Organizational Images

Organizational Images and Member Identification
Author(s): Jane E. Dutton, Janet M. Dukerich and Celia V. Harquail

Source: Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 39, No. 2 (Jun., 1994), pp. 239-263
Published by: Sage Publications, Inc. on behalf of the Johnson Graduate School of Management,
Cornell University
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2393235
Accessed: 26-02-2015 21:08 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Sage Publications, Inc. and Johnson Graduate School of Management, Cornell University are collaborating with JSTOR
to digitize, preserve and extend access to Administrative Science Quarterly.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 128.83.205.78 on Thu, 26 Feb 2015 21:08:00 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
OrganizationalImages We develop a model to explain how images of one's
and Member work organization shape the strength of his or her
identification with the organization. We focus on two key
Identification organizational images: one based on what a member
believes is distinctive, central, and enduring about his or
Jane E. Dutton her organization and one based on a member's beliefs
Universityof Michigan about what outsiders think about the organization.
Janet M. Dukerich According to the model, members assess the
Universityof Texas at Austin attractiveness of these images by how well the image
CeliaV. Harquail preserves the continuity of their self-concept, provides
Universityof Michigan distinctiveness, and enhances self-esteem. The model
leads to a number of propositions about how
organizational identification affects members' patterns of
social interaction.'
Members vary in how much they identifywith their work
organization.When they identifystronglywith the
organization,the attributesthey use to define the
organizationalso define them. Organizationsaffect their
members throughthis identificationprocess, as shown by
the comments of a 3M salesman, quoted in Garbett
(1988: 2):
I found out today that it is a lot easier being a salesman for 3M
than for a littlejobberno one has ever heardof. When you don't
have to waste time justifyingyour existence or explainingwhy you
are here, it gives you a certainamount of self-assurance.And, I
discovered I came across warmer and friendlier.It made me feel
good and enthusiasticto be "somebody"for a change.
This salesman attributeshis new, more positive sense of
self to his membershipin 3M, a well-knowncompany. What
he thinks about his organizationand what he suspects
others thinkabout his organizationaffects the way that he
thinks about himself as a salesperson.
This paper explores the kindof connection that salesman
had with 3M: a member's cognitive connection with his or
her work organizationderivedfrom images that each
member has of the organization.The first image, what the
member believes is distinctive,central,and enduringabout
the organization,is defined as perceived organizational
identity.The second image, what a member believes
outsiders thinkabout the organization,is called the
construed external image (Duttonand Dukerich,1991). Our
model proposes that these two organizationalimages
influence the cognitive connection that members create with
their organizationand the kindsof behaviorsthat follow.
When a person's self-concept contains the same attributes
as those in the perceived organizationalidentity,we define
this cognitive connection as organizationalidentification.
? 1994 by CornellUniversity.
0001-8392/94/3902-0239/$1.00. Organizationalidentificationis the degree to which a
member defines him- or herself by the same attributesthat
0
he or she believes define the organization.The 3M salesman
We thankMassimo Bergami,Arthur
Brief,Mason Carpenter,BrianGolden, reflects his organizationalidentificationwhen he describes
FrancesHauge, Rod Kramer,Sharon himself as innovativeand successful, just like the 3M
Lobel,ReubenMcDaniel,Debra organization.A person is stronglyidentifiedwith an
Meyerson,Wendy Penner,Sandy Piderit,
LindaPike, MlchaelPratt,RobertQuinn, organizationwhen (1) his or her identityas an organization
Anat Rafaeli,LanceSandelands,Bob member is more salient than alternativeidentities, and (2)
Sutton,DavidWhetten, BatiaWiesenfeld, his or her self-concept has many of the same characteristics
and three anonymousreviewersfor
comments on earlierdraftsof this paper. he or she believes define the organizationas a social group.
239/AdministrativeScience Quarterly,39 (1994): 239-263
We buildour arguments on the core assumption that
people's sense of membershipin the social group "the
organization"shapes their self-concepts (Tajfeland Turner,
1985; Ashforthand Mael, 1989; Kramer,1991).
Organizationalscholars have explored how a person's
self-concept is shaped by membershipin occupational
groups (VanMaanenand Barley,1984) and work groups
(Alderferand Smith, 1982). Here we consider how a
person's self-concept is shaped by the knowledge that she
or he is a member of a specific organization.
The images that members hold of their work organizations
are uniqueto each member. A person's beliefs therefore
may or may not match a collective organizationalidentity
that represents the members' shared beliefs about what is
distinctive,central,and enduringabout their organization
(Albertand Whetten, 1985). In addition,each member's own
construalof the organization'sexternal image may or may
not match the reputationof the organizationin the minds of
outsiders. We focus on the relationshipbetween a
member's individualimages of his or her organizationas a
social group and the effects of those images on the strength
of organizationalidentificationand member behavior.
LinkingOrganizational Images to Members'
Self-Concepts
A person's well-being and behaviorare affected both by the
attributesthey ascribe to themselves and by those they
believe others inferabout them from their organizational
membership.As the quote from the 3M salesman illustrates,
organizationalmembershipcan confer positive attributeson
its members, and people may feel proudto belong to an
organizationthat is believed to have sociallyvalued
characteristics.When members believe that outsiders see
the organizationin a positive light,they "bask in the
reflected glory"of the organization(Cialdiniet al., 1976:
366). Strong organizationalidentificationmay translate into
desirableoutcomes such as intraorganizational cooperation
or citizenshipbehaviors.
Organizationalmembershipcan also confer negative
attributeson a member. If members interpretthe external
organizationalimage as unfavorable,they may experience
negative personaloutcomes, such as depression and stress.
Inturn, these personaloutcomes could lead to undesirable
organizationaloutcomes, such as increased competition
among members or reduced effort on long-termtasks. Over
time, members may either disengage themselves from prior
organizationalroles (Kahn,1990) or exit the organization
(Hirschman,1970). Just such a negative external
organizationalimage has created problems for members of
the PortAuthorityof New Yorkand New Jersey (PA).For
more than a decade, the PA has struggled with what to do
about the risingnumberof homeless people who seek
shelter in its transportationfacilities, includingthe Bus
Terminal.As problemswith the homeless became more
severe, the media increasinglydepicted the PA's facilities as
dangerous and dirtyand the PA organizationas ineffective
and inhumane.Negative press about the PA indirectlyhurt
the employees. When PA members began to construe the
240/ASQ, June 1994
Member Identification
organization'sexternalimage in these negative and socially

undesirableterms, they felt demeaned and hurtby the
criticismthat they inferredfrom outsiders. Througha story
told about one PA member at a cookout, another member
emphasized the connection between organizationalactions,
a negatively construed externalimage, and the member's
self-concept:
You know, the guy that's runningthe LincolnTunneldoesn't have a
full perceptionof how the Bus Terminalor the homeless impact
what he does on a day-to-daybasis. But the minute he leaves and
he goes to the cookout in his neighborhoodand he meets
somebody and the person says, "Whatdo you do for a living?"
"Oh, I work for the PortAuthority."They say, "How can you stand
that Bus Terminal,what can you do?" That'sthe name. That's the
symbol of the PortAuthority.It's the standardbearer.And you
know, so personallyeverybodythat's involvedin any aspect of
workingfor the PortAuthorityis identifiedwith that place, and with
that issue. (Duttonand Dukerich,1991: 538)
An employee who worked far away from the homeless
issue in the Bus Terminalstill felt that actions in one
segment of the organizationaffected how others saw him.
Similarly,Exxonemployees felt that the publicregarded
them in a negative lightafter the Valdezoil spill. Because
the press made Exxon's inadequateaction so visible and
public, Exxonemployees found that they were expected to
defend the company's actions in social situations. As
described in Fanning(1990: 25):
But the targets of the most scorn at the moment are probably
oil-companyexecutives. Takethe case of Exxoncorporation.It was
only recentlythat executives at that companywere able to admit
their place of employmentwithout the fear of being attacked by
environmentalistsinfuriatedby the company's handlingof last
year's oil spill at PrinceWilliamSound. Slowly but surely, Exxon
executives began to reappearat cocktailpartiesacross the country,
and occasionally,even had a good time.
Even employees workingat Exxon's CreditCardCenter did
not escape the public'swrath: They received oil-soaked,
cut-up credit cards from angrycustomers. As one
newspaper explained: "Employees, confronteddailyby
criticismsof Exxonin the media and by friends and family
members, are questioningtheir faith in the corporategiant"
(Star Ledger, 1989: 3). When people identify strongly with
theirwork organizations,they experience such threats
personally(Schwartz,1987).
As the PortAuthorityand Exxonexamples suggest,
outsiders activelyjudge employees by the characteristics
attributedto the organizationthroughits publicreputation.
Insidethe organization,members interpretand inferthe
reputationof their organizationand react to the external
image they construe of their organization.As the media
publicizesinformationabout an organization,public
impressions of the organizationand of the organization's
members become partof the currencythroughwhich
members' self-concepts and identificationare builtor are
eroded.
Organizational Identification
Members become attached to their organizationswhen they
incorporatethe characteristicsthey attributeto their
241/ASQ, June 1994
organizationinto their self-concepts. The self-concept is an
interpretivestructurethat mediates how people behave and
feel in a social context (Gecas, 1982; Schenkler, 1985;
Markusand Wurf, 1987) and refers to "the totalityof
self-descriptionsand self-evaluationssubjectivelyavailableto
an individual"(Hogg and Abrams, 1988: 24). A person's
self-concept may be composed of a varietyof identities,
each of which evolves from membership in differentsocial
groups, such as a social group based on race, gender, or
tenure (Strykerand Serpe, 1982; Breakwell,1986). But
self-concepts are also influencedby memberships in social
groups such as work organizations(Ashforthand Mael,
1989), throughwhich a member may come to identifywith
the organization.While some researchers have focused on
organizationalidentificationas value congruence between a
member and his or her organization(e.g., Hall,Schneider,
and Nygren, 1970; Lee, 1971; Halland Schneider, 1972), we
focus on the cognitive connection between the definitionof
an organizationand the definitiona person applies to him- or
herself, viewing identificationas a process of self-definition
(Brown,1969). Definingorganizationalidentificationas a
cognitive linkbetween the definitionsof the organizationand
the self is consistent with attitudinalapproaches to
commitment (e.g., Porteret al., 1974; Mowday, Porter,and
Steers, 1982). As partof the commitment process, the level
of organizationalidentificationindicates the degree to which
people come to see the organizationas partof themselves.
Organizationalidentificationis one form of psychological
attachmentthat occurs when members adopt the defining
characteristicsof the organizationas defining characteristics
for themselves.
Organizationalidentificationcan have both positive and
negative effects on a member's sense of self. Organizational
identificationas defined here does not necessarily connote a
pridein affiliationwith the organization-a characteristicthat
is central in Kelman's(1958) view of identificationand is
used by O'Reillyand Chatman(1986) in their work on
identificationas a means for psychologicalattachment. As
illustratedby the discomfortfelt by Exxonexecutives and by
PA members, identificationwith an organizationcan result in
feelings of shame, disgrace, or embarrassment.
The strength of a member's organizationalidentification
reflects the degree to which the content of the member's
self-concept is tied to his or her organizationalmembership.
When organizationalidentificationis strong, a member's
self-concept has incorporateda large partof what he or she
believes is distinctive,central,and enduringabout the
organizationinto what he or she believes is distinctive,
central,and enduringabout him-or herself. When
organizationalidentificationis strong, the organization-based
content of a member's self-concept is salient and central
(Gergen, 1968; Strykerand Serpe, 1982), other identities in
the self-concept have receded, and organizational
membership is a centraland frequentlyused basis for
self-definition(Kramer,1991).
Several researchers have described the formationof and
change in a member's organizationalidentification.
Borrowingfrom Tajfeland Turner(1985), Ashforthand Mael
242/ASQ, June 1994
(1989) described organizationalidentificationas a process of

self-categorization.They proposed that organizational
identificationstrengthens when members categorize
themselves into a social group-in this case the
organization-that has distinctive,central,and enduring
attributes.The premise that identificationis caused by
self-categorizationprovidesthe foundationfor our model of
organizationalidentification.The model focuses on two key
images that organizationalmembers have of their work
organization-perceived organizationalidentityand construed
external image.
A MODELOF MEMBERIDENTIFICATION
Several points supportthe idea that organizationshave
collective identities, consisting of the beliefs that members
share as distinctive,central,and enduring.First,it is
common practicefor organizationalleaders to articulateand
claimwhat is distinctive,central,and enduringabout their
organization(Pfeffer, 1981; Albertand Whetten, 1985).
Whether or not these claims of distinctiveness are
empiricallyvalid (e.g., Martinet al., 1983) is less important
than the fact that powerfulorganizationalmembers engage
in communicationand influence processes in an effort to
create a collective identityfor members. Organizationshave
a broadrepertoireof culturalforms such as rituals,symbols,
ceremonies, and stories that encode and reproduceshared
organizationalpatternsof behaviorand interpretation(Allaire
and Firsirotu,1984). Rituals,ceremonies, and stories
objectifyand communicatethe collective organizational
identityto organizationalmembers.
Distinctiveorganizationalattributesoften remainhidden to
members untilthe organization'scollective identityis
challenged (Albertand Whetten, 1985; Fiol, 1991) or until
some precipitatingevent calls organizationalactions or
performanceinto question (Ginzel,Kramer,and Sutton,
1993). Sometimes majorstakeholders'actions or changes in
the organization'senvironmentsuch as regulatorychanges
or competitive moves can cause the organization'scollective
identityto surface. The collective organizationalidentityalso
becomes more salient when members believe that the
organization'sactions are inconsistent with its collective
identity(e.g., when a social service agency buys expensive
office furniture)or when individualmembers act in ways that
contradictthe collective organizationalidentity(e.g., when
professors in a teaching college consistently miss class). In
these cases, organizationalor individualactions interruptthe
flow of normalorganizationalroutines, promptingindividuals
to ask, "Whatis this organizationreallyabout?"These
actions motivate members to review and acknowledge what
they believe defines the organization,and this affects the
strength of their connection to the organization.
Perceived Organizational Identity
Whereas an organization'scollective identityrepresents the
set of beliefs that members share, perceived organizational
identityrefers to the beliefs of a particularindividual
organizationalmember. Because organizationsimperfectly
socialize members to a collective view, perceived
243/ASQ, June 1994
organizationalidentitymay departfrom the organization's
collective identity.The perceived organizationalidentity-a
member's beliefs about the distinctive,central,and enduring
attributesof the organization-can serve as a powerful
image influencingthe degree to which the member
identifieswith the organization.
Perceived Organizational Identity and Identification
The degree to which the perceived organizationalidentity
affects a person's identificationlevel depends on the
attractiveness of this image to the person, which requiresa
subjective evaluation.An attractiveperceived organizational
identitystrengthens a member's identification.Stated in
propositionform:
Proposition 1 (P1): The greaterthe attractivenessof the perceived
organizationalidentity,the strongera person's organizational
identification.
Three principlesof self-definition-self-continuity,
self-distinctiveness,and self-enhancement-account for the
attractiveness of an organizationalimage and explainwhy it
strengthens identification.
Self-continuity and the attractiveness of the perceived
organizational identity. People generallywant to maintain
the continuityof their self-concepts over time and across
situations (Steele, 1988). A member's perceptionof his or
her organization'sidentityadds or subtracts from the
continuitythat he or she experiences in his or her
self-concept over time. Two arguments supportthe idea that
similaritybetween the self-concept and perceived
organizationalidentityenhances continuityand that
continuityof self strengthens a member's identificationby
makingthe perceived organizationalidentitymore attractive.
First,people find a perceived organizationalidentitymore
attractivewhen it matches their own sense of who they are
(i.e., their self-concept) simply because this type of
informationis easy to process and understand.Social
psychologists argue that people attend to and process
"self-relevant"informationdifferentlythan "self-irrelevant"
information(Markusand Wurf, 1987). The general findingis
that people more easily focus on, process, recognize, and
retrieveself-relevantthan self-irrelevantinformation.The
ease of recognizing,processing, and retrievingself-relevant
informationmakes organizationalidentities that match the
self more attractivethan organizationalidentities that do not
match the self.
Second, when a person's self-concept and the perceived
organizationalidentityare similar,a member is drawnto the
organizationbecause it provides easy opportunitiesfor
self-expression (Shamir,1991). People are drawnto
organizationsthat allow them to exhibit more of themselves
and to enact a fullerrange of characteristicsand values in
their self-concept. Forexample, a triathletewho values
physicalprowess and involvementin competitive athletics
will be drawn more to a shoe manufacturerlike Nike, which
encourages its employees to work out on company time,
than to another shoe manufacturerthat is involvedin
communityarts associations.
244/ASQ, June 1994
People value self-integrityand a sense that they are

internallycoherent (Steele, 1988). To maintainthis integrity,
people want to act authentically(Gecas, 1982), expressing
the personalitycharacteristicsthey thinkthey have and
which they value. People are drawnto organizationsin
which they can express themselves ratherthan hide the
contents of their self-concept. This assertion is builton an
assumption that "humansare not only pragmaticand goal
oriented but also self-expressive" (Shamir,House, and
Arthur,1993: 580). Forexample, a vegetarianjournalistwill
be drawn more to VegetarianTimes than to Bow Hunter
magazine, since the formerorganizationis more likelyto
providethe journalistwith opportunitiesto express a sense
of him- or herself as a supporterof animalrights.We see
this relationshipin Kunda's(1992) account of how engineers
identifiedwith Tech, where they could express more of the
characteristicsthey valued about themselves. The engineers
enjoyed Tech's technical orientationbecause it matched
their own. As Kunda(1992: 177) explained: "Similarly,many
engineers acknowledge attachmentto Tech's technology,
which they view as uniqueand throughthat, to the
company. Says one: 'Once you've worked with Tech
products in a Tech environment,it's hardto go to anything
else. They just adjust so much better. It's an engineer's
dream-if he's into technology'."
Chatmanand her colleagues found similarresults for
behavioraloutcomes. In a study of accounting recruits,
Chatman(1991) found that a strong fit between the pattern
of organizationalvalues and members' values predicted
members' satisfactionand intent to stay with the
organizationa year later. In addition,an increase in
person-organization fit over the first year was significantly
and positively relatedto members' satisfaction levels. In two
differentempiricalcontexts, O'Reillyand Chatman(1986)
found that people who secured an attachment to the
organizationbased on value-congruency(what they called
attachment based on internalization) reportedhigh intentions
to stay with the organization(Study 1), and greater
internalizationwas associated with lower actual turnover
(Study 1 and Study 2). O'Reilly,Chatman,and Caldwell
(1991) reportedsimilarresults in another series of studies. In
all three studies, the greater the degree of fit between the
person and the organization,the greater the degree of
similaritybetween the perceived organizationalidentityand a
person's self-concept. These results suggest that greater
person-organization fit resulted in attitudes and behaviors
consistent with stronger identificationand lead to our
second proposition:
Proposition 2 (P2): The greaterthe consistency between the
attributesmembers use to define themselves and the attributes
used to define an organizationalimage (e.g., perceived
organizationalidentity),the strongera member's organizational
identification.
The linkbetween continuity,the attractiveness of the
perceived organizationalidentity,and levels of members'
organizationalidentificationhelps members maintaina stable
self-concept over time. They identifystronglywith their
organizationwhen their priorsense of self resembles what
245/ASQ, June 1994
they believe is central,enduring,and distinctiveabout their
organization.This relationshipmakes organizational
identificationa reciprocaland recursiveprocess. Members
who believe the organizationis similarto them strengthen
the self-associations that were alreadyin place before they
became organizationalmembers.
Self-distinctiveness and the attractiveness of the
perceived organizational identity. Theories of social
identityassert that people seek to accentuate their own
distinctiveness in interpersonalcontexts (Tajfeland Turner,
1985). As a result, members will find organizationsattractive
when their social identitiesthere providethem with a sense
of distinctiveness. A salesperson workingfor 3M may feel
that his or her identificationwith the organizationis a basis
for distinctiveness relativeto other salespeople workingfor
organizationslackinga clear identity.Kunda(1992: 177)
described how engineers in Tech identifiedwith the
organizationbecause of its uniquelyhonest business
practices. He relatedthe experience of one project manager:
I worked for a while for a companythat builton those contracts. I
worked on the ABM radar.It's not so much that I mind what the
productsend up doing. No. But all the dishonesty-the excessive
costs, the stupidity,the unnecessary work-it reallygot me down.
The normwas: hide the basic specs, follow the letter of the law
and producegarbage,then get anothercontract. Disgustingstuff.
Liketelling reliabilityengineers to cook figures. At Tech at least we
give customers an honest product.They get what they pay for.
Most of the time I feel good about that.
Borrowingfrom social identitytheory, Ashforthand Mael
(1989: 24) asserted that "the distinctiveness of the group's
[in this case the organization's]values and practices in
relationto those of comparablegroups increase members'
tendency to identifywith the organization."Mael and
Ashforth(1992) found that alumniof a religiouscollege who
perceived their universityas distinctivein attitudes, values,
and practices had high levels of organizationalidentification,
in terms of a perceptionof oneness or belongingness to an
organization.Ashforthand Mael (1989) argued that this form
of organizationalidentificationis associated with cognitive
identification,when a person defines him-or herself in terms
similarto the organization.Organizationalmembers who
believe their organizationhas a distinctiveculture,strategy,
structure,or some other configurationof distinctive
characteristicsare likelyto experience strong levels of
organizationalidentification.The above arguments lead to
the following proposition:
Proposition 3 (P3): The greaterthe distinctiveness of an
organizationalimage (e.g., perceived organizationalidentity)relative
to other organizations,the strongera member's organizational
identification.
Self-enhancement and the attractiveness of the perceived
organizational identity. When members associate with
organizationsthat have an attractiveperceived identity,it
enhances their self-esteem as they acquirea more positive
evaluationof self. Consistent with past theory, we define
self-esteem in terms of the degree to which one likes
oneself (Brockner,1988). Forexample, if members believe
theirworkorganizationis definedby qualitiesassociated with
246/ASQ, June 1994
competence, power, efficacy, virtue,or moralworth (Gecas,

1982), they are likelyto see the perceived organizational
identityas attractive.Associationwith an organization
possessing these qualitiesenhances members' self-esteem
because this affiliationprovidesthem with an opportunityto
see themselves with these positive qualities,strengthening
the degree to which a member likes him- or herself. The link
between the attractivenessof the perceived organizational
identityand self-esteem implies that members personally
experience any decreases or increases in the attractiveness
of organizationalimages.
In the largerstudy of the PortAuthorityfrom which Dutton
and Dukerich's(1991) research was drawn, one-thirdof the
respondents noted that the organizationwas distinctivein
terms of being a first-class, high-qualityinstitution.This
conception of perceived organizationalidentitywas an
importantsource of self-esteem for PortAuthoritymembers.
The PA's failureto act on the issue of the homeless raised
questions about the basis for the organization's
distinctiveness, and members experienced these questions
as threats to a positive evaluationof self. As one facility
managerexpressed it:
But I've always felt that the PortAuthorityis ... and partof our
self-image is, as I put my fingers on it, that we do things a little
better than other publicagencies. There's a whole psyche that
goes with that ... and that's why, when there's time like now,
when times get tough, people are nervous a bit, because that goes
to their self-image, which is that the PortAuthorityand therefore,
we do things first class.
This example points to how perceived organizationalidentity
and the evaluationof self by members are linkedto
members' self-esteem. It leads to the fourthproposition:
Proposition 4 (P4): The more an organizationalimage (e.g.,
perceived organizationalidentity)enhances a member's
self-esteem, the stronger his or her organizationalidentification.
There is an importantreciprocalqualityto the relationships
described in these propositions.As members increasingly
define themselves with characteristicsthat distinguishthe
organization,and as organizationalidentificationis
strengthened, this identitylooks increasinglyattractive.The
more an employee at Tech takes on an attributeof Tech's
identityby defining him-or herself as a uniquelyhonest
person, the more attractiveTech's perceived identitylooks.
As Ashforthand Mael suggested (1989), one consequence
of strong identificationwith an organizationis a
strengtheningof its antecedents, in this case, the
attractivenessof the perceived organizationalidentity.
Anotherfactor that affects the attractiveness of perceived
organizationalidentityis a person's involvementwith the
organization.
Level of contact and the attractiveness of the perceived
organizational identity. The attractiveness of the perceived
organizationalidentityvaries with a member's length of
tenure and intensityof exposure to the organization.As
members gain tenure in an organization,they increase the
level and breadthof exposure to the collective organizational
identity,makingthese organizationalattributesmore
accessible in memory (Bruner,1957). Throughthe passage
247/ASQ, June 1994
of time, doing organizationalwork, and intense daily
interactions,people come to know themselves as members
of the organization(Foote, 1953). Greatercontact with the
organizationincreases a member's perceptualreadiness
(Bruner,1957) to categorize and define him-or herself as a
member of this social group.The longer one remains with
an organization,the more salient this group membership is
for self-categorizationand the more primaryis organizational
membershipas opposed to other group memberships
(Kramer,1991).
O'Reillyand Chatman's(1986) research provides indirect
supportfor the relationshipbetween levels of contact,
attractiveness of the perceived organizationalidentity,and
levels of identification.They found a significantpositive
correlationbetween tenure in a universityand the degree of
prideand ownership that people felt with respect to their
employingorganization.If we assume that prideand
ownership in the organizationare associated with the
attractiveness of the perceived identity,their studies suggest
that intense and long contact with an organization(as
reflected by greater tenure) increases the level of
attractiveness of the organization'sidentity,contributingto a
greater degree of identification.Mael and Ashforth(1992)
also found a significantpositive correlationbetween length
of time in school and a person's organizationalidentification,
providingmore direct supportfor this link.
Researchers studyingthe socializationprocess (VanMaanen,
1975; Feldman,1976) have asserted that members of
organizationsincorporatethe meaning of the organization
into their self-concept. Over time, members are exposed
more and more to the totems or symbols that remindthem
of their unionwith the organization(Stern, 1988). Members
change their level of inclusionin an organization,moving
from the peripheryof the organizationto the center of things
(VanMaanenand Schein, 1979: 222) as they interactwith
other members. As members experience increasing
inclusionand contact with the organization,the
attractivenessof the perceived organizationalidentity
increases, strengtheningorganizationalidentification.As was
the case with the previous proposition,risinglevels of
identification,in turn, motivate members to increase their
levels of contact with the organization:
Proposition 5 (P5): The more contact a member has with an
organization(interms of intensityand duration),the greaterthe
attractivenessof the perceived organizationalidentityand the
strongerthe organizationalidentification.
Construed External Image
Members' identificationis also sensitive to how they think
outsiders view the organization.While the perceived
organizationalidentityis a member's assessment of the
organization'scharacter,construed external image refers to a
member's beliefs about outsiders' perceptions of the
organization.The construed external image provides more
than just informationabout the probablesocial evaluationof
the organization.Formembers, the construed external image
answers the question, "Hovvdo outsiders thinkof me
because of my association with this organization?"The
248/ASQ, June 1994
construed externalimage acts as a potentiallypowerful

mirror,reflectingback to the members how the organization
and the behaviorof its members are likelybeing seen by
outsiders. This ties in to the concept of the corporateimage.
Practitionersand academics use the term "corporateimage"
in a varietyof ways. Consultantsuse the term "corporate
image" to refer to the impressionthat an organizationmakes
to outsiders and insiders (e.g., Selame and Selame, 1988).
Researchers in marketingassert that corporateimages
matter to a firm's customers (e.g., Aroraand Cavusgil,
1985). Humanresource researchers study how information
shapes the attractivenessof an organization'simage during
recruiting(e.g., Gatewood, Gowan, and Lautenschlager,
1993). Researchers interested in the processes of
organizationalimpression management describe how various
tactics for enhancingorganizationalimage alter how outside
partiesview the organizationand its actions (e.g., Elsbach
and Sutton, 1992). Duttonand Dukerich(1991) used the
term organizationalimage to refer to what organizational
insiders believe outsiders thinkis distinctive,central,and
enduringabout the organization.Here, however, to clarify
and distinguishwhose beliefs are of interest, we use the
term construed externalimage.
We distinguishbetween two different uses of the term
organizationalimage: one focusing on the beliefs of outside
members, the other focusing on the beliefs of inside
members. Organizationalreputationrefers to outsiders'
beliefs about what distinguishes an organization;construed
external image captures internalmembers' own assessment
of these beliefs (Duttonand Dukerich,1991). This distinction
between reputationand construed external image is
important.Insidersand outsiders to an organizationhave
access to differentinformationabout the organizationand
applydifferentvalues and goals in interpretingthis
information.Distinguishingbetween construed external
image and reputationallows these two organizationalimages
to differfrom one another.
Sometimes an organization'sreputationand insiders'
construed externalimages are closely aligned. When an
organization'sreputationis widely disseminated through
extensive press or media attention,for example, the
organization'sreputationis likelyto be highlycorrelatedwith
the externalimage of the organizationconstrued by insiders.
Despite their publicmedia campaigns and the creationof
pseudo-events that are plannedfor the explicitpurpose of
being reported(Boorstin,1961), most organizationsare
unableto align fullyoutsiders' beliefs about an organization
(i.e., reputations)and insiders' readingsof these beliefs (i.e.,
construed externalimages). Organizationalmembers
sometimes have a distorted impressionof what others
believe, either believingtheir organizationis perceived in a
more positive or a more negative lightthan outsiders see it.
Ginzel,Kramer,and Sutton (1993) described how top
managers at Dow CorningWrighttried to controlthe
reputationaldamage to their firm that occurredbecause of
the continued productionand sale of silicon breast implants.
As their attempts to manage the impressions of external
audiences created new reputationalcrises (e.g., as a
249/ASQ, June 1994
productionproblembecame a problemof organizational
integrityand honesty), top managers seemed unaware of
the amount of damage that their reputationhad sustained. In
this case, the construed externalimage (by top management
and perhaps members more generallyat Dow Corning)was
more positive than the firm's actual reputation.This
inconsistency between reputationand construed external
image delayed the firm's crisis response and contributedto
the interpretiveconflict that top managers experienced as
they tried to manage the firm's reputationin the minds of
both sympathetic and antagonisticaudiences.
Construed External Image and Identification
The earlierexample of Exxon's executives' struggle with
social contact at cocktailparties illustratesthat organizational
members use the construed externalimage of an
organizationto assess the social value of their affiliationwith
an organization.Because construed external image
summarizes a member's beliefs about how people outside
the organizationare likelyto view the member through his or
her organizationalaffiliation,the construed external image is
a powerful reflectionof publicopinion.When the construed
external image of an organizationis assessed as attractive
(i.e., members believe the image contains attributesthat
distinguishthe organizationin positive, sociallyvalued
terms), the construed externalimage strengthens members'
organizationalidentification.
People try to maintaina positive social identity(Tajfeland
Turner,1985) because positive social identities (1) create
self-gratifyingsocial opportunities(Brown,1969), (2)
heighten social prestige (Perrow,1961; Cheney, 1983;
Ashforthand Mael, 1989), (3) facilitatesocial interaction
(Foote, 1953), and (4) create social credits. When members
construe the externalimage as attractive-meaning that they
believe this image has elements that others are likelyto
value-then organizationalaffiliationcreates a positive social
identity(Tajfel,1982) that increases the level of overlap
between how a member defines him-or herself and the
organization.Empiricalresearch supports this claim. Vardi,
Wiener, and Poppa (1989) found that members in an
organizationthat produceda productfor the militarymarket
in Israelmore stronglyidentifiedwith their organizationthan
members in a matched firm producinga similarproductfor a
commercialmarket.The firm's positive social role as a
manufacturerof productsfor the militarymarket-a market
that is sociallyvalued in Israel-could explainthese findings:
Members workingin the first organizationviewed the
construed external image of the firm as attractive,which
thereby strengthened their identification.This logic and
example providethe basis for proposition6:
Proposition 6 (P6): The greaterthe attractivenessof an
organization'sconstrued externalimage, the stronger a member's
organizationalidentification.
The same principlesof self-definitionaccount for why
members are likelyto see the construed external image of
their work organizationas attractiveor not: (1)
self-continuity,(2) self-distinctiveness,and (3)
self-enhancement.
25OIASQ,June 1994
Self-continuity and the attractiveness of the construed

external image. Proposition2 asserted that members will
find organizationalimages more attractiveif they contribute
to a consistent sense of self. This propositionis as validfor
how members value construed external images as it is for
the perceived organizationalidentity.When members believe
outsidersview the organizationin terms that are close to how
they see themselves,then membershipprovidesan opportunity
to maintaina coherent and consistent sense of self.
Self-distinctiveness and the attractiveness of the
construed external image. A construed external image that
enhances a member's distinctiveness in interpersonal
contexts will also be seen as more attractive,following the
logic of proposition3, which derives from social identity
theory. Members gain distinctiveness from their own sense
of what uniquelycharacterizestheir work organization
(perceivedorganizationalidentity)and from what they
believe outsiders thinkabout the organization(construed
externalimage). This may be the route by which advertising
and publicrelationsefforts affect people's attachments to
theirwork organizations.When these advertisingefforts and
publicimage campaigns make insiders believe that outsiders
thinkthe organizationis unique in some way, these efforts
may yield benefits not only in attractingcustomers, they
may also enhance members' commitment by strengthening
identification.
Self-enhancement and the attractiveness of the
construed external image. Accordingto proposition4, the
construed external image of an organizationcan become
attractiveto a person because it enhances his or her
self-evaluationby providingimportantinformationabout how
others are likelyto appraisea member's characterbased on
his or her organizationalaffiliation(Duttonand Dukerich,
1991). People want to maintaina positive self-concept
(Turner,1978; Brockner,1988). They use an organization's
construed externalimage to estimate the reflected appraisal
of outsiders and are drawnto images that portraythem as
competent and morallyvirtuous(Gecas, 1982). Thus, if a
member believes outsiders are likelyto view the
organizationfavorably,the image is attractive.An attractive
image encourages furtheralignmentbetween a member's
self-concept and organizationaldefinition.Greenberg(1990)
argued, for example, that organizationsthat are construed as
"fair"have members who more strongly identifywith it.
This may occur because possibilitiesfor self-enhancement
are afforded by one's affiliationwith such a positively
construed externalimage.
Visibility of Affiliation and Identification
The relationshipbetween the attractiveness of these
organizationalimages and the strength of identification
depends on people's visible affiliationwith their work
organization.Two sets of arguments supportthis assertion:
one is based on a simple self-perceptionlogic, the other is
tied to the logic of impression management.
When people are visiblyassociated with an organization,
they are more frequentlyremindedof their organizational
membership.Visibleaffiliations,such as those made through
251/ASQ, June 1994
publicorganizationalroles, serve as vivid remindersof
organizationalmembership(Chartersand Newcomb, 1952)
and increase the potency of the organizationas a source of
self-definition(Brown,1969). These remindersmake
people's membershipin the organizationaccessible and
salient to them (Turner,1982). When a person is visibly
affiliatedwith an organization,self-perceptionprocesses
heighten his or her own awareness of the attractiveness of
the organization.Forperceived organizationalidentity,the
attractivenessof this image will have a greater effect on the
strength of a member's identificationif he or she is visibly
affiliatedwith the organization:
Proposition 7 (P7): The greaterthe visibilityof a member's
affiliationwith the organization,the strongerthe relationship
between the attractivenessof the perceived organizationalidentity
and his or her organizationalidentification.
The visibilityof a member's organizationalaffiliationcan have
an even greater moderatingeffect on the relationship
between the attractivenessof the construed external image
and member identificationbecause of the motivationto
manage impressions. Publicknowledge that a person is
affiliatedwith an organizationcreates expectations about
how he or she is likelyto behave and the types of attitudes
he or she is likelyto hold (Tetlockand Manstead, 1985).
People expect a member who is visiblyaffiliatedwith the
RotaryClubto behave in ways and to hold attitudes that are
appropriateto Rotarians,whereas people not affiliatedwith
the RotaryClubwould not be subject to these expectations.
These expectations, and members' awareness of them,
encourage members to take on the qualitiesembodied in
the perceived organizationalidentity.If one is visibly
associated with the RotaryCluband this organization's
perceived organizationalidentityincludes the attributesof
communityservice, this qualitywill more likelybecome part
of the member's own self-concept, thus strengthening
identification,if the member is visiblyaffiliatedwith the
organization.
When people have organizationalaffiliationsthat are visible,
either throughphysicaldisplays, such as Rotarians'use of
lapel pins, or their organizationallocations (e.g., having
leadershipor boundaryspanning roles), they are in the
position of havingto explainand justifytheir role and
standpointfrequently(Turner,1978: 15). This strengthens
the correlationbetween the attractiveness of the image and
the strength of identification.The desire to create an
impressionfor others that is consistent with the construed
external image is also more intense when one's organization
affiliationis visible. This strengthens the correlationbetween
the attractivenessof the construed external image and the
strength of identification.Both arguments supportthe eighth
proposition:
Proposition 8 (P8): The greaterthe visibilityof a member's
affiliationwith the organization,the strongerthe relationship
between the attractivenessof the construed externalimage and a
member's organizationalidentification.
Figure1 summarizesourmodelof how perceivedorganizational
identityand the construed external image are linkedto the
strength of a member's identificationwith the organization.
252/ASQ, June 1994
Figure 1. Linking perceived organizational identity and construed

external image to strength of organizational identification.
Images
P9
Attractiveness of
Perceived Perceived
Organizational Organizational P5P1
Identity Identity Level of
Contact with
P1 Organization
Principles of Self-Definition
P7\
Self-continuity (P2)
Self-distinctiveness (P3) Visibility of Strength of
Self-enhancement (P4) Organizational Organizational
Affiliation Identification
P8
Construed P6
External
Attractiveness
Image of Construed
External Image P
CONSEQUENCES OF
ORGANIZATIONALIDENTIFICATION
Organizational identification has several consequences for
individuals' beliefs and behaviors. Using the model of
member identification developed thus far, we will discuss
these consequences to explain more fully how the process
we model affects the organization, its members, and even
the world outside it.
Strengthening the Antecedents of
Research on self-affirmation processes (Steele, 1988) and
self-justification processes (Staw, 1980) indicates that people
attempt to preserve a sense of integrity and self-worth.
These beliefs about the self are sustained by positively
evaluating the groups with which one identifies, including
the organization. As mentioned earlier, one consequence of
organizational identification is the strengthening of its
antecedents. As members identify more strongly with the
organization, their beliefs about the organization are likely to
become more positive. Members who strongly identify with
an organization are likely, for example, to believe that the
organization is producing valuable outputs. A particular
consequence of this tendency to evaluate the organization
more positively is that the attractiveness of the perceived
organizational identity and construed external image are
likely to increase.
Proposition 9 (P9): The greaterthe strength of organizational
identification,the more members will evaluate the perceived
organizationalidentityand construed externalimage as attractive.
The feedback loops in Figure 1 which connect strength of
organizational identification to attractiveness of the perceived
organizational identity and the construed external image,
depict the effect of organizational identification on its
antecedents.
In addition to affecting beliefs, strong organizational
identificationaffects behaviors.These behaviorsalso
strengthen the antecedents of organizationalidentification.
253/ASQ, June 1994
The logic of self-perceptionhelps to explainthis reinforcing
cycle. People are motivatedto maintainconsistency
between their self-perceptionsand behavior(Festinger,
1957), and those who stronglyidentifywith an organization
will seek more contact with the organization.More contact
with the organizationenhances the sense of continuityof
one's self-concept that people value. Kunda's(1992) account
of the behaviorsof the stronglyidentifiedengineers at Tech
described how they worked to increase their contact with
and submersion in the organizationby depictingthemselves
as Tech members. One memorableexample is Mary:
Maryis unmarried.Overthe desk, where others keep family
picturesthere is a glossy pictureof her at a trade show with
colleagues. A row of ribbonsand name tags from varioussuch
events are pinnedto the wall next to it. Above it is an 'I love Tech'
bumpersticker. On a shelf there is a golf section with a few
trophies. 'Most ImprovedGolfer'from Golfer'sDigest and a Tech
trophy.Next to it a color printof a sailingboat with a large Tech
logo in the billowingsail. An orderlyrow of beer bottles and mugs
with a Tech logo, all with their handles facing left. (p. 194)
These arguments suggest another propositionthat linksthe
strength of organizationalidentificationto one of its
antecedents:
identification,the more a member will seek contact with the
organization.
Patterns of Social Interaction
Strong identificationwith the organizationkeeps members
attuned to the futureviabilityof the organization.When
people stronglyidentifywith their work organizationtheir
sense of survivalis tied to the organization'ssurvival.This
linkhas at least two effects. One effect involves
interpersonaldynamics: Strong identificationprompts
increased cooperationwith organizationalmembers as part
of the organizationalgroup and increased competitionwith
nonmembers. Second, members direct additionaleffort
toward tasks that contributeto coworkers and to the
organization.
When a member's level of organizationalidentificationis
strong, his or her sense of self as an organizationalmember
helps to form a patternof in-groupand out-groupdynamics.
While these dynamics play out between units within an
organization(Ashforthand Mael, 1989), they can also explain
differences in members' behavioracross organizations.In
early studies of intergroupdiscrimination,Tajfelet al. (1971)
designed an experiment in which subjects were separated
into groups by randomcriteriaand were told only about their
group affiliation.Even underthis stripped-downcondition,
now known as the minimalgroup paradigm,subjects
discriminatedin favor of in-groupmembers and against
out-groupmembers. Social identificationtheory explains that
the perceptionof a shared categoricalidentitycreates an
in-groupbias, which leads to intragroupcohesion (Turner,
1978; Kramer,1991), throughthe accentuationof perceived
similaritieswith other group members (Hogg and Abrams,
1988) and the resultingpositive attitudes toward these
in-groupmembers (Turner,1978: 28). Strong identification
with an organizationmakes cooperative behaviortoward
254/ASQ, June 1994
other organizationalmembers likelybecause of a heightened

sense of in-group(organizational)
trust and reciprocity,
heightened social attractiontoward in-groupmembers, and
presentationof a favorableimage of the organizationto self
and others (Kramer,1991):
Proposition 11 (P11): The strongerthe organizationalidentification,
the greater a member's cooperationwith other members of the
organization(in-groupcooperation).
When people identifythemselves as organizationalmembers
they rely on organizational-level
categories to determine the
relevantin-groupsand out-groups.Along with increasingthe
cooperativeness among people perceived as being partof
the organizationalin-group,identificationincreases the
competitiveness that organizationalmembers perceive
between themselves (as the in-group)and other out-groups.
Ample empiricalevidence links intergroup-level
categorizationwith the emergence of competitive behaviors
between groups (see Hogg and Abrams, 1988; Kramer,
1991, for reviews). Althoughintergroupdifferentiationdoes
not necessarily cause competition,in our culture,
competitionbetween groups is relativelyeasy to trigger
(Hogg and Abrams, 1988). Withinthe minimalgroup
paradigm,simply categorizingpeople into groups has been
shown to be sufficient to produce competitive behavior
between people in differentgroups (Tajfelet al., 1971).
Further,in interdependentsocial situations in which one
group "wins" something valued only when other groups
"lose," members who identifywith the organizationare
more aware of the collective consequences of winning and
are thus more competitive with out-groupmembers than are
members who don't identifywith the organization.This logic
supports the twelfth proposition:
identification,the greatera member's competitive behaviordirected
toward out-groupmembers.
Along with cooperationbetween members, other patterns of
interactionalso change. People who strongly identifywith
the organizationare likelyto focus on tasks that benefit the
whole organizationratherthan on purelyself-interested
ones. This is organizationalcitizenshipbehavior.
Organizationalcitizenshipbehaviorsare organizationally
functionalbehaviorsthat extend beyond role requirements
and are not contractuallyguaranteed(Smith,Organ,and
Near, 1983; Organ,1990). O'Reillyand Chatman's(1986)
studies demonstrateda positive correlationbetween
attachment based on internalizationand identificationand
levels of extrarolebehavior,which indirectlysupports this
assertion even though they defined and measured the two
forms of attachment (identificationand internalization)in
ways that differfrom the strength of identification.As
members become more psychologicallyattached to an
organization,their relationshipto the organizationchanges,
resultingin systematicallydifferentbehavioraldisplays of
psychologicalinvolvement.Mael and Ashforth(1992) found
some evidence of this relationshipin their study of alumni's
identificationwith their alma mater. They found that more
organizationalidentificationcorrelatedwith the ranked
priorityof contributionsand advisingone's son and others to
255/ASQ, June 1994
attend an all-male,religiouscollege. We suggest that effort
directed toward preserving,supporting,and improvingthe
organizationproceeds naturallyfrom the congruence
between a member's self-definitionand the organization's
definition.Organizationalidentificationaligns individual
interests and behaviorswith interest and behaviorsthat
benefit the organization.It means exertion on behalf of the
organizationis also exertion on behalf of the self (Shamir,
House, and Arthur,1993).
Members' efforts to benefit the organizationresult in
behaviorsthat are acts of obedience, loyalty,and
participation,such as spending time helping newcomers,
workingon long-termorganizationalprojects, pushing
superiorsto performto higherstandards,and providingideas
for improvingthe organization(VanDyne, Graham,and
Dienesch, 1994). Strong organizationalidentificationenables
members to contributemore frequentlyand more freely to
the organization.When strong overlapexists between what
defines the person and what is thought to define the
organization,this overlapenables a member to contribute
simultaneouslyto him-or herself and to the organization:
Proposition 13 (P13): The strongerthe organizationalidentification,
the more often a member exhibitsorganizationalcitizenship
behaviors.
DISCUSSION
In this paperwe assert that images of organizationsshape
how members define themselves. When members define
themselves with attributesthat overlapwith the attributes
they use to define the organization,they are strongly
identifiedwith the organization.Strong identificationwith an
organizationis also apparentwhen the social identityof an
organizationis more availableand salient than other social
identities.
The psychology of social identitytheory is powerful because
it implies that members may change their behaviorby
merely thinkingdifferentlyabout their employing
organization.If members believe that the perceived
organizationalidentityhas been altered either in content
(e.g., in what attributesdistinguishthis organization)or in its
evaluation(makingit more or less attractive),members are
likelyto modifytheir behavior.This change in members'
behaviordoes not requireinteractingwith others, altering
employees' jobs and rewards,or changing bosses. Rather,if
members thinkof their employingorganizationdifferently(by
changes in the perceived organizationalidentityor construed
external image), we argue they will behave differently.
Organizationalimages shape the strength of members'
identificationwith the organization,serving as important
cognitive reference points that either connect or disconnect
a member from the organization.When the images are
attractive,they increase the degree to which self-definitions
approximatethe organizationaldefinition.Members' images
of their employingorganizationare vital sources of their
self-construction.By providingmembers with images of the
social group to which they belong that specify the content of
256/ASQ, June 1994
what it means to be a member, organizationsprovidevital

inputfor members' self-definition.
The model shows how the construed externalorganizational
image affects the level of connection between individuals
and their organizations.By doing so, it bringsthe insights of
symbolic interactionistsinto depictions of individual
attachment to organizations.Symbolic interactionistsassert
that organizationalmembers come to know themselves
throughthe impressions of others and that these anticipated
impressions shape people's everyday behavior.This
assertion implies that there are attachment consequences to
believingthat outsiders see the organizationin a particular
way. By examiningthe relationshipsbetween construed
external image and members' identification,we recognize
that individual-organizational
attachment is more than an
intrapersonalphenomenon. Members' degree of cognitive
attachment (e.g., strength of identification)to the
organizationlinksto the anticipatedreflected appraisalby
others, makingcognitive attachmenta social and
interpersonalprocess as well.
Our model is relevantto three approaches in research on
organizationalimpression management. One approachuses
attributiontheory to look at organizationalaccounts for
success and failure(Salancikand Meindl, 1984). Another
focuses on how organizationsconstrue actions and events
to maintaina positive image in the minds of key
stakeholders (Suttonand Kramer,1990; Elsbachand Sutton,
1992; Ginzel, Kramer,and Sutton, 1993). And a third
concentrates on the content and effectiveness of
organizationalimage management (Elsbach,1994). All three
approaches emphasize leaders' and organizationalefforts to
create organizationalimages and acknowledge that these
images affect outside stakeholders'impressions of an
organization'slegitimacy.This literatureignores how these
images affect organizationalinsiders-the members who are
associated with these images as partof their everydaywork
behavior.Our model suggests that researchers interested in
the social psychology of organizationalimpression
management should consider how the images created for
outsiders shape the experience, attachments, and behaviors
of insiders.
Future Research
Extendingand testing the model presented in this paper
requiresoperationalizingstrength of organizational
identification.There are at least three differentapproaches
to measuringthis variable.The first strategy involves directly
assessing one's organizationalidentification.Mael and
Ashforth(1988) developed a scale-based measure of
strength of organizationalidentificationthat is reliableand
empiricallydistinguishablefrom concepts such as
organizationalcommitment and involvement,but, like
O'Reillyand Chatman's(1986) operationalization,their scale
includes assessments of how individualsfeel about the
organization.By involvingmore than the cognitive
connection between a member and an organization,these
scales tap into a broaderconcept of psychological
attachment than what we intend by organization
257/ASQ, June 1994
identification.A possible alternativemight be to modify
Jackson's (1981) index of commitment to an identityindex
that uses an arrayof items to assess the importanceof a
given social identityto a member's self-definition.
A second strategy would be to ask members to evaluate a
set of social identitiesand indicatethe relativedegree to
which these identities accuratelydescribe them as
individuals,either by ratingeach identityor rankingthem in a
hierarchy(e.g., Hoelter, 1985; Harquail,1994). Using this
approach,strong organizationalidentificationis indicated
when a person ranksor rates the organizationalidentity
higherthan other social identities.
A thirdapproachinvolves directlyassessing the level of
overlapbetween the characteristicsthat a member believes
typify him or her as an individual(i.e., are enduring,central,
and distinctive)and the characteristicsthat typifythe
organization.Highlevels of overlapbetween the two lists of
central,distinctive,and enduringattributeswould indicate
strong organizationalidentification.
Research assessing the strength of organizational
identificationshould also address the desirableand
undesirableoutcomes associated with strong organizational
identification.Forexample, Ashforthand Mael (1992)
presented a study in which they found that strong
organizationalidentificationwas associated with tyrannical
behaviorof managers toward their subordinates,such as
belittlingof subordinatesand increased use of noncontingent
punishment.Theirresults are unsettlingand add credence to
warningsabout the darkside of organizationalidentification
(Schwartz,1987; Kunda,1992).
Futureresearch should consider the arrayof organizational
images that may affect members' attachments to an
organization.We have not treated all organizationalimages
that have currencyin an organizationas equal but, rather,
have singled out perceived organizationalidentityand
construed externalimage as particularlyimportantand
worthy of empiricalstudy. Also, while we have considered
only members' present images of the organization,
psychologists and organizationalresearchers have shown
that future-basedimages of the organization-what Gioia
and Thomas (1991) and Reger et al. (1994) called the ideal
organizationor what Whetten, Lewis, and Mischel (1992)
called the desired organizationimage-also shape members'
behaviorsin organizations.The concept of "possible selves"
discussed by Markusand Nurius(1986) suggests one
avenue for exploringhow these future images of
organizationsshape members' behaviorby affecting the
content and evaluationof possible selves. This concept
describes individuals'ideas about what they might
become and what they are afraidof becoming and can
providea conceptual linkbetween self-schema and
members' motivations(Markusand Nurius,1986: 954).
Futureresearch should elaborate how future and past
images of the organizationconnect to a member's
self-concept and direct his or her behavior.
We also need research on how changingconditionsaffect
members' images of theirwork organizationand the
258/ASQ, June 1994
behaviorsthat result. Changes in structure,culture,

organizationalperformance,organizationalboundaries,or an
organization'scompetitive strategy may induce members to
revise their perceived organizationalidentityand construed
external image. These redefinitionscould have significant
psychologicaleffects. A decline in organizational
performance,for example, may lower the perceived
attractiveness of the organization'sconstrued external
image, weakening organizationalidentificationand creating
less cooperationand fewer organizationalcitizenship
behaviors.
Mergers and acquisitionsrepresent changes in both
structureand cultureand may alter members' organizational
images. These strategic changes revise both the boundaries
and the content of a member's perceived organizational
identity.When the retaildiscount giant, KMart,bought the
upscale and highbrowBordersbookstores, employees'
sense of the perceived organizationalidentitychanged, as
did the construed externalimage (Bridgeforth,1992). Some
employees believed that the basis for the distinctiveness of
Borders-its abilityto attract"readerswith discriminating
tastes"-would be compromised by its association with a
large discount store (Bridgeforth,1992: Cl). Based on our
model, we would predictthat some Bordersemployees
would weaken their level of organizationalidentification,
resultingin fewer displays of affiliation,less cooperative
behaviorwith inside members, fewer organizationcitizenship
behaviors,and a host of other outcomes. Alternatively,the
model suggests that if the perceived organizationalidentity
does change, and Bordersmembers spend a large amount
of time seeing themselves as partof this changed social
group (a KMart-Borders), then, over time, members may
alter how they see themselves.
Futureresearchers should consider the relationshipbetween
members' perceived organizationalidentityand their
expectations about organizationalactions, which would help
us understandhow members respond when the
organization'sactions exceed or fail to meet their
expectations. Members expect the organization'sactions to
reflect what is distinctive,central,and enduringabout the
organization'sidentity,and they discern their organization's
identityin part by interpretingthe organization'sactions
(Duttonand Dukerich,1991). When members who identify
with an organizationobserve a consistency between
expected and actual organizationalactions, their
organizationalidentificationstrengthens because the
organizationalidentityproves to be a reliablesource of
self-definition.
When members perceive majorinconsistencies between
expected and actual organizationalactions, a differentset of
responses is likely.As suggested by balance theory (Heider,
1958), self-perceptiontheory (Bem, 1967), and cognitive
dissonance theory (Festinger,1957), members will work to
resolve this inconsistency (Turnerand Oakes, 1986). One
response involves downplayingthe importanceof these
inconsistencies by offeringexcuses or justifications(Bies
and Sitkin,1991), with no majorchange in the strength of
their organizationalidentification.Anotherresponse involves
259/ASQ, June 1994
revisingone's perceptions of the organization'sidentity.If
this revisionenhances the attractiveness of the perceived
identity,member identificationwill be strengthened.
Conversely,if the revisionerodes the attractiveness of the
identity,members' identificationwill weaken. A third
possible response implies that members experience these
inconsistencies as threats to their own identities and
respond by changingtheir self-definitions(Breakwell,1986).
Finally,we must consider the generalizabilityof this model
of organizationalidentificationto different nationalor societal
contexts. Our model is builton a conceptualizationof the
self that assumes that people want to become "independent
from others and to discover and express their own
uniqueness" (Markusand Kitayama,1991: 226). This
assumption about how a person's self is organizedunderlies
the hypothesized links between perceived organizational
identity,construed externalimage, strength of organizational
outcomes, but this
identification,and individual-level
assumption may be limitedin its culturalgeneralizability
(Erezand Earley,1993). Markusand Kitayama(1991: 227)
explained how an alternativeview of self-one that is built
on the "fundamentalconnectedness of human beings to
each other" and one that is typicallyassociated with
non-Westerncultures-may create very different
connections between an organizationand an individual's
beliefs and actions. When Japan Air Lines (JAL)experienced
the worst single aircraftaccident ever (520 people were
killed),the president,Yasumoto Takagi,"followed Japanese
custom and took responsibilityfor the crash by resigning"
(LosAngeles Times, 1985: 2). Organizationalmembers in
non-Westerncultures may feel accountablefor the images
that are created of their organization,thus implyingan even
stronger connection between these images and subsequent
behaviors.
This paper shows that it is more than economic transactions
that connect members to their work organizations.
Members' attachments to an organizationare fundamentally
tied both to the images that they have of what the
organizationmeans to them and what they thinkit means to
others. If the images providethem with continuity,
distinctiveness, or positive evaluations,then their
attachments strengthen throughorganizationalidentification.
Economicdepictions of organizationalattachments ignore
these images and their dynamicqualities. Our model
suggests that these images should be at center stage if we
are to understandwhat makes the 3M salesman get up
eagerly for work in the morningand see new possibilities
and meaning in his life as an organizationalmember.
REFERENCES
Albert, Stuart, and David A. Alderfer, Clayton P., and Kenwyn Allaire, Yvan, and Michael E.
Whetten K. Smith Firsirotu
1985 "Organizational identity." In 1982 "Studying intergroup relations 1984 "Theoriesof organizational
L. L. Cummings and Barry M. embedded in organizations." culture."OrganizationStudies,
Staw (eds.), Research in Administrative Science 5: 193-226.
Organizational Behavior, 7: Quarterly, 27: 35-65.
263-295. Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press.
260/ASQ, June 1994
Arora, R. G., and S. T. Cavusgil Charters, W. W., and Theodore M. Feldman, Daniel C.
1985 "Imageand cost factors in the Newcomb 1976 "A contingencytheory of
choice of mental health-care 1952 "Some attitudinal effects of socialization."Administrative
organizations:A causal experimentally increased Science Quarterly,21:
model." Journalof Academy salience of group 433-452.
of MarketingScience, 13: membership." In G. E.
Festinger, Leon
119-129. Swanson et al. (eds.), 1957 A Theoryof Cognitive
Readings in Social
Ashforth, Blake E., and Fred Mael Psychology: 415-420. New
Dissonance. New York:
1989 "Socialidentitytheory and the Harperand Row.
York: Holt, Rinehart and
organization."Academyof Fiol, Marlene
Winston.
ManagementReview, 14: 1991 "Managingcultureas a
20-39. Chatman, Jennifer A. competitiveresource: An
1992 "Thedarkside of 1991 "Matching people and identity-basedview of
organizationalidentification." organizations: Selection and sustainablecompetitive
Paperpresented at the socialization in public advantage."Journalof
Academyof Management accounting firms." Management,17: 191-206.
Meeting, Las Vegas. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 36: 459-484. Foote, Nelson N.
Bem, Daryl J. 1953 "Identification as a basis for a
1967 "Self-perception:The Cheney, George theory of motivation."
dependent variableof human 1983 "On the various and changing AmericanSociologicalReview,
performance."Organizational meanings of organized 16: 14-21.
Behaviorand Human membership: A field study of
Performance,2: 105-121. organizational identification." Garbett,Thomas
Communication Monographs, 1988 How to Builda Corporation's
Bies, Robert J., and Sim B. Sitkin Identityand ProjectIts Image.
50: 342-362.
1991 "Explanation as legitimation: Lexington,MA: D.C. Heath.
Excuse-makingin Cialdini, Robert B., Richard J.
organizations."In M. Borden, Avril Thorne, Marcus Gatewood, Robert D., MaryA.
McLaughlin,M. Cody,and S. Randall Walker, Stephen Freeman, Gowan, and G. J. Lautenschlager
Read (eds.), ExplainingOne's and Lloyd Reynolds Sloan 1993 "Corporateimage, recruitment
Self to Others: Reason-giving 1976 "Basking in reflected glory: image, and initialjob choice
in a Social Context: 183-198. Three (football) field studies." decisions."Academy of
Hillsdale,NJ: Erlbaum. Journal of Personality and ManagementJournal,36:
Social Psychology, 34: 414-427.
Boorstin, Daniel
366-375. Gecas, Viktor
1961 The Image:A Guideto
Pseudo-events in America. Dutton, Jane E., and Janet M. 1982 "Theself-concept." In R. H.
New York:Atheneum. Dukerich Turnerand J. F. Short,Jr.
1991 "Keeping an eye on the (eds.), AnnualReview of
Breakwell,Glynis M. Sociology,8: 1-33. PaloAlto,
mirror:The role of image and
1986 Copingwith Threatened CA:AnnualReviews.
identity in organizational
Identities.New York:
adaptation." Academy of Gergen, Kenneth J.
Metheun.
Management Journal, 34: 1968 "Personalconsistency and the
Bridgeforth,Arthur,Jr. 517-554. presentationof self." In Chad
1992 "Borderingon change: Gordonand K.J. Gergen
Elsbach, Kimberly D.
Bordersbookstorechainturns (eds.), The Self in Social
1994 "Managing organizational
a page in its history,but won't Interaction,1: 299-308. New
legitimacy in the California
close the book on providing York:Wiley.
cattle industry: The
good reading."Ann Arbor
construction and effectiveness Ginzel, LindaE., RoderickM.
News, October25, C1. of verbal accounts." Kramer,and Robert I. Sutton
Brockner,Joel Administrative Science 1993 "Organizational impression
1988 Self-esteem at Work: Quarterly, 39: 57-88. managementas a reciprocal
Research,Theoryand influenceprocess: The
Elsbach, Kimberly D., and Robert
Practice.Lexington,MA: D.C. neglected role of the
I. Sutton
Heath. organizational audience." In
1992 "Acquiring-organizational
Brown, Michael E. legitimacy through illegitimate L. L. Cummingsand BarryM.
1969 "Identification and some actions: A marriage of Staw (eds.), Research in
conditionsof organizational institutional and impression Organizational Behavior,15:
involvement."Administrative management theories." 227-266. Greenwich,CT:JAI
Science Quarterly,14: Academy of Management Press.
346-355. Journal, 35: 699-738. Gioia, Dennis A., and James B.
Bruner,Jerome S. Erez, Miriam, and P. Christopher Thomas
1957 "Goingbeyond the Earley 1991 "Sensemaking,sensegiving
informationgiven." In H. 1993 Culture: Self-Identity and and action takingin a
Gruber,K. Hammond,and R. Work. New York: Oxford university:Towarda model of
Jessor (eds.), Contemporary University Press. strategic interpretation."
Approachesto Cognition: Paperpresented at the
Fanning, D. Academyof Management
41-69. Cambridge,MA:
1990 "Coping in industries that the Meeting, Miami.
HarvardUniversityPress. - public hates." New York
Times, August 19: F 25.
261/ASQ, June 1994
Greenberg, Jerald Kelman, HerbertC. Mowday, Richard, Lyman M.
1990 "Looking fair versus being 1958 "Compliance,identification Porter, and Richard M. Steers
fair: Managing impressions of and internalization." Journalof 1982 E-O Linkages: The Psychology
organizational justice." In ConflictResolution,2: 51-60. of Commitment, Absenteeism
Barry M. Staw and L. L. and Turnover. New York:
Kramer,RoderickM. Academic Press.
Cummings (eds.), Research in 1991 "Intergrouprelationsand
Organizational Behavior, 12: organizational dilemmas:The O'Reilly, Charles, and Jennifer
111-157. Greenwich, CT: JAI role of categorization Chatman
Press. processes." In L. L. 1986 "Organizational commitment
Hall, Douglas T., and Benjamin Cummingsand BarryM. Staw and psychological attachment:
Schneider (eds.), Researchin The effects of compliance,
1972 "Correlations of organizational Organizational Behavior,13: identification and
identification as a function of 191-228. Greenwich,CT:JAI internalization on prosocial
career pattern and Press. behavior." Journal of Applied
organizational type." Psychology, 71: 492-499.
Kunda,Gideon
Administrative Science 1992 EngineeringCulture. O'Reilly, Charles, Jennifer
Quarterly, 17: 340-350. Philadelphia:Temple Chatman, and David F. Caldwell
Hall, Douglas T., Benjamin UniversityPress. 1991 "People and organizational
Schneider, and Harold T. Nygren culture: A profile comparison
Lee, Sang M. approach to assessing
1970 "Personal factors in 1971 "Anempiricalanalysisof
organizational identification." person-organization fit."
organizational identification."
Administrative Science Academy of Management
Academyof Management
Quarterly, 17: 340-350. Journal, 34: 487-516.
Journal,14: 213-226.
Harquail, Celia V. Organ, Dennis W.
Los Angeles Times
1994 "Is sisterhood powerful? 1990 "The motivational basis of
1985 "JALreplaces top officers in
Social identification and citizenship behavior." In Barry
shake-upover crash."
women's advocacy in M. Staw and L. L. Cummings
December 19, part4: 2.
organizations." Unpublished (eds), Research in
Ph.D. dissertation proposal, Mael, Fred, and Blake E. Ashforth Organizational Behavior, 12:
University of Michigan. 1988 "A reconceptualization of 43-72. Greenwich, CT: JAI
organizational identification." Press.
Heider, Fritz InT. L. Keonand A. C.
1958 The Psychology of Perrow, Charles
Bluedorn(eds.), Proceedings
Interpersonal Relations. New 1961 "Organizational prestige:
of the Midwest Academyof
York: Wiley. Some functions and
ManagementMeetings:
dysfunctions." American
Hirschman, Albert 0. 127-129.
Journal of Sociology, 61:
1970 Exit, Voice and Loyalty: 1992 "Alumniand theiralma mater: 373-391.
Responses to Decline in A partialtest of the
Firms, Organizations and reformulatedmodel of Pfeffer, Jeffrey
States. Cambridge, MA: organizational identification." 1981 "Management as symbolic
Harvard University Press. Journalof Organization action." In L. L. Cummings
Behavior,13: 103-123. and Barry M. Staw (eds.),
Hoelter, Jon W. Research in Organizational
1985 "The structure of Markus,Hazel R., and Shimbu Behavior, 3: 1-52. Greenwich,
self-conception: Kitiyama CT: JAI Press.
Conceptualization and 1991 "Cultureand the self:
measurement." Journal of Implicationsfor cognition, Porter, Lyman W., Richard M.
Personality and Social emotion and motivation." Steers, Richard T. Mowday, and
Psychology, 48: 1392-1407. PsychologicalReview, 98: Paul V. Boulian
224-253. 1974 "Organizational commitment,
Hogg, Michael A., and Dominic
job satisfaction and turnover
Abrams Markus,Hazel R., and Paula among psychiatric
1988 Social Identifications: A Social Nurius technicians." Journal of
Psychology of Intergroup 1986 "Possibleselves." American
Applied Psychology, 59:
Relations and Group Psychologist,41: 954-969. 603-609.
Processes. London: Markus,Hazel R., and Elissa Wurf
Routledge. Reger, Rhonda K., Loren T.
1987 "Thedynamicself-concept:A
Gustafson, Sam M. DeMarie, and
Jackson, Susan E. social-psychological John V. Mullane
1981 "Measurement of perspective."In MarkR. 1994 "Reframing the organization:
commitment to role Rosenzweig and LymanW.
Why implementing Total
identities." Journal of Porter(eds.), AnnualReview
Quality is easier said than
Personality and Social of Psychology,38: 299-337.
done." Academy of
Psychology, 40: 138-146. PaloAlto, CA:Annual
Management Review, vol. 19
Reviews.
Kahn, William A. (in press).
1990 "Psychological conditions of Martin,Joanne, MarthaS. Salancik, Gerald R., and James R.
personal engagement and Feldman, MaryJo Hatch, and Sim Meindl
disengagement at work." B. Sitkin
1984 "Corporate attributions as
Academy of Management 1983 "Theuniqueness paradoxin
strategic illusions of
Journal, 33: 692-724. organizational stories."
management control."
AdministrativeScience
Administrative Science
Quarterly,28: 438-453. Quarterly, 29: 238-254.
262/ASQ, June 1994
Schlenker, Barry R. Stryker, Sheldon, and Richard T. Turner, John C., and Penelope J.
1985 "Self-identification: Toward an Serpe Oakes
integration of the private and 1982 "Commitment, identity 1986 "The significance of the social
public self." In R. Baumiester salience and role behavior: identity concept for social
(ed.), Public Self and Private Theory and research psychology, with reference to
Self: 21-62. New York: example." In W. Ickers and E. individualism, interactionism
Springer-Verlag. Knowles (eds.), Personality, and social influence." British
Schwartz, Howard S. Roles and Social Behavior: Journal of Social Psychology,
1987 "Anti-social actions of 199-219. New York: 25: 237-252.
committed organizational Springer-Verlag.
Turner, Ralph H.
participants: An existential Sutton, Robert I., and Roderick M. 1978 "The role and the person."
psychoanalytic perspective." Kramer American Journal of
Organization Studies, 8: 1990 "Transforming failure into Sociology, 84: 1-23.
327-340. success: Impression
Van Dyne, Linn, Jill W. Graham,
Selame, Elinor, and Joe Selame management, the Reagan
and Richard M. Dienesch
1988 The Company Image: Building Administration, and the
1994 "Organizational citizenship
Your Identity and Influence in Iceland Arms Control Talks."
behavior: Construct
the Marketplace. New York: In Robert L. Kahn and Mayer
redefinition, operationalization
Wiley. Zald (eds.), International
and validation." Academy of
Cooperation and Conflict
Shamir, Boas Management Journal, vol. 37
Perspectives from
1991 "Meaning, self and motivation (in press).
Organization Theory: 221-245.
in organizations." Organization San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Van Maanen, John
Studies, 12: 405-424. 1975 "Police socialization: A
Tajfel, Henri
Shamir, Boas, Robert J. House, longitudinal examination of job
1982 "Social psychology of
and Michael B. Arthur attitudes in an urban police
intergroup relations." In Mark
1993 "The motivational effects of department." Administrative
R. Rosenzweig and Lyman W.
charismatic leadership: A Science Quarterly, 20:
Porter (eds.), Annual Review
self-concept based theory." 207-228.
of Psychology, 33: 1-39. Palo
Organization Science, 4: Alto, CA: Annual Reviews. Van Maanen, John, and Stephen
577-594. R. Barley
Tajfel, Henri, C. Flament, M. G.
Smith, Ann C., Dennis W. Organ, 1984 "Occupational communities:
Billig, and R. F. Bundy
and Janet P. Near Culture and control in
1971 "Social categorization and
1983 "Organizational citizenship organizations." In Barry M.
intergroup behavior."
behavior: Its nature and Staw and L. L. Cummings
European Journal of Social
antecedents." Journal of (eds.), Research in
Psychology, 1: 149-177.
Applied Psychology, 68: Organizational Behavior, 6:
653-663. Tajfel, Henri, and John C. Turner 287-365. Greenwich, CT: JAI
1985 "The social identity theory of Press.
Star Ledger (Newark) intergroup behavior." In
1989 "Exxon workers assailed." Van Maanen, John, and Edgar H.
Steven Worchel and William
May 22: 3. Schein
G. Austin (eds.), Psychology
1979 "Toward a theory of
Staw, Barry M. of Intergroup Relations, 2:
organizational socialization." In
1980 "Rationality and justification in 7-24. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Barry M. Staw and L. L.
organizational life." In Barry Tetlock, Philip E., and Anthony S. Cummings (eds.), Research in
M. Staw and L. L. Cummings Manstead Organizational Behavior, 1:
(eds.), Research in 1985 "Impression management 209-264. Greenwich, CT: JAI
Organizational Behavior, 2: versus intrapsychic Press.
45-80. Greenwich, CT: JAI explanations in social
Press. Vardi, Yoav, Yoash Wiener, and
psychology: A useful
Micha Poppa
Steele, Claude M. dichotomy?" Psychological
1989 "The value content of
1988 "The psychology of Review, 92: 59-77.
organizational mission as a
self-affirmation: Sustaining the Turner, John C. factor in the commitment of
integrity of the self." In 1982 "Towards a cognitive members." Psychological
Leonard Berkowitz (ed.), redefinition of the social Reports, 65: 27-34.
Advances in Experimental group." In Henri Tajfel (ed.),
Social Psychology, 21: Whetten, David A., Debra Lewis,
Social Identity and Intergroup
261-302. New York: and Leann Mischel
Relations: 15-40. Cambridge:
Academic Press. 1992 "Towards an integrated model
Cambridge University Press.
of organizational identity and
Stern, S. member commitment." Paper
1988 "A symbolic representation of presented at Academy of
organizational identity." In Management Meeting, Las
Michael 0. Jones, Michael D. Vegas.
Moore, and Richard C. Snyder
(eds.), Inside Organizations:
281-295. Newbury, CA: Sage.
263/ASQ, June 1994

Organizational Images

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Organizational Images

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Organizational Images and Member Identification

Author(s): Jane E. Dutton, Janet M. Dukerich and Celia V. Harquail

organization'sexternalimage in these negative and socially

(1989) described organizationalidentificationas a process of

People value self-integrityand a sense that they are

competence, power, efficacy, virtue,or moralworth (Gecas,

construed externalimage acts as a potentiallypowerful

Self-continuity and the attractiveness of the construed

Figure 1. Linking perceived organizational identity and construed

other organizationalmembers likelybecause of a heightened

what it means to be a member, organizationsprovidevital

behaviorsthat result. Changes in structure,culture,

260/ASQ, June 1994

261/ASQ, June 1994

262/ASQ, June 1994

263/ASQ, June 1994

Anda mungkin juga menyukai