Why workers still identify with organizations

Invited Why workers still identifyEssay with organizations

DENISE M. ROUSSEAU*

Heinz School of Public Policy and Management and Graduate School of Industrial Administration,Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 U.S.A.

J. Organiz. Behav. 19: 217±233 (1998)

Introduction

Robert Reich describes `the pronoun test', his strategy for evaluating the nature of the employ-ment relationship in the companies he visited as U.S. Secretary of Labor during the ®rst ClintonAdministration:

Ì'd say, ``Tell me about the company''. If the person said ``we'' or `ùs'', I knewpeople were strongly attached to the organization. If it was ``they'' or ``them'',I knew there was less of a sense of linkage' (Reich, 1997).

That `sense of linkage' is the subject of this essay, which focuses upon the identi®cation ofworkers with their organization and the impact identi®cation has on contemporary employment.Identi®cation is a psychological state wherein an individual perceives himself or herself to be partof a larger whole (work group, ®rm, church, etc.). This essay addresses organizational identi®-cation, wherein individuals perceive themselves to be part of a larger organization. (Note that theterms organization and ®rm as used here refer to organizational units from work groups anddepartments to a large corporation, any of which can be the focus of identi®cation). Identi®-cation of people with the organization can create a larger whole that can be a driving force behinda ®rm's performance (Castanzias and Helfat, 1991), worker well-being (Weiss, 1990), and theresilience of both ®rms and workers in times of change (Pfe�er, 1994).

Sociologists have long maintained that the basis for corporate actions are cognitive processeswhereby individuals expand the way they think about themselves to include larger and larger setsof social objects (Parsons, 1951; Etzioni, 1961; Coleman, 1990). This `cognitive expansion' of selfcan take several forms. At one level, identi®cation occurs when an individual and an organizationhave common interests that dominate their di�erences, and the individual perceives that his or

* Correspondence to: Denise M. Rousseau, Heinz School of Public Policy and Management and Graduate School ofIndustrial Administration, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, U.S.A. Tel: (412) 268-8470. Fax: (412)268-7092. e-mail: [email protected] wish to thank Lynn Friedman, Paul Goodman, Snehal Tijoriwala, and Laurie Weingart, all of whom providedinsightful comments on an earlier version of this essay. Catherine Senderling as usual did a superb job of editing. Thanksalso to Colin Housing for research assistance.

CCC 0894±3796/98/030217±17$17.50# 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 29 December 1997

JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR, VOL. 19, 217±233 (1998)

her relationship to the organization forms an ùs' (e.g. among individual members of an ad hoctaskforce working together to meet a deadline; Wiley and Alexander, 1987; Gaettner, Dovidioand Bachman, 1996). I will refer to this level as situated identi®cation. This elemental form ofidenti®cation is a perception of a discrete work setting, created by situational cues signallingshared interests and maintains as long as the cues persist. At a deeper level, identi®cation occurswhen the employment relationship alters the mental model individuals have of themselves toincorporate the organization itself (e.g. where being a `Harvard professor' forms part of anindividual's self-schema, Horowitz, 1988). Deep structure identi®cation is used here to refer to thecognitive schema formed in work settings across roles, over time, and across situations that leadsto congruence between self-at work and one's broader self concept (Turner, 1978). Such organiz-ational identi®cation can form part of an individual's self-concept by altering individuals' mentalmodels of self in enduring ways (e.g. as United Parcel Service employees say they `bleed brown'out of a sense of attachment to the company, symbolized by the brown uniforms they wear).

What motivates contemporary workers to identify with an organization, given a history ofchange and an uncertain future? This basic question is the focus of this essay. In turbulentorganizational environments, it is important to ask whether workers still identify with organ-izations, what forms such identi®cation takes, and the factors that shape it. Industrial upheavalssuggest that both individuals and ®rms have experienced an identity crisis (Handy, 1989). Ifidenti®cation expands the self to include the organization, that identity appears to have beenfrequently dismantled. One might argue, therefore, that contemporary changes in corporations,including downsizing and outsourcing, have e�ectively hollowed out both organizations (Bettis,Bradley and Hamel, 1992) and the potential for persons to identify with them (Hirsch, 1987). Inthis essay, I take exception to that belief. I argue that identi®cation in various forms continues tobe widespread in contemporary ®rms, although worker identi®cation with organizations underconditions of change has received relatively little attention in organizational research. Mypremise is that this pervasiveness of worker identi®cation with organizations occurs due to bothindividual- and ®rm-level forces. Individuals have a strong drive to believe that they are part ofthe settings in which they work (Ashforth and Mael, 1988) and member identi®cation enhancesthe success of ®rms based upon coordinated corporate action (Coleman, 1990). Note thatidenti®cation refers to a cognitive state, not a speci®c behavior or a particular emotionÐalthough identi®cation can in¯uence both behavior and emotion. Other concepts associated withthe employment relationship, such as citizenship and a�ective commitment, are related toidenti®cation. Organizational citizenship behavior refers to the extra-role contributions indi-viduals voluntarily make to ®rms (Organ, 1990). A�ective commitment refers to the a�ectivereaction an individual has to the organization as a whole (Cook, Hepworth, Wall and Warr,1981). Both situated and deep structure identi®cation are distinct from citizenship and com-mitment. Identi®cation is a cognition of self in relationship to the organization while citizen-ship is a behavior and commitment is an a�ective response. But identi®cation can a�ect both.Identi®cation can alter the meaning of extra-role behavior (from giving to another to giving toone's self, or concern for another versus concern for an entity of which one is a part). Identi®-cation can also shape and be shaped by an individual's a�ective reaction to the organization as awhole.

Participation in contemporary corporate life frequently entails psychological changes in ourconcept of ourselves and others. Indeed, many contemporary approaches to managementpresume that people working together will come to identify with each other and their largerorganization. This presumption underlies such diverse practices as boot camp (Moskos andButler, 1996); community building workshops within ®rms (Mirvis, in press); and recruiting pro-cesses selecting people for ®t with the larger organization rather than their potential performance

# 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 19: 217±233 (1998)

218 D. M. ROUSSEAU

in a speci®c job (Herriot, 1992). Further, these psychological changes are intrinsically linked todynamics of the employment relationship over time, including the form and functioning ofpsychological contracts in employment (Rousseau, 1995a). Changes in the nature of contemp-orary employment create a challenge to processes of identi®cation by a�ecting the content ofpsychological contracts and frequently eroding existing contracts. Nonetheless, mechanisms forfostering identi®cation endure, even if they are not always recognized.

In the sections that follow, this essay describes antecedents and consequences of formsof identi®cation and their role in new employment relationships. It also o�ers a series ofpostulations for consideration in future research into identi®cation in employment.

Situated Identi®cation: The Elemental Level

Achieving an expanded sense of self has been characterized as a fundamental human motivationre¯ecting both a need to belong as well as an adaptiveness to complex and changing socialenvironments (Baumeister and Leary, 1995; Brewer, 1991). At the most elemental level, all formsof organizational identi®cation involve a sense of the individual as part of the larger organ-izational entity (I is part of We). This personi®cation of the organization as `we' occurs as afunction of situational cues that signal to individuals that their e�orts contribute to a largerwhole. This identi®cation of I as part ofWe contrasts with two alternative beliefs about self, posedby Gaettner and his colleagues (1996); `di�erent individuals', where individuals see themselvesand others in the organization as discrete individuals without a meaningful whole comprising theorganization, or as `distinct subgroups', where the individual is part of one subgroup whoseinterests compete with or are in con¯ict with other subgroups (e.g. labor versus management).

The classic example of situational cues creating a sense of `we', uniting disparate individualsinto one group with a common identity, is the series of studies conducted by Sherif and Sherif(1969). In this research, boys who earlier had been put in competitive situations with each othersubsequently experienced a simulated crisis where all had to pitch in to help. Working togetherled individuals to change their perceptions of each other from negative to positive and to reportexperiencing a sense of being in òne group'. This shift from a view of self as a separate individualto self as an organizational member is a function of situational cues (e.g. an interdependent task,common goals, symbols conveying membership).

Situated identi®cation has been successfully created even in temporary settings through avariety of interventions. Brewer and Gardner (1996) describe a series of experiments in whichpriming respondents to think in terms of an interpersonal or collective `we' altered their judge-ments regarding their self-descriptions and the similarity of others to themselves. The e�ectpriming has on attributions regarding self and others re¯ects an adaptation of the self to socialsettings. When situational cues prime individuals to think of each other as part of the same group(e.g. where all wear a baseball cap with the university or company name on it), greateridenti®cation occurs than when persons are primed to believe that a competition exists betweenpersons or between subgroups of the larger group. Gaettner et al. (1996) observe that commonidenti®cation (`we') can be induced by social interventions that foster a sense of cooperation andòne group' identity (as opposed to `di�erent groups' or `diverse individuals'). Their ®ndingsgeneralize across such widely distinct settings as a bank merger, multiracial high school, anduniversity football game. Levels of cooperation and attributions of positive characteristics werehighest when self and others were seen as part of the same group.


WHY WORKERS STILL IDENTIFY WITH ORGANIZATIONS 219

Situated identi®cation with the organization is most likely to occur where cues signal commoninterests and where outcomes are shared, integrative, and not distributive. Common interestsbecome salient when individuals and the broader ®rm are a�ected by the same consequentialevents, whether positive or negative (Coleman, 1990). For example, Southwest Airlines regularlysends its employees a bonus check (under US$50) each month when it receives an on-time ratingin the top half of the airline industry. Co-workers who rally around a successful on-time recordeach month or discuss the failure to achieve a desirable rating share a common experience witheach other and the ®rm. The cognitive e�ects of such activities are a shared focus of attention onorganizational performance, recognition of individual and group actions that a�ect suchperformance, and a blurring of the boundaries among employees with di�erent roles andfunctions, creating a sense of òne-company'. This esprit fosters more collaboration in pursuingorganizational goals.

Sherif and Sherif (1969) found evidence that a sense of `we' primed by discrete commonexperiences (e.g. working together in an emergency) dissipates if situational cues change(e.g. forming a competition between individuals or groups). Thus, the sense of `we' created byconsequential events does not necessarily enter into the deep structure of individuals' mentalmodels of self. If shared consequential events cease to occur, collective identi®cation can eroderapidly.

Because situated identi®cation re¯ects a response to immediate environmental stimuli, itis particularly relevant to new forms of employment and work arrangements where the sameindividual may work in di�erent work settings (e.g. for di�erent employers) concurrently or overa short period of time. Sophisticated communication and information technologies very likelyenhance the salience of consequential events in the fostering of identi®cation, particularly due tothe wide distribution of information regarding ®rm performance, employee and work groupsuccesses, and company events that these technologies make possible. In one ®rm, an increase inthe ®rm's stock price means that the next day is `casual day' in all its o�ces. This practice causesemployees to pay attention to the stock price. Firm-based information systems that focus onconsequential events can create vivid impressions of the ®rm, and we know people pay attentionto `critical incidents' where strong negative or positive outcomes are involved (Gundry andRousseau, 1994). Moreover, computer-based communication systems are highly `democratic'(Mantovani, 1994), with pervasive and powerful e�ects on linkages within work groups andthroughout the entire organization. The impact of consequential events on situated organ-izational identi®cation is likely to be sustained even in virtual or geographically distributed ®rms.Therefore, I postulate that:

1. Priming of common organizational membership and/or shared consequential eventspromotes situated identi®cation.

Moreover, consistent with Sherif and Sherif's (1969) research described above, it can bepostulated:

2. Situated identi®cation erodes when situational cues reinforcing it are removed.

Situated identi®cation is particularly relevant to temporary work systems, and can contributesigni®cantly to the e�ectiveness of short-term work arrangements. The concept of `swift trust'was coined by Meyerson, Weick and Kramer (1996) to characterize the dynamics of e�ectivelyorganized temporary work systems. Political campaigns, ®lm crews, and auditing teams areexamples of temporary settings in which a set of diversely skilled people work together on acomplex task over a limited period of time. Subcontracting, using fewer people to do more diverseassignments, and the rise of network organizations give rise to temporary systems to perform


220 D. M. ROUSSEAU

non-routine, consequential tasks that require on-going interactions to accomplish an outcome(Meyerson et al., 1996, p. 169). Quickly converting strangers into interdependent teams requiresswift trust, that is, a collective perception that vulnerability, uncertainty, and risk can bemanaged. Swift trust is built upon situated identi®cation of strangers with each other and theircommon task, reinforced by the clear role expectations characteristic of e�ectively constructedtemporary systems where each person has been brought in because of some distinctive task-related competence. In e�ectively constituted temporary systems, situated identi®cation followsacceptance of the assignment to complete a speci®c task in a particular time-frame, because thetask is shared, consequential, and requires collaboration among persons with di�erent forms ofexpertise. Note that consistent with the situational determinants of this form of identi®cation, thesense of I as We can be expected to end once the task is completed. Situational cues in the formof deadlines or other task requirements in¯uence workers in real time but are not necessarilysustained over time or across settings.

Deep Structure Identi®cation:Higher Level Identi®cation

Situated identi®cation is a necessary but not su�cient condition for deep structure identi®cation.Once situated identi®cation occurs, interaction between the worker and work setting over timecan cause a deeper level of identi®cation to emerge. The internal schemas workers form regardingtheir relationships to their organizations are interpretations of experiences that self-organize,forming mental models of how individuals come to view themselves. These models, onceestablished, are useful in sustained employment relations because fewer contextual cues arerequired to trigger employee interpretation and response (Fogel and Lyra, 1997). A higher levelof identi®cation is evident where employment relationships foster more fundamental andenduring changes in the individual's conceptualization of himself. Deep structure identi®cation,like all forms of schemas, allows us to organize incoming information about our social world inan e�cient way (Fiske and Taylor, 1984). It is not unusual to observe cultural messages that areat once highly idiosyncratic and ®rm-speci®c but still recognizable as universal signs of a commonbond. Workers who willingly make sacri®ces for their organizations may be thought of as`bleeding brown' (United Parcel Service, as described above) or `bleeding purple' (FederalExpress). As a product of the Catholic school system, I have often wondered why I do not bleedplaid. That one is the embodiment of the organization is not only a sign of a blurry boundarybetween Ì' and `We', but also an indicator that introjecting the organization into one's self-concept may be an essential part of certain employment relationships. Deep structure ident-i®cation di�ers from situated identi®cation in that the latter exists only when situational cuessignal it while deep structure, once created, is sustained across situations and roles.

In contemporary organizations, there are many barriers to deep structure identi®cation. Lowertenures of organization members reduce individual exposure to organizational mechanisms forfostering identi®cation (e.g. socialization processes). Frequent organizational changes alteringthe ®rm's mission, goals and reward systems, or mergers and acquisition altering the legal statusand formal identity of the ®rm itself can undermine deep structure identi®cation as well asprevent its occurrence in the ®rst place. Firms in stable environments, other things being equal,are better positioned to foster deep structure identi®cation on the part of their members. In moredynamic environments, ®rms bu�ering employees from external shocks, for example, by



redeploying redundant workers rather than terminating their employment, are more likely toperpetuate deep structure identi®cation.

Deep structure identi®cation originates under speci®c employment conditions: in exchangerelationships where employee and employer act to bene®t each other and when the locus ofcontrol shifts from individual to ®rm.

Acting to bene®t another

Acting to bene®t another shapes deep structure identi®cation in two ways. First, when a personacts to bene®t an organization, that person can capture extra psychological bene®ts from his orher actions by identifying with that organization (Coleman, 1990). For example, helping anorganization succeed can make a person feel successful. Second, recipients of bene®ts can inter-pret an exchange to be a relationship, involving socioemotional concerns, rather than a trans-action limited to monetizable exchanges, when that exchange includes symbolic as well aseconomic resources (Clark and Reis, 1988). When organizational membership o�ers individualsa broad spectrum of resources (including status, personal support, and concern for one's family),employment can take on the signi®cance of a personal relationship (Eisenberger, Huntington,Hutchinson and Sowa, 1986). Believing a relationship has been formed can blur the boundariesbetween the interests of self and other, initiating the formation of deep structure identi®cation.Note that not all relationships lead to identi®cation; only where there is sustained exchangeof particularistic rewards. A positive feedback loop exists: once particularistic rewards areexchanged and identi®cation begins, individuals are likely to become concerned with the broaderinterests of the organization, including its reputation, survival, and continued success, whichgenerates activities and resource exchanges (re¯ecting enhanced concern between ®rm andemployee) that foster further identi®cation.

Note that I am not arguing that accessing bene®ts per se creates identi®cation. Incentivesystems that attempt to align individual interests with organizational goals (e.g. stock options,Tosi, Katz and Gomez-Mejia, 1997) in and of themselves may have limited impact uponperceptions of self and the ®rm. Deep structure identi®cation is more than that. This form ofidenti®cation alters the meaning attached to resource exchanges by altering perceptions of theparties involved. In turn, the nature of the resource exchange can impact workers identi®cationwith the ®rm. Typical studies of exchange di�erentiate between economic resources (money,goods or labor) and interpersonal resources (love or status). The problem with this simple modeldistinguishing economic from interpersonal resources is that it ignores the symbolic aspects ofmany economic resource exchanges that convey meaning to the parties of the exchange regardingthe nature of their relationship (e.g. a Christmas bonus is not just necessarily mere pay but can beconstrued as a tribute to the employment relationship itself).

A conceptually rich framework for characterizing resource exchange is Foa and Foa's (1974)resource theory, a framework distinguishing among resources types. One dimension of theirframework is especially relevant to our discussion of identi®cation: particularism/universalism.Particularism, as used by Foa and Foa, means that the value of a given resource is in¯uenced bythe particular persons involved in the exchange and their mutual relationship. Three resourcesthey identify as particularistic are love, status, and information. In all three cases, the source ofthe resource a�ects its meaning and acceptability to the receiver (e.g. a change in doctor or lawyeris not accepted with indi�erence). Particularistic resources can only be provided when trust existsbetween the parties, typically in the context of a relationship characterized by interactions overtime. In contrast, universalistic resources, such as money or goods, can be exchanged in almost


222 D. M. ROUSSEAU

any type of interaction (e.g. parent to child, among total strangers). The constraints that arelationship puts on the exchange of particularistic resources means that employers are only ableto o�er a broad array of resources when their employees are willing to accept them. For example,a ®rm in which workers do not trust management will, in e�ect, be unable to bestow a symbolicreward, such as Employee of the Month. Economic rewards such as money might be more readilyaccepted. Where workers identify with the organization, the organization is able to o�er (as wellas to receive) particularistic as well as universalistic rewards. When identi®cation is low, onlyuniversalistic rewards can in e�ect be exchanged.

3. Exchange of particularistic rewards increases deep structure identi®cation with theorganization.

Not only are employees more likely to perceive assurances of caring and concern as genuinewhen identi®cation exists, but their willingness to reciprocate such concern is enhanced(e.g. citizenship behavior; Organ, 1990). Such increased levels of discretionary e�ort displayed onthe organization's behalf can generate positive organizational responses (e.g. recognition of theemployee as a valued member), which can act to further strengthen deep structure identi®cationwith the organization.

4. A positive feedback loop exists between particularistic resources exchange and deepstructure identi®cation, such that this form of organizational identi®cation increases theexchange of particularistic resources between ®rm and workers, which further increases thedegree of employee identi®cation with the ®rm.

Paternalistic ®rms are a classic example of identi®cation fostered through bene®ts provided toworkers and the contributions loyal workers make to ®rms. Eastman Chemical has been referredto as a `bastion of paternalism' (Bleakley, 1997), a benevolent giant to its employees andsurrounding community, based on the founding spirit of Kodak founder George Eastman.Eastman believed in providing job security for workers as well as ball ®elds, entertainment, andfamily activities for them and their community. Today, annual bonuses run as high as 30 per cent,and workers are retrained if their jobs are eliminated. Voluntary resignations are less than half theindustry average. Part of the company's annual bonus payout goes into employee stockownership, and as stockholders, workers' interests have come full circle. One Eastman Chemicalexecutive recalls lunching with workers while ®elding questions on the company's pro®tability:`They asked me about certain contributions to charity . . . whether it was wise to be spendingmoney as we are, on a new Eastman lodge for employees'. The broad resource exchange char-acteristic of employment in paternalistic ®rms, such as Eastman Chemical or the John LewisPartnership in Great Britain, where employees are shareholders, promotes identi®cation througha construal of self to include membership in the organization as well as internalization of itsinterests as one's own.

How bene®ts are accessed a�ects the meaning people ascribe to the exchange. Bene®ts o�eredvoluntarily signal something di�erent about the employment relationship than those accessedthrough threat or coercion. Particularistic rewards such as love or status are di�cult to accessupon demand. However, universalistic rewards such as money are another matter. Consider ®rmsthat give pay raises to employees who threaten to leave (Lublin and White, 1997). Firms thatencourage or support the repeated use of employee threats to gain favors or rewards underminethe identi®cation process by failing to establish a good faith relationship with employees. More-over, while the few employees who receive a raise for threatening to leave may bene®t, ultimatelyit is likely that both the ®rm as well as the majority of employees lose due to the undermining of asense of equitable treatment across employees.



When a ®rm voluntarily acts to bene®t members (e.g. through equitable pay not dependentupon outside o�ers), it signals a value placed on employees and concern for their well-being,consistent with more personal forms of relationship (Clark and Reis, 1988). In contemporaryemployment, ®rms characterized as employers of choice, considered by potential workers to beparticularly desirable places to work, o�er a wide array of resources to both attract competentworkers in a competitive market and to foster a relationship that retains them (Gerhart andMilkovich, 1992). For instance, Intel paid $820 million (U.S.) in pro®t sharing in 1996, extendingthe principle of executive compensation down into the ®rm (Takahashi, 1997). Pro®t sharing goesbeyond paying people what they are worth on the external market, to both compensate them forcontributions to ®rm pro®tability as well as to signal their connection to the ®rm's success.Providing a broad base of resources to employees extends employment beyond an economictransaction to create a more expansive relationship.

The way people are treated provides important information about who they are in the eyes of acommunity (the organization's and the employee's broader social environment). The linkbetween resource exchanges and deep structure identi®cation can be particularly crucial whenemployees in the same ®rm have di�erent access to resources. In one plastics factory, for example,there are ®ve categories of workers: full-time, permanent employees operating machines on theproduction line; temporaries operating those same machines; independent contractors workingoutside the facility; people who work only in summer; and others who work part-time (Aeppel,1997). Although ¯exible employment arrangements make responses to business cycles easier andlet single parents and students participate in the workforce, such practices also create con¯icts.Each group of workers can see the organization di�erentlyÐand access to resources is indeeddi�erent (e.g. Kossek, Huber-Yoder, Catellino, Heneman and Skoglind, 1997). While clashes inthis plastics factory used to focus on di�erences between management and labor, more prevalenttoday is the resentment temporaries have for permanent operators, who in some cases earnalmost twice as much plus bene®ts. Moreover, only permanent employees have their own toolbox, an èmblem of power'. When operators become permanent, the organization gives them aplastic tool case that many personalize with photos of children and spouses. Permanent workersaccess a larger share of the economic resources o�ered by the ®rm and have an almost exclusiveclaim on the ®rm's symbolic resources (e.g. status). Many ®rms frequently debate whether toinclude contractors in departmental meetings or invite them to informal social events such ascompany picnics or parties (Levesque and Rousseau, 1998). When an organization o�ersparticularistic resources such as information, status, and love, it is reasonable to postulate thatworkers who are full time organizational members are more likely to access them.

5. Workers with full-time or permanent positions are more likely to access particularisticresources such as status, love, and information than workers without such positions (e.g. innon-full-time or temporary positions).6. Workers with full-time or permanent positions are more likely to attain deep structureidenti®cation with the organization than are workers without such positions.

Another important contemporary distinction associated with accessing bene®ts is that between`core' workers and others. Handy (1989) characterizes those workers whose skills and com-petencies provide a recognized competitive advantage as core employees. Thus, not all full-timeemployees may be considered `core'. Whether workers are viewed as playing a strategicallycritical role is linked to the ®rm's human resource strategy (Miles and Snow, 1984; Rousseau andWade-Benzoni, 1994). Moreover, the same organization can contain both core workers, withknowledge and responsibilities critical to organizational success, and non-core workers, such asclericals or building maintenance sta� performing ancillary and support functions. A major


224 D. M. ROUSSEAU

reason for the persistence of deep structure identi®cation of workers with contemporary ®rms isHR strategies which recognize the importance of core workers in well-managed ®rms (Handy,1989).

7. Core employees are more likely to access particularistic rewards than are other employees.8. Core employees are more likely to be characterized by deep structure identi®cation withthe organization than are other employees.

One challenge to creating deep structure identi®cation is the presence of a mix of people whohave di�erent attachments to the ®rm. Identi®cation issues are of particular concern wherepeople with divergent employment arrangements (temps, part-timers, full-timers, contractors, oremployees of client or supplier ®rms) are interdependent. Equity issues are a well-establishedconsideration in ®rms where employees have di�erential access to rewards, as exempli®ed by thecommon practice of pay secrecy. Concerns regarding equity are exacerbated by the existence ofmultiple employment relationships in the same ®rm (e.g. full-time, temporaries). Given thesalience and visibility that employment status often has, we can expect that perceived equity willbe di�cult to achieve as interaction and, in particular, interdependence exists among thesegroups. In e�ect, `separate but equal' may never be equal.

9. Perceived inequity increases with interdependence among employees with di�erentialemployment status.

Under conditions of interdependence among employees with di�erential status, situatedidenti®cation may be advantageous in managing relations across groups where deep structureidenti®cation is not likely to occur. Priming workers to have a sense of `we' creates a basis forcollaboration. Shared positive consequential events, such as ®rm-wide bonuses, and practiceswhich prime individuals to think of themselves as part of a larger whole (e.g. parties), may bee�ective in such cases. Since `separate but equal' is almost never judged to be so and how one istreated conveys one's social standing, issues of identity and identi®cation promise to be salient forsome time to come.

Vesting the right of control in another

Deep structure identi®cation can also be fostered when the right of control over one's actions istransferred to another, often in the case of intensive socialization experiences or under thein¯uence of charismatic leaders. Intensive socialization experiences characteristic of boot camp inthe American (Moskos, 1971) and British armies (Anderson and Thomas, 1998) create authorityrelations in which supervisors dictate the total life experience of organization members. Bystripping away previous sources of individual identity and rebuilding a sense of self aroundmembership in the organization, such practices tend to create bonds between person and organ-ization, as well as among co-workers, that transcend the work experience and persist throughouta lifetime. Such intensive socialization may be particularly necessary in circumstances whereindividuals can risk their lives for the mission, the organization, and each other, as in the case ofthe military. The nature of the mission, that is, national security, may justify both the intensivesocialization and the resulting re-de®nition of self.

Vesting control over one's actions in another can also occur under the in¯uence of acharismatic leader, often reinforced by the socialization processes described above. Charismaticorganizational leaders can alter workers' self-perceptions by transforming or elevating theiraspirations (e.g. of involvement or achievement) and by heightening their sense of e�cacy (Bass,



1985). Don Burr, CEO of PeopleExpress, the innovative start-up airline of the early 1980s, was acharismatic leader (Harvard Business School, 1988). Burr led an innovative low-cost air carrierwith a uniquely organic organizational structure that broke with traditional functional roles ofpilots, crews, and customer service personnel. The willingness of people to `bet the company',work regular 80-hour weeks, and take much of their pay in stock was inspired by Burr's `can do'attitude and his expressed con®dence in his employees' ability to take on any challenge.

Although strong corporate cultures and in¯uential leaders shift control from individuals to thecollective, conventional business organizations can in some circumstances cross a line wherecorporate control is virtually both invisible and irresistible to members. Indeed, in some cases, wemight ask whether an organization is a culture or a cult. In a cult, dependencies created betweenperson and group cause members to rely totally upon the group for self identity. Zimbardo (1997)notes that cults such as Heaven's Gate in Los Angeles or the Order of the Solar Temple inSwitzerland and Canada (where members committed suicide together) create a total dependenceby requiring members to tithe or sign over large amounts of money, perform exhausting labor,and sever ties with family and friends. Indeed, business organizations have been known toinadvertently mimic these features. For example, members of the PeopleExpress organizationwere assimilated into it, overworked, and cut o� from family and friends. New recruits whoattempted to leave the PeopleExpress training facility in New Jersey to visit nearby New Yorkreceived phone calls from trainers who tried to get them to return immediately. Couplingintensive socialization with charismatic leadership gave PeopleExpress enormous control over itsemployees, resulting in a strong individual identi®cation with the airline. It is interesting to notethat for at least a decade after the demise of PeopleExpress, a group of its erstwhile foundingemployees continued to meet annually to keep in contact and reminisce (Jick, 1993). Giving overindividual control to the ®rm appears to make strong normative cultures possible, reducing the®rm's need for performance monitoring and in many cases enhancing the member's sense ofaccomplishment and belonging. Whether members access bene®ts or costs depends on thecongruence between personal and organizational values as well as on the degree to whichindividuals retain a sense of control or voluntariness in their involvement with the organization.However, when employment relations limit perceptions of or information regarding alternatives(e.g. restricted social and professional networks), individual capacity to make informed choicesdiminishes.

Assimilating core workers by socializing them into a corporate culture continues to be afrequent human resource practice (Barney, 1986), especially in ®rms where organization-speci®cknowledge shared by employees is important to competitive advantage (Rousseau and Wade-Benzoni, 1994). However, more ®rms are combining `making' and `buying' when it comes toemployees, that is, developing a core workforce while recruiting outsiders with distinct talents.This practice will likely reduce somewhat the level of vested control. Identi®cation throughcultural assimilation is likely to continue, but perhaps with less pervasive e�ects due to a moredynamic and externally focused labor market and broader use of combined make and buyhuman resource strategies.

10. Firms that combine make and buy strategies in recruitment will be characterized by lowerlevels of deep-structure identi®cation than ®rms using make strategies alone.

Deep structure identi®cation with the organization shapes the nature of the employmentrelationship both in terms of the resources brought into that exchange and the cognitions workershave regarding themselves and the other parties to these agreements. However, situated identi®-cation provides a more general basis for a greater sense of collectivism, and to promotecooperation, where workers have distinct employment relations with the ®rm. Taken together,


226 D. M. ROUSSEAU

the mechanisms for achieving both situated and deep structure identi®cation, the emphasis onshared consequential events, cultural messages signalling teamwork and inclusion of persons inthe broader ®rm, diverse forms of compensation, support and other inducements, constitute awell-established formula for creating a contemporary high-involvement work system (Pfe�er,1994). Given the variety of employment relations in modern ®rms, varying levels of identi®cationcan be expected. Nonetheless, it is unlikely that a ®rm where workers are highly interdependentcan function e�ectively without some degree of identi®cation.

Organizational Identi®cationin the Midst of Change

Identi®cation is a particularly intriguing topic in organizational research today because of thechallenges to worker identi®cation with the ®rm that contemporary industry upheavals havewrought. Having addressed the concept of identi®cation and underlying mechanisms, we canconsider the role identi®cation plays in organizational change. Indeed, change and stability areinherent tensions in identi®cation. Psychological research supports a dynamic view of identity(Horowitz, 1988; Fogel and Lyra, 1997), where cognitive schemas can be modi®ed within a stableframework and by transitions that evolve old frameworks into new ones. For example, in a publicaccounting ®rm where two mergers have occurred and over 20 per cent of partners have beendownsized within the past few years, surviving partners describe themselves as having trans-itioned from owner to employee all the while continuing to see themselves as major players in oneof the industry's most successful ®rms. Sameness is not a required feature of identity; rather, whatis required is a sense of continuity. Because identi®cation entails the expansion of psychologicalboundaries in mental models of self, the very formation of identity implies the capacity to changeand adjust, both throughout the life cycle and throughout the course of one's relationship with a®rm. As one partner put it: Ì have always felt myself a part of the ®rm's success but what it takesto be successful today is di�erent'.

While our previous discussions regarding the formation of identi®cation suggest that anindividual's mental models of self are adaptable, research on identi®cation suggests the import-ance of signalling continuity even in the midst of change, particularly by reinforcing the valuedrole the individual plays in the community with which he or she identi®es (e.g. Tyler, 1990; Huoet al., 1996). Change e�orts framed in terms of continuity with the past (e.g. continuingestablished traditions into a new age, such as the grocery store which took up the old wooden¯oor boards and relocated them to the new modern building to remind both clerks and customersof the well-loved original location, accommodate change within existing frameworks (Rousseau,1995a). Such accommodations are more likely to sustain worker identi®cation with the ®rm thane�orts that convey a break with the past. Sustaining identi®cation through times of change istherefore expected to promote worker acceptance of change. This argument gives rise to a generalproposition:

11. Organizational changes that reinforce identi®cation will be more readily accepted thanthose that challenge it.

When a restructuring organization o�ers credible signals that its relationship with employees willcontinue, identi®cation makes it easier to re-employ people in di�erent parts of the ®rm.Similarly, identi®cation with the larger ®rm can promote more rapid adjustment to change for



employees following a merger of two smaller ®rms (Gaettner et al., 1996), for example, where thenames of both are retained and combined in the name of the new ®rm, where joint orientationand socialization practices are adopted for existing and new members, and where there is somepre-existing common identi®cation (e.g. membership in the same profession such as engineeringor accounting).

Deep structure identi®cation achieved through the variety of mechanisms described above canblur the boundary between employee's concept of self and the organization to which he or she isattached. A positive disposition is thus generated toward the organization and its interests, whichis linked to an expanded zone of acceptance (or `zone of indi�erence', Simon, 1976), whereemployees accept with equanimity a range of organizational actions and requests. This positivedisposition and the resulting broad zone of acceptance have been linked to the high trust andattachment characteristic of employee perceptions of a relational contract with their employer(Robinson and Rousseau, 1994). Psychological contracts with a preponderance of relationalterms are found to have broader zones of acceptance in response to organizationally initiatedchanges than do psychological contracts containing more economically focused transactionalterms (Rousseau and Tijoriwala, 1995).

12. Deep structure identi®cation increases worker acceptance of change.13. Deep structure identi®cation is positively related to relational terms in the individual'spsychological contract.

Because identi®cation tends to increase the exchange of particularistic resources as well as theexpectation of such resources, identi®cation with the ®rm can inoculate individuals against someof the more painful consequences associated with change. Elsewhere, I have proposed that inchange, losses are more painful than the gains are good, and the losses occur ®rst (Rousseau,1995a, 1996). Loss of status (past positions or job titles) and information (certainty), character-istic of many forms of organizational change, may be more tolerable to employees whoseemployment relations are predicated on the exchange of highly particularistic resources such asorganizational caring, support, and concern over employee well-being. Lags are more likely in theallocation of resources such as love, in contrast to the exchange of resources such as money orgoods (Foa and Foa, 1974). Moreover, exchanges of love are typically seen as an expanding piewhile exchanges of money are viewed as a zero-sum game. Monitoring outcomes is not onlyeasier when money rather than love is exchanged, but there is also greater emphasis on tit for tat.Interestingly, Foa and Foa also observe that satisfaction is more strongly correlated withexpectations for exchanging resources than with the frequency of actual resource exchange. Thus,since employees are more likely to anticipate resource exchanges under conditions of highidenti®cation, the short-term losses associated with organizational change may be made moretolerable by future anticipated bene®ts in a high-identi®cation work setting.

Lastly, one particularly common form of change in organizations receives relatively littleattention: change in one's manager. Downsizing and high employee mobility a�ect workers bothdirectly (they may be terminated or quit) and also indirectly (they may have more work or greateruncertainty because a colleague has left). One particularly important indirect e�ect on workersoccurs when `the boss leaves'. From an agency perspective (Alchian and Demsetz, 1972),managers are thought of as the agents expressing the interests of the ®rm in the inducements theyo�er workers. If agents are acting on behalf of the ®rm, one might expect workers to be indi�erentwith respect to whom the agent might be. However, since individual managers may create theirown idiosyncratic relationships with workers (Wayne, Shore and Liden, 1997), there can beconfusion regarding whether the manager is the ®rm's agent or a principal of his or her owncontractual arrangements with subordinates. Thus, in research into employees' psychological


228 D. M. ROUSSEAU

contracts, that is, their perception of an exchange agreement between themselves and theiremployer, the issue frequently arises regarding who the other party to the employment relation-ship is construed to be (Rousseau, 1995a). When asked to characterize their obligations with theiremployer, people might ask, `do you meanmy boss, the people who hired me or, the company as awhole?' Research on psychological contract violations indicates that employees do often blame theorganization for breaching promises made by their boss (Robinson and Rousseau, 1994;Rousseau, 1995a).

Where individuals have a deep structure identi®cation with the organization, it is more likelythat the individual perceives the ®rm as the principal and the manager as its agent. In contrast,where identi®cation with the ®rm is low, the employee is more likely to be uncertain as to whetherthe manager is acting as the ®rm's agent or as a principal in his or her own right. Thus, we expectthat individuals who identify with the ®rm are likely to form psychological contracts with theiremployer that are relatively stable even when managers and other àgents' or contract makers(e.g. senior executives) change. In contrast, where individuals do not identify with the ®rm,changes in managers are likely to lead both to perceived changes and violations in existingpsychological contracts.

14. When deep structure identi®cation with the ®rm is high, the psychological contractsindividuals form will be less a�ected by changes in managers than when identi®cation is low.

In summary, we expect deep structure identi®cation of workers with the organization tofacilitate a ®rm's adaptation to change through its retention of a loyal, experienced workforcedespite disruption of conditions at work (Pfe�er, 1994). Organizational changes a�ecting theworkforce also will be more acceptable when identi®cation is high, because identi®cation createsanticipation of future particularistic rewards and lags in such rewards are tolerated better thanlags in more universalistic rewards (goods and money).

Speculations on the Future of Identi®cation

The malleability and complexity of identi®cation is clearly apparent in contemporaryemployment. Emerging theory with regard to organizational identi®cation can be expected toaddress a number of developing issues.

The aftermath of employment

When deep structure identi®cation is strong, attachment to an organization can continue evenafter employment is terminated. Some ®rms institutionalize this post-employment identity toserve their strategic ends, as in the case of Arthur Andersen, which used to run outplacementprograms for professional employees, even when they quit the ®rm voluntarily. Soon-to-be-ex-employees went through an informational process that reinforced a positive dispositiontoward the ®rm. The end result was a network of loyal àlumni', many placed in ®rms that werepresent and future clients of AA.

Consider the case of Digital Corporation, a manufacturer of ¯at panel displays, computersystems, and software. The company's corporate mission has been characterized as having a



`spiritual quality to it' that inspired employees. Ìt's like a meta-corporation, an energy ®eld', saysa former Digital worker (Johnson, 1996, p. F11). But this powerful identi®cation did notnecessarily guarantee sustained organizational success for Digital. Business retrenchment led tomassive job reductions compressed in time and space. Over 5 years, Digital disgorged more than60,000 employees in the Boston area, cutting the company in half. But their attachment to Digitalcontinued to shape the lives of former employees. People stayed connected after leaving. Thiscommunity of ex-Digital employees now has recombined into a huge variety of high-technologyboutiques, home basement software companies, and consulting ®rms. One ex-Digital employeereports, Ìt seems as though we are closer knit now that we have graduated ' (emphasis added).Continuing attachment between Digital and its once and former employees re¯ects the power oforganizational identi®cation.

The Digital example demonstrates that attachments and social networks formed duringemployment can be the engine of re-employment and career opportunity later. As more workersmove in and out of external labor markets, we can expect identi®cation to become increasinglyimportant for ®rms seeking to retain talented people and to create long-term relations with theiralumni.

Identi®cation and a diverse workforce

Another potential downside of identi®cation is its implications for workforce diversity. Thedi�culties of assimilating people whose social identities di�er from the prevailing organizationalidentity, as characterized by the concept of a `glass ceiling', have been discussed widely (e.g. Cox,1994). In broader society, where immigrants have successfully assimilated, there tend to be clearpremises of civic membership (e.g. a common language and acceptance of societal institutionssuch as the rule of law, Salins, 1996). But for organizations undergoing rapid change, `clearpremises of civic membership' may be hard to come by. A case can be made that the basicrequirement for fostering identi®cation across a diverse workforce is a ®rm that maintains its ownsuperordinate identity, supported by a well-integrated socialization system (Moskos and Butler,1996; Rousseau, 1995b). Evidence suggests that a strong superordinate identity can substantiallyshape people's behavior even when they have strong subgroup identities (Gaettner et al., 1996;Huo, Smith, Tyler and Lind, 1996).

When weak identity is better

Despite the case this essay has made for the continuing value and prevalence of workeridenti®cation with ®rms, there are circumstances where strong identi®cation might be disadvant-ageous. A manager from a large information technology ®rm relayed with great surprise theexperience her organization has had over the past 3 years in acquiring smaller ®rms. `We come inand tell the existing employees they should keep working as if nothing has happened, becausenothing is going to happen. They are still going to do the same work they always did, but nowthey do it in the name of our organization and not their previous employer', she said. `They gripeand complain for 6 months, waiting for us to lay them o� or sell them. When we don't, they justgo on as if nothing had happened'. Under conditions of high organizational turnover (mergersand acquisitions), when ®rm identity itself comes and goes, worker identi®cation processes aremore likely to occur at the level of the workgroup if at all. In the case of changes, as the managerdescribes above, it is likely that low identi®cation with the organization promotes acceptability of


230 D. M. ROUSSEAU

change because workers with lower identi®cation would experience fewer losses than would thosewith high identi®cation. In such settings, workgroup identi®cation may replace organizationalidenti®cation as a major source of particularistic resources on the job (Cianni and Wnuck, 1997).

Conclusion

Despite radical upheavals in the global workforce, identi®cation mechanisms continue to beevident in ®rms along with the pervasive human drive to identify with the social system of whichwe are a part (Ashforth andMael, 1989). Di�erentiating the levels of identi®cation which occur inorganizations promotes better understanding of identi®cation issues in the contemporaryworkforce. Situated identi®cation o�ers potential for more e�ectively organizing new forms ofwork by signalling a collective sense of common interest across workers with di�erent employeestatus. Deep structure identi®cation is characteristic of high involvement work systems, and forworkers of full-time, permanent, or core roles who access a broader array of organizationalrewards. Although deep structure identi®cation can be expected to promote employee retentionand ¯exibility in response to change, it is not appropriate for all forms of employment relations.While workers still identify with organizations in many settings, the meaning of that identi®cationhas and is likely to continue to change. As the Su® saying goes: You think because you understandone and one equals two that you understand one. But you must also understand ànd'.

References

Aeppel, T. (1997). `Full-time, part-time, tempÐAll see the job in a di�erent light', Wall Street Journal,March 18, A1, A10.

Alchian, A. A. and Demsetz, H. (1972). `Production, information costs, and economic organization',America Economic Review, 62, 777±795.

Anderson, N. and Thomas, H. (1998). `Socialization in the British Army', Journal of OrganizationalBehavior, in press.

Ashforth, B. E. and Mael, F. (1989). `Social identity theory and the organization', Academy of ManagementReview, 14, 20±39.

Barney, J. (1986). Òrganizational culture: Can it be a source of sustained competitive advantage?',Academy of Management Review, 11, 656±665.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations, Free Press, New York.Baumeister, R. F. and Leary, M. R. (1995). `The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as afundamental human motivation', Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497±529.

Bettis, R. A., Bradley, S. P. and Hamel, G. (1992). Òutsourcing and industrial decline', Academy ofManagement Executive, 6, 7±22.

Bleakley, F. R. (1997). À bastion of paternalism ®ghts against change', Wall Street Journal, B1, B10.Brewer, M. B. (1991). `The social self: On being the same and di�erent at the same time', Personality andSocial Psychology Bulletin, 17, 475±482.

Brewer, M. B. and Gardner, W. (1996). `Who is this ``we''? Levels of collective identity and selfrepresentations', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 83±93.

Castanzias, R. P. and Helfat, C. E. (1991). `Managerial resources and rents', Journal of Management, 17,115±117.

Cianni, M. and Wnuck, D. (1997). Ìndividual growth and team enhancement: Moving toward a new modelof career development', Academy of Management Executive, 11(1), 105±115.



Clark, M. S. and Reis, H. T. (1988). Ìnterpersonal processes in close relationships', Annual Review ofPsychology, 39, 609±672.

Coleman, J. (1990). Foundations of Social Theory, Belknap Press, Cambridge, MA.Cook, J. D., Hepworth, S. J., Wall, T. D. and Warr, P. B. (1981). The Experience of Work, Academic Press,London.

Cox, T. (1994). Cultural Diversity in Organizations: Theory, Research and Practice, Bennett-Koehler,San Francisco.

Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchinson, S. and Sowa, D. (1986). `Perceived organizational support',Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500±507.

Etzioni, A. (1961). A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations, Free Press, New York.Fiske, S. T. and Taylor, S. E. (1984). Social Cognition, Spring®eld, Reading, MA.Foa, U. G. and Foa, E. B. (1974). Societal Structures of the Mind, Charles C. Thomas Publishers,Spring®eld, IL.

Fogel, A. and Lyra, M. C. D. P. (1997). `Dynamics of development in relationships'. In: Masterpasqua, F.and Perna, P. A. (Eds) The Psychological Meaning of Chaos: Translating Theory into Practice, AmericanPsychological Association, Washington, DC, pp. 75±94.

Gaettner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F. and Bachman, B. A. (1996). `Revisiting the contact hypothesis: the inductionof a common group identity', International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 20, 271±290.

Gerhart, B. and Milkovich, G. T. (1992). Èmployee Compensation: Research and Practice'. In: Dunnette,M. D. and Hough, L. M. (Eds) Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 3, Palo Alto,CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, pp. 481±569.

Gundry, L. R. and Rousseau, D. M. (1994). `Critical incidents conveying culture to newcomers:The meaning is the message', Human Relations, 47, 1063±1088.

Handy, C. (1989). The Age of Unreason, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.Harvard Business School (1988). PeopleExpress: Introduction, Don Burr, Chairman and CEO.Herriot, P. (1992). `Selection: The two subcultures', European Work and Organizational Psychologist, 2,129±140.

Hirsch, P. M. (1987). Pack Your Own Parachute, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.Horowitz, M. J. (1988). Introduction to Psychodynamics: A New Synthesis, Basic Books, New York.Huo, Y. J., Smith, H. J., Tyler, T. R. and Lind, E. A. (1996). `Superordinate identi®cation, subgroupidenti®cation, and justice concerns: Is separatism the problem; is assimilation the answer?' PsychologicalScience, 7, 40±45.

Jick, T. (1993). Personal communication, August.Johnson, K. (1996). `Divorced from the job, still wedded to the culture', New York Times, June 16, F11.Kossek, E. E., Huber-Yoder, M., Catellino, M., Heneman, R. L. and Skoglind, J. D. (1997). `The workingpoor: Locked out of careers and the organizational mainstream?' Academy of Management Executive,11(1), 76±92.

Levesque, L. L. and Rousseau, D. M. (1998). `Socialization experiences of adjunct university faculty'.Technical report, Heinz School of Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.

Lublin, J. S. and White, J. B. (1997). `Dilbert's revenge: Throwing o� the anger, workers are feeling incontrol of careers', Wall Street Journal, September 11, A1.

Mantovani, G. (1994). Ìs computer mediated communication intrinsically apt to enhance democracy inorganizations?' Human Relations, 47, 45±62.

Meyerson, D., Weick, K. E. and Kramer, R. M. (1996). `Swift trust and temporary groups'. In: Kramer,R. M. and Tyler, T. R. (Eds) Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research, Sage, ThousandOaks, CA, pp. 166±195.

Miles, R. E. and Snow, C. C. (1984). `Designing strategic human resource systems', OrganizationalDynamics, Summer, 36±52.

Mirvis, P. H. (in press). `Soul work', Organizational Science.Moskos, C. (1971). The American Enlisted Man, Russell Sage Foundation, New York.Moskos, C. and Butler, J. S. (1996). All That We Can Be, Basic Books, New York.Organ, D. W. (1990). `The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior'. In: Cummings,L. L. and Staw, B. M. (Eds) Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 12, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT,pp. 43±72.

Parsons, T. (1951). The Social System, Free Press, Glencoe, IL.Pfe�er, J. (1994). Competitive Advantage Through People: Unleashing the Power of the Workforce, HarvardBusiness School Press, Boston.


232 D. M. ROUSSEAU

Reich, R. (1997). `Keynote speech. Employment in the 21st century conference', University of Pittsburghand Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, October 23.

Robinson, S. L. and Rousseau, D. M. (1994). `Violating the psychological contract: Not the exceptionbut the norm', Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 245±259.

Rousseau, D. M. (1995a). Psychological Contracts in Organizations: Understanding Written and UnwrittenAgreements, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.

Rousseau, D. M. (1995b). Managing Diversity for High Performance, Business Week, Executive Brie®ngService, New York.

Rousseau, D. M. (1996). `Changing the deal while keeping the people', Academy of Management Executive,10, 1, 50±61.

Rousseau, D. M. and Tijoriwala, S. A. (1995). `What's a good reason to change?' Paper presented at theSociety for Industrial/Organizational Psychology meetings, San Diego.

Rousseau, D. M. and Wade-Benzoni, K. A. (1994). `Linking strategy and human resource practices:How employee and customer contracts are created', Human Resource Management, 33, 463±489.

Salins, P. D. (1996). Assimilation, American Style, Basic Books, New York.Sherif, M. and Sherif, C. W. (1969). Social Psychology, Harper and Row, New York.Simon, H. A. (1976). Administrative Behavior, Macmillan, New York (Original work published 1958).Takahashi, D. (1997). `Hey, big spender: Intel shares its wealth with its employees', Wall Street Journal,February 12, p. 6.

Tosi, H. L., Katz, J. P. and Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (1997). `Disaggregating the agency contract: The e�ects ofmonitoring, incentive alignment, and terms in o�ce on agent decision making', Academy of ManagementJournal, 40, 584±602.

Turner, R. (1978). `The role and the person', American Journal of Sociology, 84, 1±23.Tyler, T. (1990). Why People Obey the Law: Procedural Justice, Legitimacy, and Compliance, Yale Univer-sity Press, New Haven, CT.

Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M. and Liden, R. C. (1997). `Perceived organizational support and leader±memberexchange: A social exchange perspective', Academy of Management Journal, 40, 82±111.

Weiss, R. S. (1990). Staying the Course, Free Press, New York.Wiley, M. G. and Alexander, C. N. (1987). `From situated activity to self attribution: The impact of socialstructural schemata'. In: Yardley, K. and Honess, T. (Eds) Self and Identity: Psychosocial Perspectives,Wiley, London, pp. 105±117.

Zimbardo, P. (1997). `What messages are behind today's cults', APA Monitor, May, p. 14.



Documents

Why workers still identify with organizations