THE EFFECTS OF ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTIFICATION 105 &van Schie.2000).Hence. (Farrell Oczkow wski,2012:Homburg.Wieseke,&Hoyer.2009). we expect tha Affec n indi al's I bond xtra-role performane avioral out f the ation's value ary actions that are he nd goals (Judge K verMueller,2012).Affective ation b se both n individual's psychologi att 200 such as employee voic Van Dy 005 tion (O'Rei 1986 Rikett nd orga ons based on the perception of social xch tio pan in the al member 2008dw ide 1998 2008).Strong identifiers thus are likely to p sted that it is re e to examine affective orga assistin others expe identi en& ping the zation.they build mot with and en h &W 2006).In sum.th on.wh ed to it (B i&n 2006)Pr Meyer.Becker van Dic (Christ.va t is "the binding to (Chen 1087. Mo Hekman 2012 van Dick et a (Me tal.2006 Me ational ider .2011).we expect that te that orgar nalidcnt increase affective organiz roharitud Behavioral Outcomes or fur (Cham s.Piliavin-&Caller as well as ttitudes in organization 2000.nog nare more like goals (i.e heir (Biddle Bank.S 1987 r identit benet 00510. 20o0ofaproteprage o organi nal identification is to .83).is1ik ly to lead them to exhibit beh viors that white 1999) 9 an Knippenberg 1988 ro onal oals and those efforts translate into their intrinsic teven after the effects of attitud have ed for tivation to perform well in their ir have indicated that 0 000:van Knip van Schie.2000).For in ated from th ose of attitude ow th strong O'Reil Callan,2006) make cho es tha 1986:Riketta van Dick.2005).Thi activities that critically contribute to organizational effectiveness ences (Harrison.Newman.Roth.2006:Judge Kammeyer& van Schie, 2000). Hence, we expect that organizational identi￾fication will increase job satisfaction. Affective organizational commitment. Affective organiza￾tional commitment refers to an individual’s psychological bond with the organization constructed through an affective attachment to the organization and internalization of the organization’s values and goals (Judge & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2012). Affective organi￾zational commitment bears a similarity to organizational identifi￾cation because both regard an individual’s psychological attach￾ment to the organization (O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986; Riketta & van Dick, 2005). However, commitment refers to a more general attitude constructed based on the perception of social exchange between individual and organization, two separate psychological entities; thus, it does not contain a self-defining nature, which is central in the concept of identification, thereby not reflecting psychological oneness (Ashforth & Mael, 1989) between individ￾ual and organizational identities (Ashforth et al., 2008; Cole & Bruch, 2006; Klein, Molloy, & Brinsfield, 2012; Pratt, 1998; van Knippenberg & Sleebos, 2006). Accordingly, researchers have suggested that it is reasonable to examine affective organizational commitment as an attitudinal outcome of organizational identifi￾cation; as individuals develop a sense of oneness or identification with the organization, they build emotional bonds with and en￾gagement in the organization, which leads them to be more com￾mitted to it (Bergami & Bagozzi, 2000; Meyer, Becker, & Van￾denberghe, 2004; Meyer, Becker, & van Dick, 2006). In other words, identification is “the appropriation of identity” and com￾mitment is “the binding to action” (Cheney & Tompkins, 1987, p. 9), which implies that possessing a social identity (i.e., identifica￾tion) is a basis or a precursor for developing commitment to the corresponding collective (Meyer et al., 2006; Meyer & Hersco￾vitch, 2001). In accordance with the empirical evidence supporting this theoretical view (e.g., Bergami & Bagozzi, 2000; Marique & Stinglhamber, 2011), we expect that organizational identification will increase affective organizational commitment. Behavioral Outcomes Previous research suggests that organizational identification also influences behaviors as well as attitudes in organizations. In-role performance. Individuals with high organizational identification are more likely to contribute to collective goals (i.e., organizational goals) by taking actions that benefit the whole organization (Haslam & Ellemers, 2005). One way of reifying behavioral responses to organizational identification is to success￾fully enact in-role behaviors that are required by formal job de￾scriptions, directly serving the goals of the organization (Foote, 1951; van Knippenberg, 2000). Put differently, strong identifiers are likely to exert substantial individual efforts for the sake of organizational goals, and those efforts translate into their intrinsic motivation to perform well in their individual jobs, resulting in enhanced job performance (Haslam & Ellemers, 2005; van Knip￾penberg, 2000; van Knippenberg & van Schie, 2000). For instance, studies show that strong identifiers tend to share information and communicate with coworkers (Grice, Gallois, Jones, Paulsen, & Callan, 2006) and make choices that serve the organization’s strategic interests (Bartel, 2001; Tompkins & Cheney, 1985). Also, strong identifiers are more likely to engage in customer-oriented activities that critically contribute to organizational effectiveness (Farrell & Oczkowski, 2012; Homburg, Wieseke, & Hoyer, 2009). Based on all of this reasoning and evidence, we expect that organizational identification will increase in-role performance. Extra-role performance. Another notable behavioral out￾come of organizational identification is extra-role performance— discretionary actions that are beyond formal job descriptions and not directly recognized by an organization’s formal reward system (Konovsky & Pugh, 1994; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bach￾rach, 2000) such as employee voice behaviors (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998) and organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs; Organ, 1997). For strong identifiers, voluntarily helping the orga￾nization achieve its goal (e.g., adhering to informal company rules, attending company meetings that are not mandatory) is important because the organization’s goal is theirs as well. In addition, for strong identifiers, other organizational members who comprise a significant part of their perceptions of what the organization is provide substantial meanings for their self-definitions (Sluss & Ashforth, 2007, 2008). Strong identifiers thus are likely to perceive that helping other organizational members through extra-role be￾haviors (e.g., willingly assisting others experiencing work-related problems, spending time helping newcomers) parallels helping themselves (Dukerich, Golden, & Shortell, 2002; van Dick, Gro￾jean, Christ, & Wieseke, 2006). In sum, through organizational identification, they become good organizational citizens (Bergami & Bagozzi, 2000; van Dick et al., 2006). Previous studies have offered strong empirical support for this reasoning (Christ, van Dick, Wagner, & Stellmacher, 2003; Dukerich et al., 2002; John￾son, Morgeson, & Hekman, 2012; van Dick et al., 2006), and therefore we expect that organizational identification will increase extra-role performance. Uniqueness of organizational identification’s effects on behaviors. Those theoretical and empirical notions of the link between organizational identification and in-role/extra-role perfor￾mance indicate that organizational identification influences behav￾iors not necessarily through attitudes. Some researchers have spe￾cifically argued that, different from attitudes which primarily capture relatively instrumental, ephemeral, or short-term motiva￾tors of behavior, identity and identification constitute relatively long-term or fundamental motivators (Charng, Piliavin, & Callero, 1988; Haslam & Ellemers, 2005; Sparks, 2000). In organizational settings, thus, when individuals identify with the organization, their identity label (Biddle, Bank, & Slavings, 1987) or identity standard (Stets & Burke, 2000) of a prototypical organizational member, as “agent or cause of behavior” (Burke & Reitzes, 1981, p. 83), is likely to lead them to exhibit behaviors that are favored in the specific organizational context (Terry & Hogg, 1996; Terry, Hogg, & White, 1999). In accordance with this notion, several empirical studies (e.g., Biddle et al., 1987; Charng et al., 1988) have shown that the effects of identity/identification on behaviors persist even after the effects of attitudes have been accounted for. However, other researchers have indicated that the effects of organizational identification on behaviors are not uniquely differ￾entiated from those of attitudes because organizational identifica￾tion conceptually overlaps with other attitude constructs—affec￾tive organizational commitment in particular (O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986; Riketta & van Dick, 2005). This alternative per￾spective comes from the notion that work attitudes are generally defined as cognitive and emotional evaluations of work experi￾ences (Harrison, Newman, & Roth, 2006; Judge & Kammeyer￾This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. THE EFFECTS OF ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTIFICATION 1051