Identification in Organizations: An Examination of Four Fundamental Questions

By Blake E. Ashforth, Spencer H. Harrison, Kevin G. Corley. 2008

2,733 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Gender Studies, Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/155f58a7eee8cf2ec6bd91c2f0426be07cd4fa57

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Gender Studies

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

Citations in the corpus

Relationships between transformational and active transactional leadership and followers’ organizational identification: The role of psychological empowerment. (2012, methodology): “…we have proposed and tested a theoretical model that adopts three established theoretical frameworks, including transformational leadership theory (Bass, 1985), organization identification theory (Ashforth et al., 2008; Smidts et al., 2001), and psychological empowerment theory (Spreitzer, 1995).”
Linking organizational identification and employee performance in teams: the moderating role of team-member exchange (2011, background): “Ashforth et al. (2008) further put forward that identity cues are important for deep-level identification.”
Do employees value strategic CSR? A tale of affective organizational commitment and its underlying mechanisms (2019, background): “…does not necessarily compel employees to engage in firm‐contributing behaviors (de Jong & van der Meer, 2017; Riketta, 2005), as it only implies that people perceive a shared oneness with their organization (Ashforth et al., 2008; Kreiner & Ashforth, 2004; Mael & Ashforth, 1992; Vough, 2012).”
Competitive intelligence collection and use by sales and service representatives: how managers’ recognition and autonomy moderate individual performance (2015, background): “…loyalty to, the organization, (2) managers, by providing clear and strong images representing the organization, can modify the employee’s identity salience, and (3) in a situation of conflict, an individual will refer to her/his most valued identity (Ashforth and Mael 1989; Ashforth et al. 2008).”
Shouldering a silent burden: The toll of dirty tasks (2012, background): “Research on dirty work (e.g. Ashforth and Kreiner, 1999, Kreiner et al., 2006), identification (e.g. Ashforth et al., 2008) and conservation of resources theory (Hobfoll, 1989) provide intriguing propositions regarding the complex individual and social phenomena faced by those who performed…”
The downside of organizational identification: Relations between identification, workaholism and well-being (2012, background): “that employees’ well-being could be a distal consequence of identification but that the link is mediated by other variables and therefore might not always reveal a direct effect (see Ashforth et al., 2008). Furthermore, little attention has been paid to the match between stressors and the specific f”
Contemplating Mindfulness at Work (2016, background): “Shifting emphasis from the narrative self to the experiential self may have profound implications for phenomena driven by narrative identities, ranging from personality consistency (Crescentini & Capurso, 2015) and identity work (Ibarra & Barbulescu, 2010) to sense-making (Weick, 1995), intergroup r”
From Synchronizing to Harmonizing: The Process of Authenticating Multiple Work Identities (2018, background): “Those with low self-complexity have only a few identities, and these identities overlap, whereas those with high self-complexity have many identities that do not overlap, allowing them to be both A and B (and often C and D) separately (Ashforth, Harrison, and Corley, 2008).”