, p < 0.05) paying customers (F = 2.06, p < 0.10; F=2.19, p < 0.10) and non-paying service recipients (F = 2.14, p < 0.10). As indicated by the marginal means individuals in government organizations that always serve paying customers view their organizations as significantly more individualistic (m=3.51) as compared to those in organizations that never serve this type of client (3.13). Similarly, individuals working in organizations that always serve other government organizations perceive their organization to be significantly more individualistic (m=3.44) than individuals working in organizations that never serve other government organizations (m=3.13). Interestingly, employees working in government organizations that serve individuals view their organization as significantly more relational and more collectivistic (p < 0.01) than employees in government organizations that never or rarely serve individuals, regardless of whether or not they pay. Overall, these results indicate that who an organization serves can help us to better understand the nature of the identity orientation construct within and across the for-profit, nonprofit and public sectors. However, unlike was hypothesized, the relationship between client- type and perceptions of identity orientation seem to differ across sectors. For example, in the public sector, organizational members tend to view their organization as more individualistic the more often they serve other government organizations, whereas members in for-profit organizations tend to view their organization as more collectivistic the more often they serve government organizations. That said, to the extent that a pattern of association between perceptions of organizational identity orientation and client-type emerge, they seem to occur most frequently between perceptions of relational organizational identity orientations and how 171 often organizations serve non-paying individuals or families. In order to further explore these relationships, as well as others previously outlined, in a predictive, controlled setting, I next will run a series of OLS models. The aim of these models is to confirm the exploratory findings thus far, while controlling for other potentially confounding factors at the individual level. 4. Using Predictive Models to Examine the Nature of OIO In order to further investigate how factors such as industry, client-type and service orientation help to explain the variable perceptions of identity orientation among organizational members in the for-profit, nonprofit and public sectors, I ran a series of OLS regression models. OLS models are appropriate when dependent variables are averaged measures derived from a Likert-type scale. Organizational member perceptions of individualistic, relational and collectivistic organizational identity orientation are the dependent variables used in these analyses (Please see the discussion beginning on page 140 for a full discussion on how these variables were constructed). The key independent variables of interest in this study are industry, client-type and service orientation. I ran three OLS models exploring the relationship between the key independent variables and perceptions of individualistic, relational and collectivistic organizational identity orientation among respondents in each sector. Thus, in total, I ran nine OLS models. The variables representing “client-type” were measured through a survey question asking respondents to indicate how often their organization provides goods or services to government, nonprofit and for-profit organizations, as well as, paying customers, non-paying service recipients and families. Responses ranged from 0 to 5 with 0 being never and 5 being always. The variable “service-orientation” was measured through a survey question asking respondents to indicate which statement best describes the nature of the services their organizations provide. 172 Response choices included, “highly-personal services”, “technical project-based services” or “practical everyday services” (see pages 79-81 for how each of these are defined). Because this analysis is concerned specifically with whether or not respondents are members in organizations providing highly personal services, the variable is dichotomous, with 1 representing that the organization provides primarily highly personal services and a 0 representing that they do not. The industry variables are unique to each sector. These variables are also dichotomous with a 1 representing that the respondents’ organization is a member of a particular industry and a 0 representing that they are not (see pages x-x for a list of sector specific industries and how industries were chosen). In addition to key dependent and independent variables, a number of individual level controls were included in the models. More specifically, the models control for gender, race, education, age, position and income level. These were included based on theories which indicate that “identity is sometimes negotiated across distinct sets of individuals who appreciate and promote different aspects of identity as a function of their individual traits and characteristics,” (Brickson, 2005, p. 587). The variable “female” in coded one if the respondent identifies as female, and zero if they do not. Education is measured using eight categories (1= less than high school; 2=high school/ged, 3=some college, 4 = 2-year college degree, 5 = 4-year college degree, 6 = master’s degree; 7 = professional degree (JD, MD) and 8 = doctoral degree). Race is represented with a dichotomous variable where 1 = white/Caucasian and 0 = all other races. Age is a continuous variable ranging from 18 to 70 with a mean of 36. Income level is measured using eight categories (1= less than US $20k, 2 = US 20-29K, 3= US 30-39K, 4= US 40-49K, 5= US 50-59K, 6 = US 60-69k, 7= US 80-89K, 8 = more than US 90k). Lastly, position indicates level within the organization (1 = temporary employee or independent contractor; 2 = hourly 173 employee, 3 = salaried employee, 4 = manager, 5 = director or senior manager, 6 = executive). Descriptive statistics for all model variables can be found in Appendix X. The results in Tables XLIV – XLVI present the results of the OLS models. Robust standard errors are used to correct for heteroscedasticity common in cross sectional analysis. For ease of interpretation standardized coefficients are reported. The findings in Table XLIV indicate that overall, employee views of individualistic organizational identity orientations in the for-profit sector are significantly associated with industry, client type and whether or not the organization provides highly personal services. More specifically, I find that the more often organizations serve non-paying individuals, the degree to which employees agree that individualistic identity orientations characterize their organization decreases (b = - 0.16; p < 0.01). Conversely, the more often for-profit organizations serve families and government organizations, the degree to which employees view relational and collectivistic identity orientations as characteristic of their organization increased, respectively (b=0.17, p < 0.01; b = 0.27, p < 0.01). Consistent with theoretical expectations, industry is also related to views of organizational identity orientation in the for-profit sector. For example, the data in Table XLIV indicate that the degree to which employees see their organizations as more relational and collectivistic when they work in the Health and Human Services industry (b = 0.56, p < 0.05; b = 0.54, p < 0.05). TABLE: XLIV: MEMBER VIEWS OF ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTITY ORIENTATION IN THE FOR-PROFIT SECTOR 174 Individualistic Model Relational Model Collectivistic Model Coef RSE t β Coef RSE t β Coef RSE t β Primary Clients/Customers Government Organizations 0.06 0.06 1.00 0.08 0.11 0.07 1.51 0.14 0.27 0.08 3.36 *** 0.33 Nonprofit Organizations 0.04 0.08 0.50 0.05 -0.11 0.09 -1.29 -0.14 0.08 0.09 0.87 0.09 Corporations 0.09 0.06 1.55 0.14 0.04 0.07 0.54 0.06 -0.04 0.07 -0.49 -0.05 Families -0.01 0.07 -0.22 -0.02 0.17 0.06 2.68 *** 0.25 0.06 0.07 0.92 0.09 Individuals – Paying Customers 0.04 0.07 0.68 0.07 -0.02 0.06 -0.28 -0.02 -0.07 0.06 -1.16 -0.11 Individuals – Nonpaying Clients -0.16 0.06 -2.54 *** -0.23 -0.08 0.07 -1.19 -0.11 -0.02 0.06 -0.34 -0.03 Industry Agriculture, Food, Nutrition 0.50 0.38 1.32 0.10 0.39 0.54 0.72 0.07 0.09 0.80 0.11 0.02 Arts, Technology & Comm. 0.31 0.31 0.99 0.11 0.00 0.32 -0.01 0.00 0.41 0.32 1.28 0.13 Business 0.08 0.51 0.16 0.02 -0.11 0.41 -0.26 -0.02 0.25 0.35 0.71 0.05 Health and Human Services 0.18 0.22 0.83 0.08 0.56 0.25 2.25 ** 0.23 0.54 0.25 2.16 ** 0.22 Hospitality and Tourism 0.36 0.33 1.10 0.10 0.18 0.43 0.42 0.05 0.15 0.39 0.39 0.04 Professional, Tech. & Scientific -0.02 0.20 -0.11 -0.01 0.31 0.24 1.27 0.13 -0.25 0.26 -0.94 -0.11 Manufacturing and Construction -0.73 0.47 -1.56 -0.18 0.05 0.31 0.18 0.01 -0.44 0.43 -1.02 -0.10 Marketing and Sales 0.18 0.24 0.73 0.07 0.36 0.26 1.37 0.13 0.25 0.32 0.79 0.09 Type of Service Provided Highly Personal Services 0.31 0.15 1.99 ** 0.18 0.53 0.16 3.37 *** 0.28 0.22 0.16 1.38 0.12 Individual Level Controls Female 0.07 0.16 0.43 0.04 0.01 0.17 0.05 0.00 -0.03 0.17 -0.18 -0.02 White 0.02 0.19 0.12 0.01 -0.12 0.18 -0.68 -0.06 -0.03 0.18 -0.17 -0.01 Education -0.16 0.07 -2.35 ** -0.22 -0.11 0.07 -1.43 -0.14 -0.01 0.08 -0.12 -0.01 Age 0.00 0.01 0.15 0.01 -0.02 0.01 -2.00 ** -0.19 -0.01 0.01 -1.70 + -0.16 Position -0.03 0.08 -0.38 -0.03 0.10 0.10 1.05 0.10 0.07 0.09 0.80 0.07 Income 0.03 0.04 0.89 0.09 0.05 0.04 1.39 0.14 0.04 0.04 1.06 0.12 Constant 3.52 0.59 5.98 3.51 0.63 5.56 3.01 0.58 5.21 Individualistic Model: Number of obs. = 144; F( 21, 122) = 2.52; Prob > F = 0.0009; R-squared = 0.2031; Root MSE = 0.83551 Relational Model: Number of obs. = 144; F( 21, 122) = 2.2; Prob > F = 0.0035; R-squared = 0.2467; Root MSE = 0.88576 Collectivistic Model: Nubmer of obs. 144; F( 21, 122) = 3.13; Prob > F = 0.000; R-squared = 0.2598; Root MSE = 0.88165 175 Lastly, in line with Hypothesis 4, working in an organization that primarily provides highly personal services in the for-profit sector is positively and significantly associated with the degree to which employees characterize their organization as having a relational identity orientation (p < 0.01). Interestingly, provision of highly personal services also has a positive and significant association with the degree to which employees in the for-profit sector characterize their organization as having an individualistic identity orientation (p < 0.05). In the nonprofit sector, employee views related to organizational identity orientation are also significantly related to the industry that their organization is a part of, how frequently the organization serves particular types of clients, and the primary type of services provided by the organization. More specifically, the findings in Table XLV indicate that the more frequently nonprofit organizations serve corporations or other for-profit businesses, the degree to which employees view individualistic identity orientations as characteristic of their organization increases (b = 0.14, p < 0.10). On the other hand, the more often nonprofits serve non-paying individuals, the degree to which employees view a relational identity orientation as characteristic of their organization increases. Table XLIII also indicates that serving families is positively and significantly associate with the degree to which employees view their organization as having a collectivistic identity orientation (p < 0.01). Lastly, in line with Hypothesis 4, the more frequently nonprofit organizations serve other nonprofits, the degree to which employees view their organization as having a collectivistic identity orientation increases (b = 0.11, p < 0.05). As was the case in the for-profit sector, industry is also related to views of organizational identity orientation in the nonprofit sector. The data in Table XLV indicate that employees in religious nonprofits tend to view their organizations as significantly less individualistic (b = - 0.63, p < 0.01). 176 TABLE: XLV: MEMBER VIEWS OF ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTITY ORIENTATION IN THE NONPROFIT SECTOR Individualistic Model Relational Model Collectivistic Model Std. Coef RSE t β Coef RSE t β RSE t β Err Primary Clients/Customers Government Organizations 0.02 0.08 0.25 0.03 0.05 0.06 0.78 0.08 -0.03 0.06 -0.45 -0.05 Nonprofit Organizations -0.04 0.06 -0.67 -0.07 -0.03 0.05 -0.52 -0.05 0.11 0.05 2.11 ** 0.22 Corporations 0.14 0.08 1.82 + 0.20 0.02 0.06 0.30 0.03 -0.09 0.06 -1.40 -0.14 Families 0.04 0.06 0.58 0.05 0.09 0.07 1.38 0.13 0.20 0.07 2.79 *** 0.31 Individuals – Paying Customers 0.05 0.04 1.21 0.11 0.03 0.04 0.76 0.07 -0.03 0.04 -0.75 -0.07 Individuals – Nonpaying Clients 0.02 0.05 0.40 0.03 0.10 0.05 1.92 + 0.17 -0.02 0.05 -0.44 -0.04 Industry Religious -0.63 0.24 -2.59 *** -0.22 0.33 0.22 1.49 0.12 -0.14 0.21 -0.67 -0.05 Environment and Animals -0.26 0.30 -0.86 -0.06 0.28 0.23 1.18 0.07 0.78 0.23 3.40 *** 0.21 Arts, Culture and Humanities 0.38 0.24 1.58 0.12 0.40 0.27 1.50 0.13 -0.03 0.24 -0.11 -0.01 Health -0.04 0.17 -0.26 -0.03 -0.22 0.16 -1.45 -0.15 -0.01 0.16 -0.09 -0.01 Human Services 0.04 0.20 0.18 0.02 0.11 0.20 0.56 0.05 -0.11 0.21 -0.54 -0.06 Public and Societal Benefit -0.08 0.24 -0.31 -0.02 0.32 0.26 1.20 0.10 0.37 0.19 1.92 + 0.13 Mutual Membership and Benefit -0.48 0.24 -2.01 ** -0.08 0.38 0.35 1.09 0.07 0.08 0.37 0.23 0.02 Type of Service Provided Highly Personal Services 0.27 0.14 2.03 ** 0.16 0.33 0.13 2.57 *** 0.20 0.14 0.13 1.11 0.09 Individual Level Controls Female 0.41 0.12 3.44 *** 0.24 0.16 0.12 1.30 0.10 0.00 0.11 0.03 0.00 White -0.13 0.16 -0.82 -0.07 0.20 0.15 1.34 0.11 0.05 0.13 0.36 0.03 Education 0.05 0.06 0.88 0.08 0.00 0.05 -0.06 0.00 0.11 0.05 2.12 ** 0.18 Age 0.00 0.01 0.89 0.07 0.00 0.01 -0.41 -0.03 0.00 0.01 0.69 0.06 Position -0.01 0.06 -0.10 -0.01 0.01 0.05 0.21 0.02 -0.03 0.05 -0.58 -0.04 Income 0.01 0.02 0.33 0.03 0.04 0.02 1.84 + 0.12 0.02 0.02 0.65 0.06 Constant 1.95 0.52 3.75 2.40 0.45 5.35 2.62 0.45 5.79 Individualistic Model: Number of obs = 178; F( 20, 157) = 3.09; Prob > F = 0.0000; R-squared = 0.2097; Root MSE = 0.72786 Relational Model: Number of obs = 178; F(20, 157) = 3.04; Prob > F = 0.0001; R-squared = 0.1790; Root MSE 0.70468 Collectivistic Model: Number of obs = 178; F(20, 157) = 1.98; Prob > F = 0110; R-squared = 0.1892; Root MSE 0.65525 177 Similarly, employees in mutual membership and benefit organizations, such as those concerned with alliances and advocacy, also view their organizations as less individualistic (b = - 0.48, p < 0.05) than employees in other nonprofit industries. While no significant relationships were found between industry and views of relational identity orientations in the nonprofit sector, the degrees to which employees view the organizations as having a collectivistic identity orientation increases if they work in environmental or animal-related organizations (p < 0.01). Lastly, in line with Hypothesis 4, working in an organization that primarily provides highly personal services in the nonprofit sector is positively and significantly associated with the degree to which employees characterize their organization as having a relational identity orientation (p < 0.01). Interestingly, just as in the for-profit sector, the provision of highly personal services also has a positive and significant association with the degree to which employees characterize their organization as having an individualistic identity orientation in the nonprofit sector (p < 0.05). Table XLVI indicates that views of organizational identity orientation in the public sector are significantly related to the industry that an organization is a part of and how frequently the organization serves particular types of clients or customers. However, unlike in the for-profit and nonprofit sector regression models, and as was confirmed in an earlier exploratory difference of means tests, no significant relationship was found between views of organizational identity orientation and whether or not the organization provides highly personal services. When it comes to client-type, we see a significant association between views of organizational identity orientation and two client-groups including other government organizations and non-paying service recipients. More specifically, the data indicate when individuals work in government organizations that frequently provide goods and services to other government organizations, they view their organization as more individualistic (b = 0.16, p < 0.05), all else being equal. 178 TABLE XLVI: MEMBER VIEWS OF ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTITY ORIENTATION IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR Individualistic Model Relational Model Collectivistic Model Coef RSE t β Coef RSE t β Coef RSE t β Primary Clients/Customers Government Organizations 0.16 0.08 2.00 ** 0.21 0.04 0.09 0.46 0.05 0.07 0.06 1.12 0.11 Nonprofit Organizations -0.12 0.09 -1.24 -0.15 -0.05 0.09 -0.61 -0.07 -0.04 0.07 -0.61 -0.07 Corporations 0.01 0.09 0.07 0.01 -0.07 0.08 -0.88 -0.09 0.05 0.08 0.64 0.07 Families -0.01 0.08 -0.19 -0.02 0.04 0.07 0.56 0.05 0.08 0.06 1.21 0.11 Individuals – Paying Customers 0.07 0.05 1.31 0.11 0.03 0.05 0.54 0.04 -0.02 0.04 -0.55 -0.05 Individuals – Nonpaying Clients 0.05 0.06 0.88 0.07 0.11 0.05 2.10 ** 0.15 0.08 0.05 1.72 + 0.14 Industry National Security & Intntl. Affairs 0.53 0.35 1.49 0.10 -0.51 0.43 -1.17 -0.09 0.26 0.31 0.84 0.06 United States Postal Service 0.22 0.44 0.50 0.04 -0.49 0.37 -1.31 -0.09 -0.54 0.40 -1.36 -0.12 Executive, Legislative and Support -0.65 0.52 -1.25 -0.13 -0.37 0.39 -0.95 -0.07 0.43 0.29 1.51 0.10 Health, Human Resources & Veterans -0.18 0.21 -0.90 -0.07 -0.48 0.20 -2.45 ** -0.18 0.00 0.16 -0.03 0.00 Environment -0.35 0.39 -0.89 -0.04 -0.52 0.68 -0.76 -0.06 -0.19 0.48 -0.40 -0.03 Housing, Urban Planning & Com Dev -0.10 0.47 -0.20 -0.01 0.07 0.50 0.14 0.01 0.02 0.53 0.03 0.00 Justice, Public Order, Public Safety -0.42 0.22 -1.93 + -0.15 -0.94 0.25 -3.82 *** -0.34 -0.40 0.19 -2.07 ** -0.17 Economic Programs -0.47 0.29 -1.64 + -0.15 -0.34 0.29 -1.19 -0.11 -0.14 0.25 -0.58 -0.05 Type of Service Provided Highly Personal Services 0.03 0.19 0.18 0.02 0.18 0.18 1.00 0.09 0.28 0.15 1.87 0.17 Individual Level Controls Female 0.08 0.15 0.55 0.04 0.27 0.14 1.88 + 0.14 0.23 0.12 1.90 + 0.14 White -0.03 0.18 -0.18 -0.01 0.06 0.17 0.33 0.02 0.19 0.14 1.31 0.09 Education -0.08 0.07 -1.24 -0.11 -0.06 0.08 -0.83 -0.08 0.00 0.06 -0.02 0.00 Age 0.00 0.01 0.49 0.04 -0.01 0.01 -0.83 -0.06 0.00 0.01 0.06 0.00 Position -0.04 0.10 -0.36 -0.03 -0.01 0.13 -0.09 -0.01 -0.09 0.08 -1.15 -0.09 Income 0.08 0.03 2.49 *** 0.20 0.04 0.03 1.16 0.09 0.06 0.03 2.14 ** 0.18 Constant 2.80 0.54 5.14 3.40 0.57 5.94 2.80 0.49 5.71 Individualistic Model: Number of obs = 203; F( 21, 181) = 2.12; Prob > F = 0.0045; R-squared = 0.1505; Root MSE = 0.95602 Relational Model: Number of obs = 203; F( 21, 181) = 3.03; Prob > F = 0.0000; R-squared = 0.2141; Root MSE = 0.91392 Collectivistic Model: Number of obs = 203; 21, 181) = 2.21; Prob > F = 0.0028; R-squared = 0.1802; Root MSE = 0.78385 179 On the other hand, individuals working in government organizations that frequently serve non- paying view their organizations as more relational (b = 0.11, p < 0.05) and collectivistic (0.08, p < 0.10). In addition to client-type, industry is also related to views of organizational identity orientation in the public sector which is consistent with theoretical expectations. Specifically, employees working in organizations dealing with economic programs such as consumer protection or small business development tend to view their organizations as significantly less individualistic (b = -0.47; p < 0.10). Table XLVI also indicates that the degrees to which employees view their organization as having an individualistic (b=-0.42, p < 0.10) relational (b = -0.94, p < 0.01) or collectivistic (b= -0.40, p < 0.05) identity orientation decreases significantly if they work in the justice, public order and public safety industry. I should note that some individual level controls were associated with certain perceptions of identity orientation in each sector, but as was demonstrated in Brickson’s (2005) seminal study on organizational identity orientation, few consistent patterns emerged within and across sectors. Table XLVII provides a recap of the analyses performed in this section and whether or not they confirmed the hypotheses proposed in chapters 2 and 3. Hypothesis #1 was partially confirmed. In line with historical role standards and normative sector assumptions, results indicate that on average members of the public and nonprofit sector tend to view their organizations more collectivistic than members in the for-profit sector when it comes to how they answer the question, who are we as an organization vis-à-vis our stakeholders. Organizational members in the for-profit sector on the other hand tend on average to view their organizations as more individualistic than members in the public and nonprofit sectors. However, the perceived differences in views of individualism were not significantly different between members in the for-profit and nonprofit sectors. 179 180 While member perceptions of identity orientation tend on average to align with tradition and normative sector assumptions, with the exception of for-profit and nonprofit member views of individualism, Hypothesis 2 posited that variation within each sector will exist. The data confirm this hypothesis. Approximately 88% of nonprofit members and 78% of government members agree that individualistic identity orientation statements are at least somewhat characteristic of their organizations and 84% of for-profit members agree that collectivistic identity orientations statements are at least somewhat characterize their organization. Thus, while average member perceptions of identity orientation align with traditional sector norms, in some instances they also significantly differ. Further, the data indicate that all three orientations are represented to some extent in each sector. As, such the findings here confirm Hypothesis 2, which posits that all three orientations will be reflected simultaneously in member perceptions within each sector. In order to better understand the factors associated with different perceptions of organizational identity orientation within each sector industry, client-type and service orientation were examined. Hypothesis 3 posits that member perceptions of organizational identity orientation will differ significantly within each sector based on the industry that their organization is a part of. These findings are partially supported. In the for-profit sector, only membership in the health and human services industry is associated with member perceptions of relational and collectivistic identity orientations. Conversely, nonprofit industry membership seems more often to be associated with negative views of individualism, with only membership in Animal and Environment related organizations being positively related to views of collectivism. In the public sector, industry membership is either negatively associated with views of individualism or negatively associated with views of relationalism and collectivism. Taken 180 181 together, these findings are painting a picture of industry as a variable which may predict anomalies in the expected traditional organization identity orientation of organizations within a particular sector as a whole. However, in the case of nonprofits, industry seems also to be an indicator of strong alignment with historical sector norms. When it comes to the association between service-orientation and client-type, the data also present varied associations in each sector. While two-sample difference of means tests show that employees in organizations that provide primarily highly personal services have significantly higher mean relational identity orientation scores than those in organizations that provide other types of services, OLS models confirm this relationship only exists in the for-profit and nonprofit sectors, all else being equal. Significant relationships between client groups and perceptions of each organizational identity orientation appear in most instances to be sector specific, rather than client group specific. For example, there is a positive association between for-profit organizational members perceptions of collectivistic identity orientations when their organization serves government organizations more frequently. Conversely, there is a positive association between government employees’ views of individualistic identity orientation when their organizations serve government organizations more frequently. If a discernable pattern across sectors does exist, it would be the association between service to families and non-paying service recipients and perceptions related to relational identity orientations. TABLE XLVII: REVIEW OF ALL EMPIRICAL FINDINGS Description Confirmed? Justification Organizational members in the Results from one-way ANOVA test nonprofit and public sectors will show that members in the public, primarily view their nonprofit and for-profit sector view Hypothesis #1 PARTIAL organizations as having a identity orientation differently. A collectivistic organizational planned pairwise comparison of identity orientation; whereas means however indicated that while 181 182 those in the private for-profit members in the public and nonprofit sector will primarily view their sector view their organizations as organizations as having an significantly more collectivistic than individualistic organizational members in the for-profit sector, and identity orientation for-profit members view their organizations as more individualistic, differences in views of individualism were only significantly different between members in the for-profit and public sector. A frequency table shows that a percentage of organizational All three identity orientations members in each sector view their will be reflected by member organization as having Hypothesis #2 perceptions of identity YES individualistic, relational and orientation in the for-profit, collectivistic identity orientations. nonprofit and public sectors Chi-square tests indicate that these differences are significant One-way ANOVA results and post hoc Pairwise Comparison of Means testing indicate significant mean differences in views of Member perceptions of individualistic and collectivistic organizational identity identity orientations between some orientation will differ industries in the nonprofit sector and Hypothesis #3 PARTIAL significantly within each sector significant mean differences in views based on the industry that their of relational and collectivistic organization is a part of identity orientations between some industries in the public sector. OLS regression models confirm some of these differences and illuminate others in all sectors Two-sample difference of means tests show that employees in Employees will view their organizations that provide primarily organization as reflecting a highly personal services have relational identity orientation if it significantly higher mean relational primarily provides highly identity orientation scores than those Hypothesis #4 PARTIAL personal services where the in organizations that provide other centrality of the client types of services. This is true across relationship to organizational all sectors. However, OLS models operations is high confirm this relationship only in the for-profit and nonprofit sector, all else being equal 182 183 In some instances, these relationships were confirmed, but not in any consistent manner across all Employees in organizations that sectors. Rather, significant primarily provide goods and relationships between client groups services to for-profit businesses and perceptions of each will view their organization’s organizational identity orientation identity orientation as appear in some circumstances to be individualistic, those in sector specific, rather than client Hypothesis #5 organizations that primarily serve PARTIAL group specific. OLS model results individuals and families will see confirm and in some cases, expand them as more relational, and the ANOVA findings across all those in organizations that groups and sectors with the primarily serve nonprofits and exception of the significant public agencies will view them as relationships between paying more collectivistic. customers and perceptions of individualistic and relational identity orientations among organizational members in the public sector. Taken together, the results from these are important for a number of reasons. First, the results of the OLS models, confirm and in some cases, expand the earlier exploratory findings about the relationship between perceptions of organizational identity orientation within each sector and factor such as industry, client-type and the nature of services provided by an organization. The relationship between highly personal services and perceptions of relational organizational identity orientation in the public sector, as well as views of individualistic and relational orientations in government organizations that primarily service paying customers, were the only three cases where the regression models failed to confirm earlier significant or marginally significant exploratory findings. Second, while patterns were not uniform across sectors, these analyses confirm that the industry an organization is a part of, who the organization serves and the types of services they provide, are all important factors that help in part to explain member perceptions of organizational identity orientation 183 184 Chapter 7 – Summary and Implications 1. Summary Organizations today are operating in environments that are more fluid and dynamic than at any other time in recent history. Macro-level forces such as globalization and the rise of market authority have redefined organizational fields and increased the information load with which organizations must contend. To survive and thrive organizations have responded by recognizing their common enterprise and interacting more. As a result, the proverbial lines of demarcation between the market, state and civil society have faded. While public and nonprofit organizations have long balanced competing values, debates in Public Administration and Nonprofit Management have for decades questioned whether increased interactions between organizations across sectors, and the cross-pollination of ideas and values have negatively impacted the identity of the public and nonprofit sectors. More specifically, supporters see the acceptance and integration of market-oriented values such as individualism and as a way for public and nonprofit organizations to survive and thrive in the new economy. Critics, on the other hand, view the spread of a market-ethos as an invasion that is challenging not only sector identity, but also identity orientation or the fundamental ways in which organizations define who they are in relationship to their stakeholders. Ultimately, the aim of this research is to better understand how organizational members across sectors view identity orientation in the blended age of organizing. How might we expect organizational members to answer the question answer, who are we as an organization vis-à-vis our stakeholders? Literature on the public-private distinction tells us that the identities of organizations occupying the market, state or civic society have long been shaped by fundamentally different historical role standards. Whereas the identity of the for-profit 184 185 sector has long been defined primarily by the attainment of efficiency and the maximization of self-interest, that of the public and nonprofit sectors has been shaped by values such as inclusion, fairness and pursuit of the common good. Theories of organizational identity indicate that these early developmental standards are significant and organizations rarely deviate from them (Whetten, 2006). When deviations do occur, it is often only in the wake of prolonged environmental changes or disruptions (Baum, 1996; Brickson, 2002). While traditional role standards are fundamental to sector identity, the market state and civil society have never operated completely independently of one another, or independently of what some may consider competing values and motivations. Further, prolonged changes at the macro-level such as globalization and a rise in market authority, as well as increased interactions among different organizations has only increased demands upon organizations to fulfill multiple roles and meet multiple standards, simultaneously. In short, organizations across all sectors today face similar environmental pressures to be and do all things. As theories of isomorphism indicate, when faced with similar environmental pressures, organizations respond in similar ways, leading to similarity in structure and form. Stated another way, “diversity in organizational form is isomorphic to environmental diversity,” (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983, p. 149). Given the diverse environments organizations operate in today in conjunction with the need to fulfill competing role standards, the first central research question of this study aims to explore how such multiplicity manifests in member views of identity orientation. As such, I ask, does organizational identity orientation primarily reflect historical role standards in the for-profit, nonprofit and public sectors or do varied identity orientations exist? Theories of organizational ecology remind us that organizations are nested, with communities of organizations comprised of populations and sub-populations each with their own unique environmental relationships. Thus, 185 186 while processes of homogenization and isomorphism at the sector or “community” level are inextricably linked to larger environmental forces that are today more diverse than ever, the expectation that such diversity will be uniform among all populations and sub-population within that community is not a given. This brings to light the second and final research question in this study which asks, do sector level expectations about the nature of organizational identity orientation remain constant or change when looking at specific organizational populations and sub-populations within each sector? In order to answer these question, I use a mixed method approach to examine how organizational members within and across sectors view the nature of assumed relations between their organization and its stakeholders (Brickson, 2005). Do they view them primarily as independent entities, dyadically interdependent partners, or as group members? These questions required investigation at three levels of analysis; the community or sector level, the population level and the sub-population level. Approaching the study in this manner allows me to addresses a number of important gaps in the literature. First, the organizational identity orientation framework puts forth a parsimonious set of motivational assumptions about the fundamental nature of stakeholder relationships, which allows for the examination of the identities of organizations in the public and nonprofit sector without making a priori assumptions about what ought to be valued or how organizations should understand their roles vis a vis stakeholders. This is something normative work across fields has struggled with. Second, organizational identity orientation is a construct that travels easily across levels of analysis, making it well positioned to advance related normative work among communities, populations and sub-populations of organizations. Lastly, in addition to bridging ideas such as values and motivations and traveling easily across levels of analysis, it speaks directly to a decades long debate in public 186 187 administration and nonprofit management about identity and the fundamental ways in which organizations understand or define their purpose in relationship to stakeholders and those they serve. The remainder of this chapter highlights the major findings as well as the theoretical and empirical contributions of the study. Then, following a discussion of study limitations, I discuss how the overall findings and contributions from this study can be used as a foundation for future research which focuses both on identifying additional factors that may influence perceptions of identity orientation, as well as on investigating the positive and negative outcomes associated with each orientation. I conclude the chapter by addressing why it’s important to help organizations realize and maximize the positive potential inherent in each orientation and why balance and diversity is so important for properly functioning societies. 2. Major Findings and Contributions One of the major purposes of this research was to develop a measurement model of individualistic, relational and collectivistic identity orientation in order to lessen the gap between the extensive theoretical work published on the topic and empirical research. This dissertation presents the initial steps used to translate the theoretical dimensions of organizational identity orientation into three scales that can be used to produce systematic, generalizable research. Using survey data collected from four independent surveys of over 1,000 individuals across the for- profit, three valid and reliable scales were developed that both replicated previously published findings using qualitative data and produced a number of new findings related to the hypotheses laid out in this manuscript. While the development of these measurement models is alone a major contribution, the findings they produced will be the focus of the remainder of this section. 187 188 Findings from across this study indicate that while member perceptions of organizational identity orientation align with historical role standards, variability exists and can in part be explained by factors such as industry, client-type and service orientation. This section breaks down each of these findings and discusses the practical and theoretical implications. I begin by reviewing major findings and contributions at the sector level and then discuss the impact of population and sub-population level findings. When examining organizational member perceptions of identity orientation at the sector level, findings indicate that while all three orientations are present to some degree in each sector, on average perceptions align closely with traditional role standards. In other words, on average organizational members in the for-profit sector believe that individualistic identity orientations better characterize their organizations than do collectivistic identity orientations. Conversely, organizational members in the public and nonprofit sectors on average view their organizations as significantly more collectivistic than members in the for-profit sector. However, while these differences exist, the findings also indicate that average views individualism across sectors are more closely aligned than are average views of collectivism. Further, while nonprofit members on average view their organizations as less individualistic than those in the for-profit sector, this difference is not significant. Substantively speaking, these results when taken together paint a picture which shows that while differences in member perceptions align with historical role standards across sectors, it is clear that average views of individualism across sectors today are closely aligned and in some cases indistinguishable. These findings can be interpreted in a couple of different ways based on the theories laid out in Chapter 2. First, theories spelling out the purposes of public and nonprofit organizations have noted that citizens have historically expected these organizations to fulfill multiple often 188 189 competing roles as efficient and effective service providers, as well as, value guardians and protectors of the common good (Meier and Bohte, 2007). Thus, sigma-type values that reflect the tenets of economic individualism and theta-type values that reflect the public interest have always been present in the core identities of the public and nonprofit sector (Hood, 1991). To the extent that individualistic and collectivistic organizational identity orientations capture these ideas, it makes sense that both are reflected by organizational members in the public and nonprofit sector. Further, collective or social value has long been seen as antithetical to neo- classical views of the firm, or for-profit sector more generally (Donaldson and Walsh, 2015). Thus, taken together these differing views about the fundamental roles and purposes public, nonprofit and for-profit organizations, it would make sense to see closer alignment across sectors in terms of perceptions related to individualistic identity orientations than with regards to collectivistic orientations. Stated simply, public and nonprofit organizations have always been expected to embrace, to some degree, more individualistic type orientations, but for-profit organizations have not always been expected to embrace more collectivistic types orientations. However, while this study only considers a single point in time, based on the theoretical position outlined above which contends that both individualism and collectivism have always been present in the public and nonprofit sectors to some extent, in conjunction with the findings from this study which show no statistical difference in views of individualism between members in the nonprofit and for-profit sectors, one would have to ask whether or not they believe this indistinguishable difference has always existed or whether or not it is more reflective of today’s society? As discussed in Chapter 2, organizations operating in the market, state and civil society are doing so in new institutional environments shaped in large part by globalization, the rise in 189 190 market authority and the onset of the knowledge economy where interconnectedness is the new norm. Theories of isomorphism suggest that as organizations across sectors conform to the new norm of interconnectedness and respond to multi-directional environmental pressures, they reflect a “similar diversity” in structure, form and output. To the extent that the presence of diverse identity orientations across sectors, capture this idea, the data seem to confirm this. However, given that we also see these weaker perceived differences between average views of individualistic identity orientations across sectors, and no discernable difference between member views of individualism in the nonprofit and for-profit sectors, we might also conclude that the spread of neoliberal capitalism and the expansion of market authority have been most influential at this point in time, as organizations have sought to become compatible with 21st century operating environments. Stated simply, regardless of sector, the mean of all organizations is close in terms of its individualistic orientation given the nature of larger institutional operating environments today. While I lack longitudinal data to test such an assumption directly, a strong theoretical case can be made in favor of this interpretation. Taken together, these findings provide rich insights into the ways in which organizational members across sectors view the fundamental nature of stakeholder relationships, without making a priori assumptions with regards to how they should. In some ways, these findings might both reassure and worry critics of marketization in the public and nonprofit sectors that see the influence of individualistic values as a threat to the collective and democratic identities of public and nonprofit organizations. On the whole, members in public and nonprofit organizations today do see their organizations as significantly more collectivistic than members in for-profit organizations. More specifically, the data indicate that on average, organizational members in the public and nonprofit sectors view the fundamental nature of the relationship between their 190 191 organizations its stakeholders from a more collectivistic orientation that emphasizes the advancement of community and social welfare. However, mean views related to individualism are close, and in the case of nonprofits, differences between for-profit and nonprofit members are not significant. To the extent that individualistic identity orientations capture the essence of marketization, the data seem to indicate that the trend might be more pronounced in the nonprofit sector than in public organizations, one possible reason being that market saturation has fueled greater competition for resources among nonprofits. In public organizations, despite historical role standards that demand adherence to individualistic values and given the nature of the institutional operating environments of the 21st century which are dominated by market authority, views of individualism remain significantly lower than in for-profit organizations today, but then views of collectivism also remain significantly lower in public organizations as compared to nonprofit organizations. Taken together, these findings might indicate that public organizations overall have less freedom to relate to stakeholders as they wish, and in this regard, are less malleable to certain environmental pressures. The picture that is emerging then is one in which it is clear that individualism is being embraced today and defines to some extent how organizations answer the question who are we as an organization vis a vis our stakeholders; however, such orientations have not replaced historical role standards which tend to promote a more collectivistic orientation. In addition to expanding our understanding of the organizational identity orientation construct at the sector level, findings from this study suggest that examining the construct at the population and sub-population can also expand our knowledge of its nature. More specifically, an organization’s population or industry, as well as the clients it serves and the types of services it provides, all inform member perceptions of organizational identity orientation to varying 191 192 degrees within each sector. Overall, in the for-profit sector we see that these factors help to explain when member perceptions deviate from traditional sector norms, which might ascribe individualistic identity orientations to for-profit organizations. More specifically, when a significant relationship between industry, client-type and service-orientation exists, it is most often positively associated with relational and collectivistic identity orientations. For example, membership in the health and human services industry was positively and significantly associated with perceptions of both relational and collectivistic identity orientation. Similarly, perceptions of relational and collectivistic identity orientation were also positively associated with service to families and government organizations, respectively. In the public and nonprofit sectors, industry, client-type and service orientation help to explain both when member perceptions of identity orientation align and deviate from traditional sector norms. In both sectors, client-type was positively associated with member perceptions of individualistic organizational identity orientations, which might be seen as a deviation from sector norms. More specifically, perceptions of individualistic identity orientations were positively associated with nonprofit service to corporations and government service other government organizations. An important extension of this is finding that when organizations in the nonprofit and public sectors primarily serve individuals or families, organizational members view their organizations as more relational or collectivistic. While organizations across all sectors may on average be closer today in terms of the views of individualism or individualistic orientations than collectivism as the previous discussion highlighted, these findings suggest that stronger views of individualism are partially related to who the organization is serving, rather than a blanket prescription for how all public and nonprofit organizations view the fundamental 192 193 nature of their relationships with stakeholders. This raises interesting questions with regards to who organizations collaborate with or feel accountable to and wedded to serve. Similarly, stronger views of individualism in the public and nonprofit sectors, are also in part explained by the industry that an organization is a part of. For example, weaker views of individualistic identity orientations were associated with membership in religious and mutual benefit organizations. In the public sector, weaker views of relationalism and collectivism were associated with membership in industries such as public order, public safety and justice organizations. The finding that organizational members in the public safety, public order and justice industry view their organizations as less relational than members in other government organizations also seems “make sense” from and identity perspective. By design, these organizations are ultimately accountable to the law and to uphold values of equity no matter who the “client” is. Tailored responses based on individual needs are simply not permitted. That being said, given the current predicaments that many public safety organizations find themselves in today, the finding showing weaker views of collectivism among organizational members in this industry, might raise some questions, given that client expectations of these organizations are to advance the welfare of the communities they serve. Conversely, because members in this industry tend to view their organizations as less individualistic, relational and collectivistic, it could also be that they simply have less freedom to relate to stakeholders how they wish. Taken together, these findings indicate that in the public and nonprofit sector deviations from expected relational or collectivistic orientations seem to be driven in part by who the organization serves and what industry they are a part of. While important in their own right, the findings related to industry, client-type and service orientation help to advance theory related to organizational identity orientation more 193 194 broadly. First, the findings in this study, in large part replicate those from Brickson’s (2005) seminal study on organizational identity orientation in the for-profit sector. Second, they replicate Brickson’s (2005) findings using newly constructed measurement models for the individualistic, relational and collectivistic identity orientation constructs. Thus, not only do the findings highlight the importance of specific population and sub-population level variables in predicting organizational identity orientation, but they help to further confirm the validity of the newly created empirical constructs, given the replicability of the findings. Lastly, these findings in conjunction with the sector level outcomes, highlight the importance of approaching identity orientation from an ecological perspective that views organizations as hierarchically nested. More specifically, these findings indicate that population and sub-population level characteristics such as industry, client type and service orientation define to some extent the unique social and material milieu faced by organizational populations and sub-populations within each sector and help to explain sources of variability and homogeneity in terms of organizational identity orientation. 3. Conclusions and Paths for Future Research Understanding organizational identity orientation, or how organizational members answer the question, who are we as an organization vis-à-vis our stakeholders is important not only because it outlines the fundamental basis for sanctioned action toward stakeholders but also because it situates an entity in a much larger institutional space that gives it power and helps to shape its impact on society. Thus, whether or not organizational members perceive their organization as having an individualistic, relational or collectivistic identity orientation likely has implications for the structure of stakeholder relationships as well as the positive value that it creates both internally and externally. By better understanding how organizations are oriented 194 195 toward stakeholders can therefore help us to understand and shape their impact and help them to reach their fullest positive potential. Before discussing the relationship of study findings to these larger outcomes and how they can create paths for future research, it is necessary to highlight the limitations of this study. The use of Amazon’s Mechanical Turk platform for data collection purposes allowed for the development and validation of individualistic, relational and collectivistic organizational identity orientation models that can be applied across sectors. In addition, it allowed for an examination of organizational identity orientation from multiple perspectives, thus allowing for a better understanding of the construct at different levels of analysis. However, the sampling methodology does have some drawbacks. First, while the methodology allows for inference at the community and population levels, it does not allow for the sampling of multiple individuals within the same organization. While this study and other previous studies have not found general organizational variables to significantly impact these relationships require further attention. Further, by using MTurk, industry membership cannot be determined prior to analysis thus resulting in industry sample sizes with unequal N’s. An ideal model would be able to control for industry sample size when comparisons across industries are warranted. Future studies examining the links between sector, industry and organizational identity orientation can improve upon this work by constructing a sample that permits a true hierarchical analysis, that can control for environmental, organizational and individual level factors. Lastly, as with any analysis that relies on cross-sectional survey data, the ability to make causal claims is limited. It is important to stress that there is no assertion of causation here, rather the study is constructed to be exploratory in nature so as to better understand the nature of the organizational identity orientation construct from multiple perspectives. Further, while the findings from this study can 195 196 help us to understand what organizations look like in today’s globalized, marketized economy, and theory can be used as a window to the past to help understand possible differences, it is absolutely necessary to point out that the findings here represent only those from a single point in time. An ideal future study will continue to examine these trends from a longitudinal perspective to examine actual change. Despite these limitations this research takes an important first step in the development of a quantitative measurement model of the organizational identity orientation construct and highlights the nature of the construct at multiple levels of analysis, thus creating a strong foundation for future paths of research. Based on the findings from this study I propose four avenues for future research. First, and perhaps at a most basic level, additional attempts should be made to validate the measurement model constructs for individualistic, relational and collectivistic identity orientation and to confirm the empirical results among diverse samples and populations. For example, it would be useful to examine whether organizational member perceptions of identity orientation in the same industry significantly differ across sectors (e.g. for-profit educational institutions versus nonprofit educational institutions versus public educational institutions). Similarly, given that public organizations at the local level may have more freedom to shape stakeholder relationships in different ways, it would be valuable to examine whether perceptions of identity orientation differ according to level of government (e.g. local, state or national). Lastly, Brickson (2005) contends that to the extent that actors can choose their environments and those with whom they interact, they do have considerable freedom to relate to stakeholders as they wish, thus aiding in the determination of organizational identity orientation. As such, it may also be beneficial to explore the ways in which certain variables unique to public and nonprofit organizations such as funding diversity and publicness may constrain such freedom and thus 196 197 impact perceptions of organizational identity orientation Exploring the nature of organizational identity orientation in relationship to other factors such as these and among additional populations will only help to flesh out a theoretical framework applicable across all sectors. Second, the results from this study indicate that no one sector can be characterized solely as individualistic, relational or collectivistic. Rather, all three orientations are reflected to some degree by member perceptions of organizational identity orientation within each sector. This diversity is important given that, “society’s needs are multiple and that businesses of each orientation address only a subset of those needs,” (Brickson, 2007, p. 883). A corollary of this is that each orientation is thought to be associated with the production of diverse forms of social value (See Brickson 2007 for a full review). Individualistic identity orientations, which champion uniqueness and stress superiority, are often associated an increased ability to generate virtues of being “brave” thereby helping to enhance individual innovation and ambition. In addition, these organizations are apt to be proficient at generating wealth or engendering prestige, which can be reinvested into social initiatives or used as a way to confer status and power on a global stage. Relational identity orientations tend to champion virtues of being “caring” thereby helping to increase feelings of self-acceptance and dignity. As such relational organizations can cultivate nurturing relationships and empathy and are often good at providing tailored care to meet the particular needs of direct customers or clients. Lastly, virtues of being “just” are most often championed by collectivistic orientations thereby helping to promote solidarity and cooperation. Collectivistic organizations are well-suited to create social capital and a spirit of citizenship, foster high impact organizational communities and advance social causes. Having established a measurement model for the identity orientation constructs and a baseline understanding of the nature of the construct within and across sectors, future research 197 198 that examines empirically the relationships between each orientation and their influence on the creation of social value, would be incredibly valuable in helping to establish what kinds of organizations within and across sectors are creating particular types of value. Does the social value produced by for-profit organizations look different than that of nonprofit organizations or public organizations if all espouse individualistic identity orientations? Or, does sector matter? Further, each of these orientations is also associated with negative potentialities. While individualistic organization may be well equipped to spur innovation and generate wealth, they can also overemphasize economic values and permit excessive competition. Relational organizations while poised to foster empathy and understanding may also cause issue avoidance or co-dependency. Collectivistic organizations are unique in their ability to unite and advance causes but such orientations can also promote conformity and exclusion of dissimilar viewpoints. Can organizations mitigate the negative while enhancing the positive potentialities of their orientations? Understanding these particularities will help to develop a more theoretically robust framework of organizational identity orientation and at a practical level can perhaps help organizations to identify and produce the social value most aligned with their own identities (Brickson, 2007). Third, as discussed in previous chapters, it is not unusual for organizations to possess multiple or “hybrid” identities (Albert and Whetten, 1985). The results from this study show that diverse identity orientations exist within sectors and industries. Further, it is clear from the data that while organizational members in the public and nonprofit sectors view their organizations as more collectivistic than for-profit organizations, fewer differences exist when considering average views of individualism. Based on these findings, it would be incredibly valuable to understand if and how this variation manifests at an organizational level. Are public and 198 199 nonprofit organizations more likely to balance multiple identity orientations than are for-profit organizations as a result of the complex demands they face? If so, what factors are associated with multiplicity at this level? Further, Brickson (2005) contends that while it is not uncommon for organizations to balance multiple, sometimes competing identities, “it may be more problematic for members to view organizations as relating to stakeholders in completely different ways (e.g. self-interested and other oriented),” (p. 581). If organization in the public and nonprofit sectors are performing a balancing act in terms of identity orientation, are there problems associated with such multiplicity? Or, can they be combined for a harmonious effect? Lastly, it is important to address again the finding that average views of individualism are closer across sectors than are average views of collectivism. Further, there were no discernable differences in member perceptions of individualistic identity orientations in the nonprofit and for-profit sectors. Brickson (2007) contends that, “to the extent that only one view of organizations is advanced […] we will see excess of that orientation,” (Brickson, p. 883). If the relatively close views of individualism across sectors are a reflection of macro environmental forces that have championed the worth of particular values and types of organizations the findings from this study seem to support this assertion. While individualistic identity orientations are not inherently negative or bad, and have the potential to produce distinct forms of social value, an excess of any orientation is likely to be “characterized both by an upsurge in negative consequences associated with that orientation and by whole subsets of needs not being addressed […] some argue that this occurred with collectivism in communist regimes,” (Brickson, 2007, p. 883). But what is to be done? Champion theories of public values and public interest that counterbalance economic individualism (Bozeman, 2007)? Refuse a market discourse by creating a democratic counter discourse (Eikenberry, 2009)? Champion theories of business that 199 200 honor, “the dignity of those who affect and are affected by the creation of wealth,” (Donaldson and Walsh, 2015, p. 203)? The answer is likely, yes, all of the above. The results of this study indicate that future research should strive to produce theories that conceive of organizations and their worth holistically. Bennis (1967) noted that, “every age develops an organizational form appropriate to its genius” (p. 220). New vocabularies and theories were enough to spur a decades long commitment to the re-inventing government movement and associated policies that narrowly shaped organizational forms and their worth across sectors. While perhaps appropriate for its time, these forms have served their purpose, are now in excess and arguably are outdated in the blended age of organizing. Our dedication to scholarship that advances new ways of thinking about the positive potentialities of all organizations and orientations can certainly define and shape new forms. Of course, efforts are already underway to do just this. I end with two quotes from scholars, city managers and nonprofit leaders which illustrate just the rethinking I am championing as a future path of research. “Love and freedom ... are core values of the municipality of the future. You may be wondering about the choice of words and feeling that it sounds a bit “old hippie.” The welfare state is not an insurance company. We can't resort to offering a lifelong compensation for lost abilities and missing relationships. Instead we have to think about rehabilitation, well- being, technology, and citizenship. […] In short, we need each other. Not to save money. Not to cut jobs. [...] But for more well-being and more closeness. That is not unique to us.” (See Gittel & Storch, 2016) “The definition of prosperity must be an expansive one. Some view prosperity as simple financial well-being. We are interested in a special kind of well-being, one that honors the dignity of those who affect and are affected by the creation of that wealth. We are interested in the kind of well-being that reflects a world of business where its focal and contextual purposes are met […] Our fondest hope is that future generations will continue to imagine and work to create a world of 200 201 business that honors the dignity of those who affect and are affected by its activity” (Donaldson and Walsh, 2015). 201 202 APPENDICES APPENDIX A - FULL ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTITY ORIENTATION SURVEY (PHASE 1) Q1 Dear Participant You are being asked to take part in a research project about working in for-profit, non-profit and government organizations in the U.S. There are four requirements to participate in this study. (1) You must be at least 18 years of age (2) You must live in the United States (3) You must be employed in the United States (4) You are NOT eligible to respond to this survey if you took our previous survey (i.e. have ever completed one of our Mturk HITS) If you do not meet these criteria, you will not receive payment for participating in the study. The following information is provided for you to decide whether you wish to participate. Your participation involves the completion of an online survey about the organization you work for. The content of the survey should cause no more discomfort than you would experience in your everyday life. Your participation in this survey is anonymous. No personal information will be released to anyone outside the study or associated in any way with the research findings. All data collected will be stripped of personal identifiers by the Mturk system. Participation in the survey is voluntary and indicates your willingness to participate in this project and that you meet the requirements listed above. Upon completion of the survey, you will be given a unique code that can be used to collect payment. You will be paid $.75 for filling out the survey accurately and completely. This study is being conducted by researchers at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) which supports the practice of protection for people participating in research. If you agree to participate, you are free to withdraw your responses at any time in the future by contacting Julie Langer, the Principal Investigator overseeing this study at [email protected]. You may also contact the Principal Investigator if you would like additional information concerning this study before or after it is completed 202 203 Thank you in advance for completing the survey. Your participation will help us to better understand organizations in the United States. Q2 Please enter your Amazon Mechanical Turk Worker ID ______ Page Break Q3 What type of organization do you work for? o PRIVATE FOR-PROFIT company or business (1) o NON-PROFIT tax exempt or charitable organization (2) o GOVERNMENTAL agency (city, county, state or federal) (3) End of Block: Default Question Block Start of Block: Block 1 Q4 SECTION 1 This section asks you to describe the organization that you CURRENTLY work for. When answering the question(s): Think about your organization in terms of those qualities that are most central (defining) distinctive (distinguishable from those of other organizations) and enduring (long-term). Think about your organization as a whole, not in terms of specific individuals or departments. Answer in terms of how the organization is, rather than how you would like it to be. 203 204 Page Break Q5 Below are 10 fill-in-the-blank items. Please complete each sentence, inserting 10 words or phrases that best describe your organization. No need to organize your answers in any specific order, just try to answer as fast as you can. o My organization is (1) ______ o My organization is (2) ______ o My organization is (3) ______ o My organization is (4) ______ o My organization is (5) ______ o My organization is (6) ______ o My organization is (7) ______ o My organization is (8) ______ o My organization is (9) ______ o My organization is (10) ______ End of Block: Block 1 Start of Block: Block 2 204 205 Q6 SECTION 2 This section asks you to review a series of statements that describe different types of organizations. You will need to decide how well each statement describes the organization that you CURRENTLY work for. Think about your organization in terms of those qualities that are most central (defining), distinctive (distinguishable from those of other organizations) and enduring (long-term). Think about your organization as a whole, and not in terms of specific individuals or departments. Please answer in terms of how the organization is, rather than how you would like it to be Page Break Q7 Please read the following statements carefully and indicate how well each describes the organization that you CURRENTLY work for 205 206 Not very Not at all Somewhat A great deal Completely Q8 MY much like like my like my like my like my ORGANIZATION.. my organizatio organizatio organizatio organizatio . organizatio n (1) n (3) n (4) n (5) n (2) mainly promotes individual values such as power, ambition and o o o o o independence (1) is mainly concerned with being a considerate and thoughtful partner o o o o o (2) exemplifies the shared values of a unified group, collective, or o o o o o collaborative (3) does not work hard to differentiate itself from competitors (4) o o o o o emphasizes the importance of understanding the individual needs of others with whom it o o o o o has close relationships (5) mostly promotes collective values such as unity, belonging, and o o o o o community (6) embodies a sense of superiority (7) o o o o o does not stress relationship loyalty (8) o o o o o 206 207 is primarily motivated to pursue ideological objectives, values, o o o o o or causes (9) is largely concerned with developing relationships based on a the pursuit of a collective agenda or o o o o o ideological objective (10) competes with other similar organizations in order to be the best o o o o o (12) is concerned first with maximizing its own welfare, rather than the welfare of o o o o o others (13) Page Break 207 208 Not very Not at all Somewhat A great deal Completely Q9 MY much like like my like my like my like my ORGANIZATION.. my organizatio organizatio organizatio organizatio . organizatio n (1) n (3) n (4) n (5) n (2) is primarily motivated to maximize its own good fortune, o o o o o prosperity, well- being, welfare (13) is personable, where relationships are based on mutual concern and trust o o o o o (15) is divided and struggling to come together around a common agenda o o o o o (16) is ordinary, few factors set it apart from other similar o o o o o organizations (17) mostly promotes relational values as sincerity, empathy, o o o o o and compassion (12) is focused on building consensus around a larger cause, ideological o o o o o objective, or set of shared values (11) wants to be seen as an unrivaled leader in its field (10) o o o o o 208 209 is indifferent to the personal needs of others with whom it has close o o o o o relationships (9) is mostly concerned with being a conscientious team o o o o o player (8) emphasizes differences rather than similarities with other like o o o o o organizations (7) is primarily motivated to connect in a close and personal way o o o o o with others (24) emphasizes similarities rather than differences with other like o o o o o organizations (25) sacrifices personal relationships in order to be the best o o o o o (26) 209 210 Q10 MY ORGANIZATION.. . Not very Not at all Somewhat A great deal Completely much like like my like my like my like my my organizatio organizatio organizatio organizatio organizatio n (1) n (3) n (4) n (5) n (2) is exceptional and rare (25) o o o o o is genuinely concerned with ensuring the success of others, especially those with whom it o o o o o has close relationships (26) is concerned with maximizing the welfare of a group, cause, or o o o o o community it values (27) forms relationships simply as a means to help the organization excel o o o o o (28) above all, is devoted to being a good relationship partner o o o o o (29) expresses a sense of unity around collective goals and ideological o o o o o objectives (30) 210 211 emphasizes the importance of contributing to the organization's larger o o o o o community (31) emphasizes the importance of forming strong interpersonal o o o o o relationships (32) forms relationships based on a desire to make a joint contribution to a larger cause or o o o o o collective agenda (33) Please answer "completely like my organization" to this o o o o o question (34) forms relationships simply because close ties and connections are o o o o o fundamentally valued (35) forms relationships primarily to ensure the organization's o o o o o welfare (36) sees inherent value in forming deep relationships and connections with o o o o o others (37) End of Block: Block 2 Start of Block: Block 4 211 212 Q11 SECTION 3 In this section you will be asked to rank three statements that could best describe the organization where you work. Read all three statements. Put a "1" next to the statement that is MOST like your organization. Put a "2" next to the statement that is SECOND most like your organization. Put a "3" next to the statement that is LEAST like your organization. EACH NUMBER SHOULD ONLY BE USED ONE TIME PER QUESTION Think about your organization as a whole, and not in terms of specific individuals or departments. Please answer in terms of how the organization is, rather than how you would like it to be Page Break Q12 Response Options: 1 = Most like my organization 2 = Second most like my organization 3 = Least like my organization It is most important that my organization work toward ______Promoting and maintaining its own welfare (e.g. the organization's own advantage and well-being, not others) (1) ______Improving the welfare of others with whom the organization has close relationships (e.g. employees, contractors, clients, customers, stakeholders) (2) ______Promoting the welfare of a group, cause, or community it values or belongs to (e.g. those with whom it interacts as a common group; a group of like organizations, society (3) Page Break Q13 Response Options: 1 = Most like my organization 212 213 2 = Second most like my organization 3 = Least like my organization It is essential that my organization maintain ______Its distinctiveness from other organizations (1) ______Its close relationships with others whose welfare it values (e.g. employees, contractors, clients, customers, stakeholders) (2) ______Its connection with a larger group, cause, or community that it values or belongs to (e.g. those with whom it interacts as a common group: a group of like organizations, society (3) Page Break Q14 Response Options: 1 = Most like my organization 2 = Second most like my organization 3 = Least like my organization My organization is viewed primarily as ______A devoted partner to those with whom it interacts (e.g. employees, contractors, clients, customers, stakeholders) (1) ______A unified member of a larger group, cause or community (e.g. those with whom it interacts as a common group: a group of like organizations, society) (2) ______An exceptional entity that stands apart from other organizations (3) Page Break Q15 Response Options: 1 = Most like my organization 2 = Second most like my organization 3 = Least like my organization 213 214 If my organization were a person, I would describe it as ______An athlete: strong, competitive and confident: focused on standing out, being the best and maximizing its own welfare (e.g. a concern for the organization's own advantage and well- being) (1) ______A best friend: understanding, committed and trustworthy; focused on being a caring and dependable partner that takes care of the personal needs of others (2) ______An activist: unified, conscientious and just; focused on being a team player and promoting the welfare of a larger group or cause (3) Page Break Q16 Response Options: 1 = Most like my organization 2 = Second most like my organization 3 = Least like my organization If my organization were a person, I would describe it as ______A competitor: Driven, self-motivated and aggressive; focused on achieving individual goals (1) ______A confidant: honest, supportive and forgiving; focused on understanding and respecting the needs of others with whom it has close relationships (2) ______An advocate: idealistic change agent; focused on promoting a sense of belonging and meaning within a group and championing its interests (3) End of Block: Block 4 Start of Block: Block 5 Q17 SECTION 4 In this section you will be presented with a list of characteristics that could describe the organization that you work for. Please review the characteristics carefully and determine how 214 215 well each describes the organization that you CURRENTLY work for. Please think about your organization as a whole, and not in terms of specific individuals or departments. Please answer in terms of how the organization is rather than how you would like it to be Page Break 215 216 Q18 How well do each of the following Not very Not at all Somewhat Very much Completely characteristics much like like my like my like my like my describe the my organization organization organization organization organization organization (1) (3) (4) (5) that you (2) CURRENTLY work for? People oriented (1) o o o o o Respectful of individual rights (2) o o o o o Supportive (3) o o o o o Fair (4) o o o o o Achievement oriented (5) o o o o o Opportunistic (6) o o o o o Competitive (7) o o o o o Team oriented (8) o o o o o Socially responsible (9) o o o o o Tolerant (10) o o o o o please answer "completely like my organization" o o o o o to this question (11) 216 217 Collaborative (12) o o o o o Risk taking (13) o o o o o Innovative (14) o o o o o Aggressive (15) o o o o o Demanding (16) o o o o o Autonomous (17) o o o o o End of Block: Block 5 Start of Block: Block 6 Q19 SECTION 5 In this last section, you will be asked to complete a few questions about yourself. Please answer truthfully. Page Break Q20 Before voting I thoroughly investigate the qualifications of ALL candidates o True (1) o False (2) 217 218 Q21 It is sometimes hard for me to to go on with my work if I am NOT encouraged o True (1) o False (2) Q22 No matter who I'm talking to, I'm ALWAYS a good listener o True (1) o False (2) Q23 I CAN remember "playing sick" to get out of something o True (1) o False (2) Q24 I am ALWAYS willing to admit it when I make a mistake o True (1) o False (2) 218 219 Q25 At times I have really insisted on having things my own way o True (1) o False (2) Page Break Q26 What is your race? o White/Caucasian (1) o African American (2) o Hispanic (3) o Asian (4) o Native American (5) o Pacific Islander (6) o Other (7) ______ Page Break 219 220 Q27 What is the highest level of education you have completed? o Less than High School (1) o High School / GED (2) o Some College (3) o 2-year College Degree (4) o 4-year College Degree (5) o Masters Degree (6) o Professional Degree (JD, MD) (7) o Doctoral Degree (8) Page Break Q28 What is your gender? o Male (1) o Female (2) o Other (please specify) (3) ______ Page Break 220 221 Q29 What is your annual income range? THIS QUESTION IS OPTIONAL o Below $20,000 (1) o $20,000 - $29,999 (2) o $30,000 - $39,999 (3) o $40,000 - $49,999 (4) o $50,000 - $59,999 (5) o $60,000 - $69,999 (6) o $70,000 - $79,999 (9) o $80,000 - $89,999 (7) o $90,000 or more (8) Page Break Q30 Approximately how long have you worked for your current organization? o Less than 1 year (1) o 1 - 5 years (2) o 6 - 10 years (3) o 11 - 15 years (4) o 16 - 20 years (5) o 20 + years (6) Page Break 221 222 Q31 Which major occupational group best describes your employment? ▼ Architecture and Engineering (1) ... Transportation and Material Moving (24) Page Break Q32 What is the name of the organization that you work for? This question is OPTIONAL ______ Page Break 222 223 APPENDIX B – FULL ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTITY ORIENTATION SURVEY (PHASE 2) Q1 Dear Participant You are being asked to take part in a research project about working in for-profit, non-profit and government organizations in the U.S. There are THREE requirements to participate in this study. (1) You must be at least 18 years of age (2) You must live in the United States (3) You must be employed in the United States If you do not meet these criteria, you will not receive payment for participating in the study. In addition, you will not receive payment for participating in the study if you try to take the survey more than once, or provide inaccurate or incomplete information or fail to meet quality checks. The following information is provided for you to decide whether you wish to participate. Your participation involves the completion of an online survey about the organization you work for. The content of the survey should cause no more discomfort than you would experience in your everyday life. Your participation in this survey is anonymous. No personal information will be released to anyone outside the study or associated in any way with the research findings. All data collected will be stripped of personal identifiers by the Mturk system. Participation in the survey is voluntary and indicates your willingness to participate in this project and that you meet the requirements listed above. Upon completion of the survey, you will be given a unique code that can be used to collect payment. You will be paid $0.85 for filling out the survey accurately and completely. This study is being conducted by researchers at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) which supports the practice of protection for people participating in research. If you agree to participate, you are free to withdraw your responses at any time in the future by contacting Julie Langer, the Principal Investigator overseeing this study at [email protected]. You may also contact the Principal Investigator if you would like additional information concerning this study before or after it is completed Thank you in advance for completing the survey. Your participation will help us to better 223 224 understand organizations in the United States. Page Break 224 225 Q2 Please enter your Amazon Mechanical Turk Worker ID ______ Page Break Q3 What type of organization do you CURRENTLY work for? o PRIVATE FOR-PROFIT company or business (1) o NON-PROFIT tax exempt or charitable organization (2) o GOVERNMENTAL agency (city, county, state or federal) (3) 225 226 Display This Question: If What type of organization do you CURRENTLY work for? = PRIVATE FOR-PROFIT company or business Q4 What industry is your organization a part of? o Accommodation and food service (1) o Administrative and support services (2) o Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting (3) o Arts, entertainment, and recreation (4) o Construction (5) o Educational services (6) o Finance and insurance (7) o Health Care and social assistance (8) o Information (9) o Management of companies and enterprises (10) o Manufacturing (11) o Mining, quarrying and oil and gas extraction (12) o Professional scientific technical (13) o Real estate, rental and leasing (14) o Retain trade (15) o Transportation and warehousing (17) o Utilities (18) o Wholesale trade (19) o Other (20) 226 227 Display This Question: If What type of organization do you CURRENTLY work for? = NON-PROFIT tax exempt or charitable organization Q5 What industry is your organization a part of? o Animal related (1) o Arts, culture and humanities (2) o Civil rights, social action and advocacy (3) o Community Improvement and capacity building (4) o Crime and legal related (5) o Diseases, disorders and medical disciplines (6) o Education (7) o Employment (8) o Enviroment (9) o Food Agriculture and Nutrition (10) o Health care (11) o Housing and shelter (12) o Human services (13) o International, foreign affairs, and national security (14) o Medical research (15) o Mental health and crisis intervention (16) o Mutual membership and benefit (17) o Public safety, disaster preparedness, and relief (18) o Recreation and sports (19) 227 228 o Religious related (20) o Science and technology (21) o Social science (22) o Youth Development (23) o Other (24) 228 229 Display This Question: If What type of organization do you CURRENTLY work for? = GOVERNMENTAL agency (city, county, state or federal) Q6 What industry is your organization a part of? o Agriculture and commodities (1) o Air and water resource and solid waste management (2) o American Indian and Alaska Native tribal governments (3) o Communications, electric and gas (4) o Conservation (5) o Correctional institutions (6) o Courts (7) o Education (8) o Executive offices (e.g. Governor's Office, Mayor's Office, President's Office (9) o Fire Protection (10) o General Economic Programs (e.g. consumer protection, small business development, economic development, trade commission) (11) o Housing (12) o Human Resources (13) o International Affairs (14) o Legal counsel and prosecution (15) o Legislative bodies (e.g. advisory commissions, city and town councils, congress) (16) o National security (17) o Parole offices and probation offices (18) 229 230 o Police protection (19) o Public finance activities (20) o Public health (21) o Regulation, licensing and inspection of commercial sectors (22) o Space research and technology (23) o Transportation (24) o Urban planning and community and rural develo9pment (25) o Veterans affairs (26) o Other (27) Display This Question: If What industry is your organization a part of? = Other Or What industry is your organization a part of? = Other Or What industry is your organization a part of? = Other Q7 Please specify the industry your organization is a part of ______ Page Break 230 231 Display This Question: If What type of organization do you CURRENTLY work for? = NON-PROFIT tax exempt or charitable organization Or What type of organization do you CURRENTLY work for? = GOVERNMENTAL agency (city, county, state or federal) Q8 If you had to choose ONLY from these categories, how would you classify the industry your organization belongs to? o Accommodation and food service (1) o Administrative and support services (2) o Agriculture, forestry, fishing, hunting (3) o Construction (4) o Educational Services (5) o Finance and insurance (6) o Health care and social assistance (7) o Information (e.g. publishers, broadcasting, telecommunications, etc) (8) o Management of companies and enterprises (9) o Manufacturing (10) o Mining quarrying and oil and gas extraction (11) o Professional, scientific, technical (12) o Real estate, rental and leasing (13) o Retail (14) o Transportation and warehousing (16) o Utilities (18) o Wholesale trade (19) 231 232 o Other (please specify) (20) ______ Display This Question: If If you had to choose ONLY from these categories, how would you classify the industry your organiz... = Other (please specify) Q9 Please specify which industry your organization is a part of ______ Page Break Q10 Which of the following groups does your organization PRIMARILY provide goods or services to? o Citizenry as a whole (all citizens) (1) o Congress (2) o Corporations or other private for-profit businesses (3) o Elected officials (4) o Families (5) o Government organizations (6) o Individual consumers (paying customers) (7) o Individuals (non-paying clients) (8) o Interest groups (9) o Nonprofit organizations (10) o Other (11) ______ 232 233 Page Break Q11 How often does your organization provide goods or services to the following groups? Sometimes Never (1) Rarely (2) Often (4) Always (5) (3) Citizenry as a whole (all citizens) (1) o o o o o Congress (2) o o o o o Corporations and other private for- profit o o o o o businesses (3) Elected officials (4) o o o o o Families (5) o o o o o Government organizations (6) o o o o o Individual consumers (paying customers) o o o o o (7) Individuals (non-paying clients) (8) o o o o o Interest groups (9) o o o o o Nonprofit organizations (10) o o o o o 233 234 End of Block: Default Question Block Start of Block: Block 1 Q12 SECTION 1 There is 1 question in this section. You will be asked to DESCRIBE the organization that you CURRENTLY work for. When answering the question please think about: Qualities that are most central (defining) distinctive (distinguishable from those of other organizations) and enduring (long-term) Your whole organization, not specific individuals or departments The way that the organization IS, rather than how you would like it to be Page Break Q13 Below are 5 fill-in-the-blank items. Please complete each sentence, inserting 5 words or phrases that best describe your organization. No need to organize your answers in any specific order, just try to answer as fast as you can. o My organization is (1) ______ o My organization is (2) ______ o My organization is (3) ______ o My organization is (4) ______ o My organization is (5) ______ Page Break 234 235 Q110 Please briefly explain why you chose each of these terms to describe your organization o ${Q13/ChoiceTextEntryValue/1} (1) ______ o ${Q13/ChoiceTextEntryValue/2} (2) ______ o ${Q13/ChoiceTextEntryValue/3} (3) ______ o ${Q13/ChoiceTextEntryValue/4} (4) ______ o ${Q13/ChoiceTextEntryValue/5} (5) ______ End of Block: Block 1 Start of Block: Block 2 Q14 SECTION 2 In this section there are 5 questions. You will be asked to review a series of statements that describe different types of organizations. You will need to decide how well each statement describes the organization that you CURRENTLY work for. As with previous questions please think about: Qualities that are most central (defining), distinctive (distinguishable from those of other organizations) and enduring (long-term). Your whole organization, not specific individuals or departments. The way that your organization IS, rather than how you would like it to be Page Break Q15 Please read the following statements carefully and indicate how well each describes the organization that you CURRENTLY work for 235 236 Page Break Q17 My organization can be described as Not at all like Not very Somewhat Very much Completely my much like my like my like my like my organization organization organization organization organization (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) exceptional (5) o o o o o aggressive (13) o o o o o unique and unlike any other (15) o o o o o the best (29) o o o o o warm (17) o o o o o gentle (16) o o o o o empathic (14) o o o o o cause-driven (1) o o o o o unified around ideological o o o o o objectives (2) community- oriented (3) o o o o o 236 237 Not at all like Not very Somewhat Very much Completely Q18 My my much like my like my like my like my organization organization organization organization organization organization emphasizes (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) how different it is from other similar organizations o o o o o (5) the importance of differentiating itself from other similar o o o o o organizations (13) how superior it is than other similar organizations o o o o o (29) the importance of deep interpersonal o o o o o relationships (17) the importance of being a devoted partner to individual clients, o o o o o customers, citizens or stakeholders (36) 237 238 the importance of its affiliation with a group, cause or o o o o o broader community (16) the importance of its role as a good member o o o o o of society (2) please answer "somewhat like my organization" o o o o o to this item (14) Page Break 238 239 Q19 My Not very organization Not at all like Somewhat Very much Completely much like considers my like my like my like my my itself to be organization organization organization organization organization "doing well" (1) (3) (4) (5) (2) when it is seen as an unrivaled leader in its o o o o o field (5) stands out from other similar organizations o o o o o (13) maintains its distinctiveness from other similar o o o o o organizations (15) contributes to the well-being of individual clients, customers, o o o o o citizens or stakeholders (29) treats individual clients, customers, citizens or o o o o o stakeholders well (17) 239 240 is able to maintain close relationships with individual clients, o o o o o customers, citizens or stakeholders (16) contributes to the well-being of a broader group, cause o o o o o or community (14) advances a larger cause, ideological objective or o o o o o set of shared values (1) Page Break 240 241 Q20 My Not at all like Not very Somewhat Very much Completely organization my much like my like my like my like my is extremely organization organization organization organization organization motivated (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) to outshine other similar organizations o o o o o (5) maximize its own prosperity and good o o o o o fortune (13) excel relative to others like it (15) o o o o o connect with others in a close and personal way o o o o o (29) ensure the welfare of others with whom it has close and o o o o o personal relationships (1) advance the welfare of a broader community o o o o o or cause (17) pursue broader ideological objectives, o o o o o values or causes (16) 241 242 Not at all like Not very Somewhat Very much Completely Q21 My my much like my like my like my like my organization organization organization organization organization organization is (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Achievement- oriented (5) o o o o o Competitive (7) o o o o o Opportunistic (6) o o o o o Risk-taking (13) o o o o o Aggressive (15) o o o o o Autonomous (17) o o o o o Demanding (16) o o o o o Innovative (14) o o o o o People oriented (1) o o o o o Respectful of individual rights (2) o o o o o Supportive (3) o o o o o Tolerant (10) o o o o o Fair (4) o o o o o Team oriented (8) o o o o o 242 243 Socially responsible (9) o o o o o please answer "completely like my organization" o o o o o to this question (11) Collaborative (12) o o o o o Page Break End of Block: Block 2 Start of Block: Block 4 Q22 SECTION 3 In this section there are 5 questions. You will be asked to rank three statements that could best describe the organization that you CURRENTLY work for. Read all three statements. Put a "1" next to the statement that is MOST like your organization. Put a "2" next to the statement that is SECOND most like your organization. Put a "3" next to the statement that is LEAST like your organization. EACH NUMBER SHOULD ONLY BE USED ONE TIME PER QUESTION As with previous questions please think about Qualities that are most central (defining), distinctive (distinguishable from those of other organization) and enduring (long-term)Your organization as a whole and not specific individuals or departmentsThe way that your organization IS rather than how you would like it to be Page Break 243 244 Q23 Response Options: 1 = Most like my organization 2 = Second most like my organization 3 = Least like my organization It is MOST IMPORTANT that my organization work toward ______Promoting and maintaining its own welfare (e.g. the organization's own position, achievements, etc.) (1) ______Improving the welfare of others with whom the organization has close relationships (e.g. employees, contractors, clients, customers, stakeholders) (2) ______Promoting the welfare of a group, cause, or community it values or belongs to (e.g. those with whom it interacts as a common group; a group of like organizations, society (3) Page Break Q24 Response Options: 1 = Most like my organization 2 = Second most like my organization 3 = Least like my organization It is ESSENTIAL that my organization maintain ______Its distinctiveness from other organizations (1) ______Its close relationships with others whose welfare it values (e.g. employees, contractors, clients, customers, stakeholders) (2) ______Its connection with a larger group, cause, or community that it values or belongs to (e.g. those with whom it interacts as a common group: a group of like organizations, society (3) Page Break Q25 Response Options: 1 = Most like my organization 2 = Second most like my organization 3 = Least like my organization 244 245 My organization is viewed PRIMARILY as ______An exceptional entity that stands apart from other organizations (3) ______A devoted partner to those with whom it interacts (e.g. employees, contractors, clients, customers, stakeholders) (1) ______A unified member of a larger group, cause or community (e.g. those with whom it interacts as a common group: a group of like organizations, society) (2) Page Break Q26 Response Options: 1 = Most like my organization 2 = Second most like my organization 3 = Least like my organization If my organization were a person, I would describe it as ______An athlete: strong, competitive and confident: focused on standing out, being the best and maximizing its own welfare (1) ______A best friend: understanding, committed and trustworthy; focused on being a caring and dependable partner that takes care of others' particularized needs (2) ______An activist: an idealistic change agent; focused on creating positive change for society or a broader group (3) Page Break Q27 Response Options: 1 = Most like my organization 2 = Second most like my organization 3 = Least like my organization 245 246 If my organization were a person, I would describe it as ______A Personal Trainer: strong and inspirational; focused on instilling drive, discipline and self-motivation to help individuals achieve their own goals. (1) ______A Parent: loving, supportive and forgiving; focused on understanding, respecting and meeting the particular needs of others with whom it has close relationships (2) ______A Community Organizer: conscientious and just; focused on promoting a sense of unity and belonging (3) End of Block: Block 4 Start of Block: Block 6 Page Break Q28 SECTION 5 - In this section you will be asked a series general questions about you and your organization. Please answer honestly. Page Break Q29 What would you say is the most important thing your organization does? (you may be brief, just try to answer quickly with whatever comes to mind first) ______ Page Break Q30 Do you believe your organization creates social value? o No (1) o Yes (2) 246 247 Display This Question: If Do you believe your organization creates social value? = Yes Q31 In a few words, briefly describe what kind of social value is created by your organization ______ Page Break Q32 Which category best describes the work your organization performs? o Production-oriented (makes or manufactures goods/products for sale OR mining, construction, extraction, etc.) (1) o Service-oriented (provides service to clients or customer) (2) Page Break Display This Question: If Which category best describes the work your organization performs? = Service-oriented (provides service to clients or customer) Q33 Which statement best describes the nature of the services your organization provides? o Highly Personal Services: Services that directly help improve client/customers intrinsic, personal well-being. Employee interactions with clients/customers are deep, long-lasting and often highly complex (e.g. counseling, education, legal, medical, etc) (3) o Technical Project-based Services: Specialized or technical services that help clients/customers accomplish a project or task OR acquire expertise or problem-solving capabilities. Employee interactions with client's customers are moderate in duration and relatively complex (e.g. engineering, economic development, environmental advocacy, finance, etc) (2) o Practical Everyday Services: Routine, uniform and reliable services that help clients/customers accomplish everyday tasks. Employee interactions with clients/customers are often short and not complex allowing the organization to serve relatively large numbers 247 248 of people, relatively quickly (e.g. local bank, museum, restaurant, zoo, department of motor vehicles) (1) o Other: PLEASE EXPLAIN (6) ______ Page Break Q34 Approximately how many individuals work for your organization? o 1-49 (1) o 50-250 (2) o 251-500 (5) o 501-1000 (6) o 1001-4999 (7) o 5000+ (4) o Not sure (8) Page Break 248 249 Q35 What is the highest level of education you have completed? o Less than High School (1) o High School / GED (2) o Some College (3) o 2-year College Degree (4) o 4-year College Degree (5) o Masters Degree (6) o Professional Degree (JD, MD) (7) o Doctoral Degree (8) Page Break Q36 What is your race? o White/Caucasian (1) o African American (2) o Hispanic (3) o Asian (4) o Native American (5) o Pacific Islander (6) o Other (7) ______ Page Break 249 250 Q37 What is your gender? o Male (1) o Female (2) o Other (please specify) (3) ______ Page Break Q38 What is your annual income range? o Below $20,000 (1) o $20,000 - $29,999 (2) o $30,000 - $39,999 (3) o $40,000 - $49,999 (4) o $50,000 - $59,999 (5) o $60,000 - $69,999 (6) o $70,000 - $79,999 (9) o $80,000 - $89,999 (7) o $90,000 or more (8) o I would rather not say (12) Page Break Q39 Approximately how long have you worked for your current organization? 250 251 o Less than 1 year (1) o 1 - 5 years (2) o 6 - 10 years (3) o 11 - 15 years (4) o 16 - 20 years (5) o 20 + years (6) Page Break Q40 What is your age? ______ Page Break 251 252 Q41 How would you describe your position within the organization? o Temporary employee (1) o Hourly employee (2) o Salaried employee (3) o Independent contractor/consultant (4) o Manager (5) o Director or Senior Manager (6) o Executive (7) o Other (8) ______ Page Break Q42 Would you be willing to participate in a 20 minute phone conversation to discuss some of the views you shared here for additional compensation? o No (1) o Yes (2) Display This Question: If Would you be willing to participate in a 20 minute phone conversation to discuss some of the view... = Yes Q43 Please enter your email or phone (preferred contact method) ______ 252 253 Q44 What is the name of the organization that you work for? This question is OPTIONAL ______ 253 254 REFERENCES Albert, S., & Whetten, D. A. (1985). Organizational identity. Research in organizational behavior. Albert, S., Ashforth, B. E., & Dutton, J. E. (2000). Organizational identity and identification: Charting new waters and building new bridges. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 13-17. Agranoff, R. (2007). Managing within networks: Adding value to public organizations. Georgetown University Press. Agranoff, R., & McGuire, M. (1999). Managing in network settings. Review of Policy Research, 16(1), 18-41. Agranoff, R., & McGuire, M. (2001). Big questions in public network management research. Journal of public administration research and theory, 11(3), 295-326. Austin, J. E. (2000). Strategic collaboration between nonprofits and business. Nonprofit and voluntary sector quarterly, 29(suppl 1), 69-97. Bennis, W. (2009). Coming death of bureaucracy. In P. W. Biederman (Ed.), The essential bennis (1st ed., pp. 123) Jossey-Bass. Berger, P. L., & Neuhaus, R. J. (1977). To empower people: The role of mediating structures in public policy (pp. 7-36). Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. Bingham, J. B., Dyer, W. G., Smith, I., & Adams, G. L. (2011). A stakeholder identity orientation approach to corporate social performance in family firms. Journal of business ethics, 99(4), 565-585. Boxenbaum, E., & Jonsson, S. (2008). Isomorphism, Diffusion and Decoupling. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism (pp. 78-98). London: Sage Publications, Incorporated. Bozeman, B. (2007). Public values and public interest: Counterbalancing economic individualism. Georgetown University Press. Bozeman, B., & Moulton, S. (2011). Integrative publicness: A framework for public management strategy and performance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(suppl 3), i363-i380. Brickson, S. (2000). The impact of identity orientation on individual and organizational outcomes in demographically diverse settings. Academy of management Review, 25(1), 82-101. Brickson, S. L. (2002). Organizational Identity Orientation: Making the Link between Organizational Identity and Organizational Behavior (Doctoral Dissertation) Retrieved from DATABASE NAME (ACCESSION NUMBER) 254 255 Brickson, S. L. (2005). Organizational identity orientation: Forging a link between organizational identity and organizations' relations with stakeholders. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(4), 576-609. Brickson, S. L. (2007). Organizational identity orientation: The genesis of the role of the firm and distinct forms of social value. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 864-888. Bromley, P., & Meyer, J. W. (2014). “They Are All Organizations” The Cultural Roots of Blurring Between the Nonprofit, Business, and Government Sectors. Administration & Society, 0095399714548268. Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Bloomberg, L. (2014). Public value governance: Moving beyond traditional public administration and the new public management. Public Administration Review, 74(4), 445-456. CCUN. (2010). Mission. Retrieved from http://www.cccun.net/mission/ Child, C., Witesman, E., & Spencer, R. (2015). The Blurring Hypothesis Reconsidered: How Sector Still Matters to Practitioners. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 1-22. Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of consulting psychology, 24(4), 349. Czarniawska, B., & Wolff, R. (1998). Constructing new identities in established organization fields: Young universities in old Europe. International Studies of Management & Organization, 28(3), 32-56. Ritzer, G., & Dean, P. (2015). Globalization: A basic text. John Wiley & Sons. Dahl, R. A., & Lindblom, C. E. (1953) Politics, economics and welfare. New York: Harper & Brothers. Denhardt, J. V., & Denhardt, R. B. (2006). The new public service: Serving, not steering. ME Sharpe. DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Collective rationality and institutional isomorphism in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147- 160. Donahue, J. D., & Zeckhauser, R. J. (2011). Collaborative governance: Private roles for public goals in turbulent times. Princeton University Press. Donaldson, T., & Walsh, J. P. (2015). Toward a theory of business. Research in Organizational Behavior, 35, 181-207. Eikenberry, A. M. (2009). Refusing the market: A democratic discourse for voluntary and nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. Eikenberry, A. M., & Kluver, J. D. (2004). The marketization of the nonprofit sector: Civil society at risk?. Public administration review, 64(2), 132-140. 255 256 Farazmand, A. (1999). Globalization and public administration. Public administration review, 509-522. Farazmand, A. (2001). Globalization, the state and public administration: A theoretical analysis with policy implications for developmental states. Public Organization Review, 1(4), 437-463. Frederickson, H. G. (1999). The repositioning of American public administration. PS: Political Science & Politics, 32(04), 701-712. Frumkin, P. (2013). Dennis young and supply side theory. In D. R. Young (Ed.), If not for profit, for what?: 2013 Faculty Books. Book I. http://scholarworks.gsu.edu/facbooks2013/1. Frumkin, P., & Andre-Clark, A. (2000). When missions, markets, and politics collide: Values and strategy in the nonprofit human services. Nonprofit and voluntary sector quarterly, 29(suppl 1), 141-163. Frumkin, P., & Galaskiewicz, J. (2004). Institutional isomorphism and public sector organizations. Journal of public administration research and theory, 14(3), 283-307. Gazley, B. (2010). Why not partner with local government? Nonprofit managerial perceptions of collaborative disadvantage. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(1), 51-76. Gazley, B., & Brudney, J. L. (2007). The purpose (and perils) of government-nonprofit partnership. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(3), 389-415. Gittell, J.H., and Storch, J. (2016) Building a Relational Public Sector. Stanford Social Innovation Review. https://ssir.org/articles/entry/building_a_relational_public_sector#bio-footer Glynn, M. A., & Abzug, R. (2002). Institutionalizing identity: Symbolic isomorphism and organizational names. Academy of Management journal, 45(1), 267-280. Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale,NJ: Erlbaum Guo, C., & Acar, M. (2005). Understanding collaboration among nonprofit organizations: Combining resource dependency, institutional, and network perspectives. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 34(3), 340-361. Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons?. Public administration, 69(1), 3-19. Hwang, H., & Powell, W. W. (2009). The rationalization of charity: The influences of professionalism in the nonprofit sector. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54(2), 268-298. International Monetary Fund. (2008). Globalization: A Brief Overview. Retrieved from https://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/ib/2008/pdf/053008.pdf Johansen, M., & LeRoux, K. (2013). Managerial networking in nonprofit organizations: The impact of networking on organizational and advocacy effectiveness. Public Administration Review, 73(2), 355-363. Jørgensen, T. B., & Bozeman, B. (2007). Public values an inventory. Administration & Society, 39(3), 354-381. 256 257 Kaiser, J. (2016, August 19). Meet the Mayor of the Town that Outsourced Everything. Retrieved September 16, 2016, from https://www.illinoispolicy.org/meet-the-mayor-of-the-town- that-outsourced-everything/ Kettl, D. F. (2000). The transformation of governance: Globalization, devolution, and the role of government. Public Administration Review, 60(6), 488-497. Kettl, D. F. (2002). The transformation of governance: Public Administration for Twenty-First Century America.. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University. LeRoux, Kelly, and Mary K. Feeney. (2015). Nonprofit organizations and civil society in the United States. Routledge. Lindblom, C. E. (1977) Politics and markets. New York: Basic Books. Lipsky, M. (1980). Street level bureaucrats. Nova York: Russel Sage. Lohmann, R. A. (2007). Charity, philanthropy, public service, or enterprise: what are the big questions of nonprofit management today?. Public Administration Review, 67(3), 437-444. Meier, K. J., & O'toole, L. J. (2001). Managerial strategies and behavior in networks: A model with evidence from US public education. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11(3), 271-294. Meyer, M. W. (1979). Debureaucratization?. Social Science Quarterly, 60(1), 25-34 Milward, H. B., Provan, K. G., Fish, A., Isett, K. R., & Huang, K. (2010). Governance and collaboration: An evolutionary study of two mental health networks. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20 (2010): 25-41 Moulton, S., & Eckerd, A. (2012). Preserving the publicness of the nonprofit sector resources, roles, and public values. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(4), 656-685. NASA. (2016). Commercial Crew Program. Retrieved from http://www.nasa.gov/content/commercial-crew-program-the-essentials/#.VxkWkPkrLIX Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming government. Reading Mass. Adison Wesley Public Comp. Meier, K. J., & O'toole, L. J. (2001). Managerial strategies and behavior in networks: A model with evidence from US public education. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11(3), 271-294. Page, A., & Katz, R. A. (2012). The truth about BEN & JERRY'S. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 10(4), 39. Perry, J. L., & Rainey, H. G. (1988). The public-private distinction in organization theory: A critique and research strategy. Academy of management review, 13(2), 182-201. Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). The big idea: Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review, 89(1), 2. 257 258 Provan, K. G., & Lemaire, R. H. (2012). Core concepts and key ideas for understanding public sector organizational networks: Using research to inform scholarship and practice. Public Administration Review, 72(5), 638-648. Provan, K. G., & Milward, H. B. (1995). A preliminary theory of interorganizational network effectiveness: A comparative study of four community mental health systems. Administrative science quarterly, 1-33. Rosenbloom, D. H. (1983). Public administrative theory and the separation of powers. Public Administration Review, 219-227. Salamon, L. M., & Anheier, H. K. (1998). Social origins of civil society: Explaining the nonprofit sector cross-nationally. Voluntas: International journal of voluntary and nonprofit organizations, 9(3), 213-248. Sandy Springs, (2016). City History and Culture. Retrieved September 16, 2016, from http://www.sandyspringsga.org/government/city-history-and-culture/public-private-partnership Scholte, J. A. (2000). Globalization: A critical introduction. Palgrave Macmillan. Scott, W. R. (1998). Organizations: Rational, natural, and open systems.Aufl., Englewood Cliffs (NJ). Segal, D. (2012, June 24). Our Town Inc. New York Times, p. BU1. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/24/business/a-georgia-town-takes-the-peoples-business- private.html Smith, S. R. (2010). Nonprofits and public administration reconciling performance management and citizen engagement. The American Review of Public Administration, 40(2), 129-152. Smith, S. R., & Lipsky, M. (2009). Nonprofits for hire: The welfare state in the age of contracting. Harvard University Press. Soros, G. (2005). George Soros on globalization. PublicAffairs. Strange, S. (1996). The retreat of the state: The diffusion of power in the world economy. Cambridge university press. Sullivan III, M. (2015). Fundamentals of statistics. Pearson. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Thompson, F. J. (1994). The winter commission. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 14(2), 5-10. Thurow, L. C. (2000). Globalization: the product of a knowledge-based economy. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 570(1), 19-31. 258 259 Weaver, G. R., Trevino, L. K., & Cochran, P. L. (1999). Integrated and decoupled corporate social performance: Management commitments, external pressures, and corporate ethics practices. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 539-552. Welch, E., & Wong, W. (1998). Public administration in a global context: bridging the gaps of theory and practice between western and non-western nations. Public Administration Review, 40-49. Weisbrod, B. A. (Ed.). (1977). The voluntary nonprofit sector: An economic analysis. Lexington Books. Whetten, D. A. (2006). Albert and Whetten revisited: Strengthening the concept of organizational identity. Journal of Management Inquiry, 15(3), 219-234. Wohl, J. (2016). How ben & jerry's keeps purpose alive. Advertising Age, 87(14), 16. Wolf, K.D. (2008) “Emerging Patterns of Global Governance: The New Interplay between the State, Business and Civil Society.” Pp. 225-248 in Handbook of Research on Global Corporate Citizenship Wriston, W. B. (1992) The Twilight of Sovereignty: How the Information Revolution Is Transforming Our World. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. Young, D. R. (2002). The influence of business on nonprofit organizations and the complexity of nonprofit accountability looking inside as well as outside. The American Review of Public Administration, 32(1), 3-19. Young, D.R., Salamon, L. M. and M.C. Grinsfelder. (2012). “Commercialization, Social Ventures, and For-Profit Competition.” Pp. 521-548 in The State of Nonprofit America. 259 260 VITA Julie A. Langer Address Contact Information University of Illinois-Chicago Direct: 312-731-5753 Dept. of Public Administration Email: [email protected] 412 S. Peoria Street, Suite 115 Secondary: [email protected] Chicago, IL 60607-7064 Education ▪ Ph.D., Public Administration University of Illinois – Chicago, IL Specializations: Public Management & Nonprofit Management. Adviser and Dissertation Committee Chair: Dr. Kelly LeRoux ▪ Dissertation: Organizational Identity and the Nature of Stakeholder Relationships in the Blended Age of Organizing ▪ Committee Members: Dr. Kelly LeRoux, Dr. Mary K. Feeney, Dr. Michael Siciliano, Dr. Shelley L. Brickson, Dr. James Thompson ▪ M.P.A. Public Administration (2011) University of Illinois – Chicago, IL ▪ B.A. Communications (2005) North Park University – Chicago, IL Certification: Conflict Transformation & Peace Building Awards & Recognitions ▪ Distinguished Scholar Award Recipient ($60,000 and tuition waiver awarded by the College of Urban Planning and Public Affairs at the University of Illinois Chicago). ▪ ICPSR Summer Program in Quantitative Methods Scholarship Recipient ($2,000 Awarded by UIC’s College of Urban Planning and Public Affairs) ▪ 2014 Academy of Management Best Paper Award Recipient (Public & Nonprofit Division) ▪ 2016 Doctoral Fellow - Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action (ARNOVA) Publications Langer, J., Feeney, M. K., & Lee, S. E. (2017). Employee Fit and Job Satisfaction in Bureaucratic and Entrepreneurial Work Environments. Review of Public Personnel Administration. LINK TO ONLINE PUBLICATION: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0734371X17693056 Langer, J. and LeRoux, K. (2017) Developmental Culture and Effectiveness in Nonprofit Organizations. Public Performance and Management Review LINK TO ONLINE PUBLICATION: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15309576.2016.1273124 LeRoux, K., & Langer, J. (2016). What Nonprofit Executives Want and What They Get from 260 261 Board Members. Nonprofit Management and Leadership. LINK TO ONLINE PUBLICATION: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/nml.21234/full Feeney, M. K., & Langer, J. (2015). Getting Ahead in the Public-Sector Perceptions of Managers in US Municipalities. The American Review of Public Administration LINK TO ONLINE PUBLICATION - http://arp.sagepub.com/content/early/2015/02/07/0275074015570037.full.pdf?ijkey=iKb87Aynq11AsTH&keytype=finite Langer, J., & Feeney, M. K. (2014). When Employee and Organization Values Align: Job Satisfaction in Local Government. Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 2014, No. 1, p. 13906). Academy of Management. Link TO ONLINE PUBLICATION: http://proceedings.aom.org/content/2014/1/13906.short Papers Under Review LeRoux, K. & Langer, J. Examining the Political Ambition of Nonprofit Organizational Leaders: Proactive Policy Promoters or Reactive Runners? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly (REVISE & RESUBMIT) Conference Presentations Competitors, Activists or Confidants: Sector Blurring, Organizational Identity and the Nature of Stakeholder Relationships. Association for Research on Nonprofit and Voluntary Action. November, 2017. Grand Rapids, MI. Running for a Cause: Findings from a National Study of Nonprofits Leaders Who Run for Elected Office. Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action. November, 2016. Washington D.C. (With Kelly LeRoux) Organizational Culture and Nonprofit Effectiveness: A Competing Values Approach. Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action. November, 2014. Denver, Colorado. (with Kelly LeRoux) When Employee and Organization Values Align: Job Satisfaction in Local Government. Academy of Management Conference. August, 2014. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. (with Mary K. Feeney) What you Know vs. Who You Know: Managerial Perceptions of What It Takes to Get Ahead in Local Government. Midwest Political Science Association. April, 2014. Chicago, Illinois. (with Mary K. Feeney) Explaining the Gap Between What Nonprofit Executive Directors Want and What They Get from Board Members. Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action. November, 2013. Hartford, Connecticut. (with Kelly LeRoux) Published Case Studies Langer, Julie and Mary K. Feeney. Multi-Sector Collaboration in Complex Policy Environments: The case of the Chicago Cook Workforce Partnership. Teaching Case. (2014). 261 262 Cases and Simulations Portal for Public and Nonprofit Sectors at Rutgers School of Public Affairs and Administration. LINK TO PUBLICATION: https://casesimportal.newark.rutgers.edu/multi-sector-collaboration-complex-policy-environments-case-chicago-cook-workforce- partnership Teaching Experience ▪ Urban Government I: Managing the Internal Environment, PA 303, University of Illinois Chicago ▪ Nonprofit Organizations in U.S. Society, PA 230, University of Illinois Chicago (TA) ▪ Introduction to the Policy Process, PA 210, University of Illinois Chicago (Invited Lecturer) Employment History ▪2011 - 2016 Doctoral Fellow – Chicago Cook Workforce Partnership ▪2012 - 2016 Graduate Research Assistant (PhD) University of Illinois at Chicago ▪2009 - 2011 Graduate Research Assistant (MPA) University of Illinois at Chicago. ▪2005 -2009 Communications Manager, Empower Woman Publications Professional Service ▪ Manuscript Reviewer For • Nonprofit Management and Leadership • American Review of Public Administration • Review of Public Personnel Administration Other Activities ▪ Arizona State University Center for Organizational Research and Design, Student Affiliate Nominee ▪ Academy of Management, Public and Nonprofit Division Doctoral Student Consortium, August 2014 Participant 262