Journal of Business Ethics
Research on value congruence rests on the assumption that values denote desirable behaviors and ideals that employees and organizations strive to approach. In the present study, we develop and test the argument that a more complete understanding of value congruence can be achieved by considering a second type of congruence based on employees' and organizations' counter-ideal values (i.e., what both seek to avoid). We examined this proposition in a time-lagged study of 672 employees from various occupational and organizational backgrounds. We used difference scores as well as polynomial regression and response surface analyses to test our hypotheses. Consistent with our hypotheses, results reveal that counter-ideal value congruence has unique relations to employees' trust in the organization that go beyond the effects of ideal value congruence. We discuss theoretical and practical implications of this expanded perspective on value congruence.
Recent conceptual work suggests that the sense of identity that employees develop vis-vis their organization goes beyond the traditional notion of organizational identification and can also involve conflicting impulses represented by ambivalent identification. In this study, we seek to advance this perspective on identification by proposing and empirically examining important antecedents and consequences. In line with our hypotheses, an experimental study (N = 199 employees) shows that organizational identification and ambivalent identification interactively influence employees’ willingness to engage in organizational citizenship behavior. The effect of organizational identification on organizational citizenship behavior is significantly reduced when employees experience ambivalent identification. A field study involving employees from a broad spectrum of organizations and industries (N = 564) replicated these findings. Moreover, results show that employees’ promotion and prevention focus form differential relationships with organizational identification and ambivalent identification, providing first evidence for a link between employees’ regulatory focus and the dynamics of identification. Implications for the expanded model of organizational identification and the understanding of ambivalence in organizations are discussed.
75th Academy of Management Annual Meeting
Although theory postulates a strong connection between employees’ organizational identification and their extra-role efforts for the organization, empirical studies have found relatively weak links with considerable fluctuation across studies. Accordingly, it has been argued that the dynamics of this relation are not yet firmly understood. By adopting the perspective of an expanded model of organizational identification, we propose that the sense of identity that individuals develop vis-à-vis their organization goes beyond unidimensional ties and may involve conflicting impulses represented by ambivalent identification. Specifically, we propose that considering organizational identification and ambivalent identification in combination will contribute to a more accurate understanding of employees’ extra-role efforts. Supporting this view, a first field study involving employees from a broad spectrum of organizations and industries (N = 298) revealed that the positive relation between organizational identification and extra-role behavior was particularly strong for individuals low in ambivalent identification but nonexistent for highly ambivalent employees. A second field study (N = 564) applying a time-lagged design replicated and extended these findings by showing that these effects were generalizable to different types of extra-role behavior. Implications for the expanded model of organizational identification, the understanding of ambivalence, and the study of extra-role behavior are discussed.