Relational Identity and Identification: Defining Ourselves Through Work Relationships

By David M. Sluss, Blake E. Ashforth. 2007

1,047 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Language and Linguistics, Social Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/dbcc64709d142534a8e07941db15737dd3af5b0b

How researchers see this paper

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

In Language and Linguistics

In Social Psychology

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Intergroup Leadership in Organizations: Leading Across Group and Organizational Boundaries (2012, background): “…of their relationship with doctors to hospital administrators, specialists, team coaches, and the like if they feel the latter intergroup relationships resemble the former (cf. Sluss et al.’s [2010] discussion of generalized role expectations and role identity; see also Sluss & Ashforth, 2007).”
Transformational leadership and employee voice behavior : a Pygmalion mechanism. (2017, neutral): “…role perception because they share similar beliefs and values with the leader and treat the leader’s interests as their own (e.g., Kark et al., 2003; Sluss & Ashforth, 2007; van Knippenberg et al., 2004; Wang & Rode, 2010) and thus tend to use leaders’ perspectives, beliefs, and values to…”
Chutes Versus Ladders: Anchoring Events and a Punctuated-Equilibrium Perspective on Social Exchange Relationships (2010, background): “These scripts exist at both the particular level (e.g., my script for exchanges with Harry) and the general level (e.g., my script for dealing with coworkers) and are stored in and influence each other in autobiographical memory (Conway & PleydellPearce, 2000; Sluss & Ashforth, 2007).”
Identity in Organizations: Exploring Cross-Level Dynamics (2011, background): “Following Sluss and Ashforth (2007), relational identities represent a confluence of role- and person-based identities such that the relationship does not transcend the individuals involved.”
The value of value congruence. (2009, background): “Attraction is also conducive to organizational identification because when employees have positive relationships with one another, they are more likely to view their organizational membership as part of their personal identity (Hogg & Terry, 2000; Sluss & Ashforth, 2007).”
Work-Life Events Theory: Making Sense of Shock Events in Dual-Earner Couples (2019, background): “…Sluss and colleagues, relational identity refers to the understanding partnershaveabout their relationship—who “we” are and how we do things (e.g., Sluss & Ashforth, 2007; Sluss, Ployhart, Cobb, & Ashforth, 2012).1 Relational identities reflect the complementary roles of each partner…”
Do Employee Citizenship Behaviors Lead to Customer Citizenship Behaviors? The Roles of Dual Identification and Service Climate (2017, background): “…with the employee—reflecting the extent to which customers consider their role overlapping with that of the employee—their role relationship may generate mutual support, so that customers are inspired to dedicate more efforts to repaying the employee’s efforts (Sluss and Ashforth 2007).”
How leadership enhances employees’ knowledge sharing: the intervening roles of relational and organizational identification (2011, background): “Relational identification is essentially the extent to which a subordinate has a clear sense of what it means to be in a subordinatesupervisor relationship and has internalized that role relationship as part of his or her definition of himself or herself (Sluss and Ashforth 2007).”
The Relationship Between Ethical Leadership and Unethical Pro-Organizational Behavior: Linear or Curvilinear Effects? (2012, background): “…previous literature, we argue that subordinates experiencing high levels of identification with supervisor will be more likely to act in accordance with their supervisors values than those low in identification (van Knippenberg 2000; Aron 2003; van Knippenberg et al. 2004; Sluss and Ashforth 2007).”
Affective Commitment to Organizations and Supervisors and Turnover: A Role Theory Perspective (2017, background): “This may be due to supervisors modifying their roles as a function of their work experience (Sluss & Ashforth, 2007) in a process similar to job crafting (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001).”