Committment

Journal of Organizational Behavior
J. Organiz. Behav. 27, 665–683 (2006)

Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/job.383
Social identities and commitments at

work: toward an integrative model
JOHN P. MEYER1*, THOMAS E. BECKER2 AND ROLF VAN DICK3
1
Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, N6A 5C2, Canada
2
Department of Business Administration, College of Business and Economics, University of Delaware,
Newark, Delaware, U.S.A.
3
Institute of Psychology, Johann Wolfgang Goethe Universität Frankfurt, Kettenhofweg 128, 60054
Frankfurt, Germany and Aston Business School, Aston University, Work Organizational Psychology
Group, Aston Triangle, Birmingham B4 7ET, U.K.
Summary Although social identities and work-related commitment are important aspects of employee
attachment, distinctions between and relations among the two have not been clearly articu-
lated. In this conceptual piece, we propose that identity and commitment are distinguishable in
terms of their essential meaning, foci of attachment, mindsets, volitionality, and behavioral
implications. We further suggest that situated and deep structure social identities are
differentially antecedent to exchange-based and value-based commitments, and that commit-
ment mediates, at least partially, the effects of identities on motivation and work behavior.
Finally, we consider the implications of multiple identities for employees in different kinds of
collectives (nested and cross-cutting). Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Introduction
Interest in employee attachment has ebbed and flowed over the last several decades, due in part to
shifting views of the workforce as a fixed cost that can be expanded and contracted to meet bottom-line
objectives, or as a valued resource that can provide competitive advantage. Throughout this period a
considerable amount of theory and research has been generated in an attempt to understand the nature,
development, and consequences of employee bonds. Although attachment is partly a function of
personal development and personality (Ainsworth, 1989; Becker, Billings, Eveleth, & Gilbert, 1997),
our focus here is on attachments driven by organizational phenomena. More specifically, our concern is
with two aspects of attachment, employee identity and commitment. Both concepts have been studied
from a variety of perspectives and are acknowledged to be complex and multifaceted (e.g., Becker,
1992; Ellemers, Kortekaas, & Ouwerkerk, 1999; Meyer & Allen, 1997; Van Dick, 2001). Moreover,
both have been subjects of interest across disciplines (e.g., sociology, psychology, management
science) with emphasis on different social foci, situational antecedents, and behavioral implications.
* Correspondence to: John P. Meyer, Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, N6A 5C2,
Canada. E-mail: meyer@uwo.ca
Contract/grant sponsor: Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 26 January 2006
666 J. P. MEYER ET AL.
Unfortunately, there has been little agreement with regard to the distinctions between social
identities and commitment, and the nature of relations among them. For example, identification has
been argued to be synonymous with commitment (e.g., Ellemers & Rink, 2005; Miller, Allen, Casey, &
Johnson, 2000), a greater whole of which commitment is a part (Ashmore, Deaux, & McLaughlin-
Volpe, 2004; Ellemers, De Gilder, & Haslam, 2004), or an antecedent of commitment (e.g., Ashforth &
Mael, 1989; Meyer, Becker, & Vandenberghe, 2004; Pratt, 1998). We believe this state of affairs
reflects the fact that much of the theoretical and empirical work concerning social identities and
commitment has been conducted independently, with little attempt at integration. Both literatures are
relevant to our understanding of employee attachment and there is arguably much to be learned by
combining the accumulated knowledge from the two. Thus, our two major goals are to clarify the
difference in meaning between social identity and commitment and to explain the specific ways the two
concepts are linked.
Distinguishing Social Identities and Commitment
Commitment is a force that binds an individual to a target (social or non-social) and to a course of
action of relevance to that target. This definition recognizes that individuals may become
psychologically connected to social foci such as organizations, work groups, and supervisors
(Becker, Billings, Eveleth, & Gilbert, 1996; Bishop & Scott, 2000; Siders, George, & Dharwadkar,
2001), as well as to other foci such as jobs, goals, and organizational programs or change initiatives
(Klein, Wesson, Hollenbeck, Wright, & DeShon, 2001; Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002; Morrow, 1993). It
also reflects that an individual’s bond with a target commits the person to behaviors pertinent to that
target (see Becker & Kernan, 2003, Meyer et al., 2004; Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001, for further
explanation of these relations), and implies that commitment can vary in degree. For purposes of
comparison with social identities, we focus here on commitment as it pertains to social targets (e.g.,
organizations), and restrict our discussion to within-target comparisons (i.e., where the identity and
commitment involves the same collective). In a later section, we expand the discussion to include the
relationship between commitment and identity across collectives.
The nature of the link between commitments to foci and action has been demonstrated to vary as a
function of certain mindsets that accompany one’s commitment. As Meyer and Allen (1997) explained,
employees may maintain an attachment to a given target because they want to (affective commitment),
because they feel they should (normative commitment), or because they have too much to lose by
severing the connection (continuance commitment). Although the implications of these mindsets for
behavior are complex, the general finding is that affective commitment has relatively strong, positive
relations with desirable workplace behaviors such as attendance, citizenship behaviors, and job
performance; normative commitment has weaker positive relations with these behaviors, and
continuance commitment has negligible or negative relations with these behaviors (Meyer, Stanley,
Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002).
Although social identities have been defined in many ways, the common element in these definitions
is inclusion of group membership as part of one’s self-concept (Riketta, 2005). Thus, having a salient
social identity involves seeing oneself as part of a larger whole (Rousseau, 1998; Tajfel, 1978). Because
they can belong to multiple groups or collectives, including an organization, division, and work team,
employees can form multiple social identities, one or more of which might be prominent at any given
time (Ashmore et al., 2004; Van Dick, Wagner, Stellmacher, & Christ, 2004, 2005). Furthermore, social
identities are comprised of cognitive, evaluative, and emotional components (Van Dick, 2001). More
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 27, 665–683 (2006)
SOCIAL IDENTITIES AND COMMITMENTS AT WORK 667
Table 1. Differences between social identity and commitment

Dimensions of comparison Social identity Commitment
Essence Definition of self reflecting Binding to target and course of action

association with a collective
Types of foci Social Social and non-social
Nature of mindsets Reactions to membership: Reasons for maintaining relationship
evaluation and cognitive awareness; with target: terms and bases of
emotional reactions to membership commitment; related emotional reactions
Behavioral implications Less conscious; consequences less More conscious; consequences more
relevant to overall group functioning relevant to overall group functioning
(e.g., retention, job performance) (e.g., retention, performance)
specifically, the mindset associated with a social identity can include a cognitive awareness of
membership in a collective, an evaluation of the collective and self as a member, and an emotional
reaction to that evaluation (Cameron, 2004; Harris & Cameron, 2005; Jackson, 2002). Social identities
also have behavioral implications. For example, social identification has been associated with in-group
favoritism, stereotyping, and openness to social influence, all of which can have implications for intra-
and intergroup dynamics (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Blanton, Christie, & Dye, 2002; Hogg & Terry,
2000).
Social identities can be situation specific or stable and deep seeded. For example, Rousseau (1998)
has suggested that a situated identity arises when situational cues signal that an individual shares
interests with a collective (see also Riketta, Van Dick, & Rousseau, in press). Consequently, it is
dependent on those cues and maintains only as long as the cues persist. In contrast, a deep structure
identity involves the alteration of one’s self-concept to incorporate characteristics (e.g., preferences,
values) of the collective. Once developed, deep structure identities tend to be more enduring and less
cue dependent.
Table 1 summarizes the differences between social identities and commitment based on the
foregoing discussion. Both are complex multifaceted concepts characterized by mindsets (cognitive
and affective) linking the individual to a collective and having implications for behavior of relevance to
that collective. However, there are also important differences. First, whereas the essence of a social
identity involves the definition of self in terms of association with a collective (e.g., group,
organization), the sine qua non of commitment is the binding of a person to a target and course of
action. Notice that simply including association with a collective as part of one’s self concept does not
in itself mean that one feels psychologically bound to the collective or to courses of action relevant to
that collective. Second, a social identity inherently has to do with social foci—other people, groups,
and larger collectives. However, as discussed earlier, commitment can also occur to non-social foci
such as jobs, goals, and courses of action.
Perhaps the most important psychological difference involves the contents of the accompanying
mindsets. For a social identity, the mindset reflects a sense of self and one’s similarity to a collective or
its members. This sense of self includes an awareness of shared characteristics (e.g., values), an
evaluation of these characteristics, and positive or negative affect (e.g., pride, shame) associated with
this evaluation. For commitment, the mindset reflects a force that binds an individual to a course of
action of relevance to a target (e.g., collective, goal). The cognitive elements of this mindset include the
terms of the commitment (e.g., maintaining membership, meeting objectives) (Brown, 1996) and the
basis for the commitment (e.g., value-congruence, obligation, perceived cost) (Meyer & Allen, 1991).
The affective elements vary as a function of the cognitive elements, and can include degrees of
happiness-sadness (affective commitment), security-anxiety (continuance commitment), and pride-
guilt (normative commitment).
A final distinction is in the nature of the behavioral consequences of social identity and commitment.
In the broader social identity literature, identities are seen to be of most direct relevance to activities
pertaining to intra- and inter-group relations (e.g., stereotyping, in-group favoritism). Moreover,
regulation of these activities appears to be largely non-conscious (Bargh & Ferguson, 2000; Tajfel,
Flament, Billig, & Bundy, 1971). Although identity-driven behaviors can have important implications
for group functioning, such as the retention and performance of group members (Ashforth & Mael,
1989; Riketta, 2005), the latter outcomes are not specifically recognized as consequences of identity
formation in social identity theory. Rather, they have been introduced as potential benefits of
identification by theorists and researchers specifically interested in organizational identities. As we
explain below, the effects of organizational identification on employee retention and performance are
likely to be indirect. In contrast, by definition, commitments bind an individual to a course of action of
relevance to a particular target, and the course of action specified within a commitment is usually
intended to benefit the target. For example, early definitions of organizational commitment made
specific reference to behavioral implications such as retention and job performance (see Mowday,
Porter, & Steers, 1982). More recently, it has been noted that workplace commitments in general
include explicit or implicit terms that guide target-relevant behavior (Brown, 1996; Meyer &
Herscovitch, 2001). The establishment of these terms, whether self-initiated or externally influenced,
seems to be a conscious process (Meyer et al., 2004). Therefore, social identities and commitment
differ both in terms of degree of conscious regulation of behavior and the immediate relevance of that
behavior to the effective functioning of a target.
An Integrative Process Model
As we noted at the outset, theory development and research pertaining to social identities and
commitment have been conducted in relative isolation with only passing reference to one another.
Consequently, our attempt at integration requires that we speculate on relations that have not yet been
established empirically. In these cases, we offer testable propositions that we hope will guide and be
supported in future research. Figure 1 provides a visual summary of the relevant variables and relations
described below. As we argued above, we begin with the assertion that identity and commitment are
distinguishable in terms of the dimensions contained in Table 1. Although there is some empirical
evidence consistent with this assumption (e.g., Harris & Cameron, 2005; Mael & Tetrick, 1992; Van
Knippenberg & Sleebos, 2006), the evidence is sparse. Therefore, we offer as our first proposition,
Proposition 1: Social identity and commitment are distinguishable constructs. First and foremost,
they differ in their core meaning, with social identity referring to the inclusion of group membership
as part of one’s self-concept, and commitment referring to the binding of the individual to a target
and a course of action of relevance to that target. Consequently, they also differ in terms of relevant
foci, characteristic mindsets, volitionality, and behavioral implications (see Table 1).
If commitment and identity are distinguishable but related concepts, we need to consider how they
are related. Although there are a variety of perspectives on this issue, cogent arguments have been made
that possessing a social identity is often a precursor to developing commitment to the corresponding
collective. For example, Ashforth and Mael (1989) reasoned that identifying with an organization
enhances commitment to it because feelings of belongingness and vicarious experiences with respect to
the organization create an emotional bond. Following O’Reilly and Chatman (1986), Becker (1992)
argued that seeking self-defining relationships with other individuals or groups often involves adopting
certain attitudes, including commitment, with respect to those individuals or groups. Similar arguments
Figure 1. An integrative process model of identity and commitment
have been made by others (e.g., Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001; Pratt, 1998). Moreover, there is some
empirical evidence consistent with the notion that social identities are antecedents to commitment
(Bergami & Bagozzi, 2000; Foreman & Whetten, 2002; Van Vugt & Hart, 2004). Hence,
Proposition 2: Identifying with a collective can lead to the development of a commitment to that
collective.
The specific terms of the commitment that develop will depend on the target of the identity and the
psychological contract that is formed. Brown (1996) argued that the typical terms of a commitment
include continued membership (e.g., in a team or organization), goal directed action (e.g., effort to
achieve a leader’s vision of a team’s objectives), and concern for people (e.g., personal support for team
members). Therefore, a commitment can include any or all of these terms, and these terms determine
the behavior to which the individual becomes bound.
Finally, we qualify this proposition by noting that identification with a collective is not a necessary
condition of commitment because individuals can make commitments without identifying with
the corresponding target. For example, employees can commit to a consistent course of action due to
sunk costs or a perceived lack of alternatives (e.g., Meyer & Allen, 1997; Staw & Ross, 1987). Further,
it is possible for commitment to have a reciprocal influence on identity, as when a person’s growing
bond with his or her teammates results in team membership playing a larger role in the person’s self-
concept (Meyer et al., 2004). Thus, a more complete explanation of this proposition requires
elaboration of the relevant processes.
Social identities and situational facilitators
As we have already noted, an individual’s social identity includes cognitive, emotional, and evaluative
components, and can take one of two basic forms: situated or deep structure. Rousseau (1998) argued
that situated identities might be characteristic of temporary or marginal employees in today’s

workplace. For these people, the situational cues maintaining the identity with the organization might
include the employment contract, uniforms, and common interests (e.g., customer service). Such
identities are likely to have a limited duration, extinguishing with the disappearance of social cues. In
some cases, situated identities can develop into deep-structure identities. The latter include recognition
of shared values and mutual respect and are therefore longer lasting and less dependent on situational
cues. Deep structure identities are more common among core or long-term employees, and can
continue even after employees leave the company. Further, as we discuss below, deep structure and
situated identities may have different patterns of relations with commitment and behavior.
We propose that both situated and deep structure identities include cognitive, emotional, and
evaluative elements, though these elements are likely to differ in content and strength. In particular,
situated identities are likely to be interest-based whereas deep structure identities are more value-based.
That is, consistent with Pratt’s (1998) notion of ‘identification through affinity’, situated identity is
likely to develop and be maintained in order to ensure good interpersonal relations and a mutually
beneficial exchange. In contrast, deep structure identity is analogous to Pratt’s ‘identification through
emulation’ in which the individual gradually comes to internalize the characteristics (e.g., values) of a
group as his or her own. At this point, the values of the individual and group are aligned so that activities
intended to promote the values of one also benefit the other. Consistent with this distinction, we expect
that deep structure identities will be more readily accessible, evoke stronger emotions, and be evaluated
more positively than situated identities. There may be many other differences as well, but there is little
basis for speculation at this time. Therefore, for now, we offer the following:
Proposition 3: Social identities can take one of two basic forms, situated or deep structure, both of
which include cognitive, emotional, and evaluative elements.
We turn now to a discussion of the development, evolution, and maintenance of social identities. This
topic is broad and highly complex but, fortunately, there have been a number of comprehensive reviews
of the identity literature that summarize key issues (Ashmore et al., 2004; Ellemers et al., 2004;
Haslam, 2004; Haslam & Ellemers, 2005). We draw upon these reviews to identify essential elements
and to focus our analysis on those of particular relevance to the current objectives.
As we noted above, there have been numerous studies demonstrating the minimal conditions
necessary for the development of a social identity (Brown, 1978; Tajfel et al., 1971). These studies
suggest that social identities develop initially when situational cues make two or more social categories
salient, leading the individual to make a comparison that results in self-categorization. These initial
identities are cue sensitive and subject to change as different categories become salient. Consequently,
the resulting identity can be considered situated. Therefore, we propose that an identity that results
from initial social comparison and self-categorization processes will be relatively unstable and cue
dependent.
Proposition 4: Situations that introduce category salience and lead to social comparison and self-
categorization will, in the first instance, contribute to the development of a situated identity.
Rousseau (1998) argued that situated identities are necessary but not sufficient for the development
of deep structure identities. She identified a number of factors that can contribute to the transition from
situated to deep structure collective identity (cf. Riketta et al., in press). These factors correspond to
many of the elements discussed by other identity theorists and researchers. For present purposes, we
consider these to be ‘situational facilitators.’ The factors discussed here and presented in Figure 1 are
not exhaustive. Rather, they are representative of the factors identified by Rousseau and discussed more
generally in the identity literature (Haslam, 2004) as relevant to the establishment of longer-term social
identities.
Before we identify specific facilitating factors, it is important to consider why social identities
develop. At a fundamental level, individuals’ social identities are meant to satisfy important needs and
values, including self-esteem, security, and belongingness (Pratt, 1998; Tajfel, 1978). That is,
individuals want to feel good about themselves, and one way many people attempt to do this is to
associate with collectives that are held in high regard by themselves and/or others. Human beings also
value a sense of security against threats to their interests and well-being. This security can often be
provided by associating with others who share their interests and care about their well being. Finally, it
is well documented that many people have a strong need to relate to, and be accepted by, others
(Baumeister & Leary, 1995). For such individuals, identifying with a collective can help to provide a
sense of belongingness.
It is the desire to satisfy these needs that makes people sensitive to the cues that contribute to the
development and maintenance of a situated identity. However, because these needs are persistent, it
seems natural that people will prefer stable deep structure identities to transitory situated identities.
Therefore, the factors that facilitate the transition from situated to deep structure identities should be
those that contribute to, or signal the likelihood of, long-term need satisfaction. These factors should
include, but not be restricted to, stability (tenure) in the relationship, status, common fate, and
impermeability. That is, the longer an individual remains a member of a collective, the more confident
he or she typically becomes that other members share his or her interests and values. The higher the
status of the collective, the more positive the individual can feel about him- or herself through
association. Sharing a common fate (e.g., experiencing mutual rewards or threats) with other members
should increase confidence that others will provide support to the individual when needed. Finally, the
less permeable the group (i.e., the more difficult it is to enter or leave), the more stable the membership
is likely to be. Therefore, impermeability should increase confidence in the long-term satisfaction of
the individual’s needs. Thus, we offer the following proposition.
Proposition 5: The transition from situated identity to deep structure identity is facilitated by factors
(e.g., stability, status, common fate, and impermeability) that contribute to the perceptions that
membership in the collective will satisfy basic needs for self-esteem, security, and belonging.
Identity, identity-relevant outcomes, and commitment

One of the earliest observations in research on social identities was that identifying with even arbitrarily
formed groups could promote in-group favoritism (Tajfel et al., 1971). Subsequent research has
discovered other important implications, including behavioral involvement, intra- and intergroup
relations, and susceptibility to group influence (see Ashmore et al., 2004; Haslam, 2004). For present
purposes, we refer to these as ‘identity-relevant outcomes.’ We consider them outcomes because they
require that an identity, even if short-lived, has been established. However, we do not believe that the
influence is unidirectional. Rather, it is likely that individuals who behave in a way that favors the in-
group, or in other ways that signal their membership and involvement in the group, can contribute to the
maintenance and strength of the corresponding situated or deep structure identity.
Note that in Figure 1 we do not include commitment to the collective among the identity-relevant
outcomes. This is because identification with a target can, but need not, lead to the development of
commitment to the target. Unlike the other identity-relevant outcomes included in the figure,
commitments are likely to be largely volitional and can be made in the absence of a social identity. For
example, a contract employee can make a commitment to stay with an organization for a set period of
time, and to perform a set of prescribed duties, without including membership in that organization as
part of his or her self concept. For these reasons, we treat commitment as distinct from other shorter-
term and more automatic consequences of identity formation.
As we noted earlier, commitment is a force that binds an individual to a target and a course of action
relevant to the target. Commitment is multidimensional in that the mindset can take different forms. To
date, most discussions of the link between social identities and commitment have focused on one of its
dimensions, affective commitment (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Meyer & Allen, 1991; Meyer &
Herscovitch, 2001; Pratt, 1998). This is also the only link that has been well established empirically
(e.g., Gautam, Van Dick, & Wagner, 2004; Mael & Tetrick, 1992; Riketta, 2005). However, recent
developments in commitment and social identity theory provide reason to speculate beyond this simple
association. To elaborate, consider once again the different forms that identity and commitment can
take.
According to Rousseau (1998), situated identities are interest-based and cue dependent, whereas
deep structure identities involve the internalization of characteristics of the collective into one’s self-
concept. Although situated identities can be fleeting, as in the study of minimal groups, they can have
longer-term implications under conditions where the relevant situational cues are more lasting. Such is
the case for employees whose relationship with an organization has a limited or uncertain time frame.
In this case, the cue that maintains the identity could be a ‘transactional contract’ (Rousseau, 1995) that
links the interests of the employee with the interests of the organization, thereby creating a mutual,
albeit time-bound, dependence. Under these conditions, situated identity might contribute to the
development of continuance commitment. That is, the employee identifies him- or herself as a member
of the organization and recognizes that fulfillment of his or her self-interests is dependent upon
continued membership and compliance with any other stipulations built into the terms of the contract.
Over time, situated identities can develop into deep structure identities through the internalization or
emulation of characteristics of the collective into one’s self concept (Kelman, 1958; Pratt, 1998). When
this happens, membership in the collective becomes an integral part of the individual’s self-concept.
Internalization and shared values have been shown to be a basis of employee commitment (Becker &
Billings, 1993; Becker, Randall, & Riegel, 1995), and recent meta-analytic investigations have reported
fairly strong and consistent relations between value congruence and employee affective commitment to
the organization (Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005; Verquer, Beehr, & Wagner, 2003).
Therefore, one would expect deep structure identities based on the sharing of values to promote
affective commitment.
The link between social identity and normative commitment is less clear. However, recent research
findings provide some basis for speculation. Of particular relevance are two recent studies conducted to
test Meyer and Herscovitch’s (2001) propositions concerning the behaviors associated with different
‘commitment profiles.’ Gellatly, Meyer, and Luchak (in press) assigned employees to eight profile
groups based on their pattern of scores (above or below the median) on affective, normative, and
continuance commitment. They found that the behaviors associated with strong normative
commitment varied depending on whether it was accompanied by strong affective commitment or
strong continuance commitment. For example, organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) was above
the sample average for those with strong affective and normative commitment, but below the average
for those with strong continuance and normative commitment. Wasti (2005) used cluster analysis to
create commitment profile groups and also found evidence that normative commitment combines with
affective commitment for some employees and with continuance commitment for others. Although the
difference was not significant, the observed level of OCB was greater for the former than it was for the
latter.
In light of these findings, Gellatly et al. (in press) suggested that normative commitment might have
‘two faces,’ one reflecting a ‘moral imperative,’ (i.e., perceived obligation to strive toward valued
outcomes) and the other an ‘indebted obligation’ (i.e., perceived obligation to meet others’
expectations.) As corroborating evidence for the idea that obligations can be experienced differently,
Gellatly et al. noted recent findings in social psychology demonstrating that beliefs about what one
‘should’ do relate differently to actual behavior depending on whether the person also ‘wants’ to engage
in that activity (Berg, Janoff-Bulman, & Cotter, 2001; Sheldon & Elliot, 1998). That is, individuals
were more likely to follow through on social obligations (e.g., forgoing time with friends to attend a
family function) when they personally felt that it was the right thing to do than when they merely felt
pressured to fulfill others’ expectations. This distinction parallels that discussed in the ethics literature,
where some theorists have suggested that high integrity individuals want to do what they should do,
while those with less integrity may not (Becker, 1998).
A final argument in support of the dual nature of normative commitment is provided by the
psychological contracts literature. Here it has been argued that both transactional and relational
contracts involve mutual obligations, but that the behavioral consequences of these contracts are quite
different (Rousseau, 1989; Rousseau & Parks, 1993). Therefore, although there is a need for further
empirical validation of the dual nature of normative commitment, we believe that there may be a benefit
to distinguishing between two basic forms of commitment within our integrative model. The first,
which we refer to as value-based commitment, includes affective commitment and that aspect of
normative commitment that reflects obligation to achieve valued outcomes. The second, which we call
exchange-based commitment, includes continuance commitment and that aspect of normative
commitment that reflects an obligation to meet other’s expectations. Accordingly, we offer the
following propositions.
Proposition 6: Individuals with a situated collective identity are more likely than those with a deep
structure collective identity to develop an exchange-based commitment to the collective.
Proposition 7: Individuals with a deep structure collective identity are more likely than those with a
situated collective identity to develop a value-based commitment to the collective.
As we noted earlier, there are factors other than social identity that can cause individuals to make
commitments, and that determine the nature of the commitment. For example, an individual can
develop a commitment to a particular goal or cause without identifying with any collective associated
with the objective (see Meyer et al., 2004). Nevertheless, we expect that many important commitments
that people make will be based at least in part on situated or deep structure identities with respect to
some collective.
Commitment, motivation, and work behavior
As shown in Figure 1, our model concludes with links between commitment and work motivation and
behavior. In summarizing these connections we draw upon the observations and arguments made by
Meyer et al. (2004) in the context of their theoretical integration of commitment and motivation.
Among other things, these authors argued that employees with a strong affective commitment to a
collective (e.g., organization) experience greater autonomy in self-regulation (Deci & Ryan, 1985;
Ryan & Deci, 2000) and that this, in turn, leads to greater willingness to exert effort, particularly on
complex or ambiguous tasks where employee discretion is required. In contrast, employees with strong
continuance commitment experience a greater feeling of being controlled, and therefore restrict their
effort to those things absolutely required of them. Employees with a strong normative commitment fall
between these two extremes.
We acknowledge these links between commitment, motivation, and work behavior, and propose that
value-based commitment contributes to perceptions of autonomous self-regulation and high levels of
discretionary and non-discretionary work activities. In contrast, we suggest that exchange-based
commitment contributes to a sense of external regulation that can lead to high level of non-
discretionary behaviors, such as in-role performance. However, exchange-based commitment and
external regulation should have little impact on discretionary tasks. By including motivation and
behavior in this integrative model, we also acknowledge the belief among identity theorists that social
identities have implications for behaviors beyond the immediate identity-relevant outcomes described
earlier. However, we propose that the effect of one’s social identity on task motivation and work
behavior will be at least partially mediated by its effect on commitment to the collective.
Proposition 8: The impact of an employee’s social identity on motivation and behavior relevant to
the collective is mediated, at least in part, by its effect on commitment to the collective.
Finally, although we believe that identities are important antecedents of commitment, motivation,
and behavior, we acknowledge that there may be reciprocal influences of behavior on social identities.
For example, according to Bandura’s (1991) social cognitive theory of self-regulation, we learn about
ourselves in part through observing our own behavior. Therefore, engaging in positive discretionary
behavior directed toward a collective might be interpreted as indicating that the collective is important
to the person, thereby leading to an increase in deep structure identity. In contrast, restricting one’s
activities to non-discretionary task performance might help to maintain one’s perception that
membership in a collective is conditional (i.e., situated). Therefore,
Proposition 9: Engaging in only non-discretionary behavior towards a target creates or enhances
situated identity with respect to that target.
Proposition 10: Engaging in positive discretionary behavior towards a target creates or enhances
deep structure identity with respect to that target.
Identities and commitments involving multiple foci
To this point, we have focused on the distinction and relation between identities and commitment as
they pertain to a common collective. However, as we noted earlier, employees can identify with and
commit to many different work-relevant foci. In this section we consider how identities are influenced
when there are multiple collectives, and how multiple identities might combine to influence
commitments and behavior. Full treatment of the issues raised by these questions goes well beyond the
space available. Therefore, we limit our discussion by focusing on relatively stable identities and two
general forms of relations among foci: nested and cross-cutting.
Among the work-relevant foci that might typically engender important and stable identities are
organizations, functional divisions, work teams, professions, and unions. Our earlier discussion is
relevant to the development and consequences of identities involving any or all of these foci. However,
what determines the relative strength of these identities and how do they relate to one another? Ellemers
and Rink (2005) described two basic configurations of multiple identities. The first involves nested
collectives (Lawler, 1992) where membership in one (e.g., work team) requires membership in the
other (e.g., organization). Although the same forces operate to strengthen identities at all levels of
inclusion, in most cases the forces are stronger or more salient at the lower (more proximal) levels and,
therefore, identities tend to be stronger at these levels (Becker et al., 1996; Riketta & Van Dick, 2005).
For example, employees come into more regular contact with members of their work group than they
do with ‘representatives’ of the organization and therefore the distinctiveness and meaningfulness of
their association with the work group is likely to be stronger than that with the organization.
The second configuration described by Ellemers and Rink (2005) is cross-cutting. Unlike nested
collectives, there are no necessary dependencies in cross-cutting identities and therefore employees can
find themselves having to make choices. For example, employees can identify with their profession, the
organization in which they work, or both. Moreover, these identities can have reinforcing or diluting
effects. For example, when goals, values, and norms are compatible, employees might identify most
with, and show the greatest favoritism toward, others who share the same profession and work in their
own department (Hernes, 1997). However, when goals, values, and norms are incompatible, the
strength of an employee’s identity with one could undermine identification with the other (as in
organizations with antagonistic union-management relations).
Ellemers and Rink (2005) described the implications of nested and cross-cutting (reinforcing and
diluting) identities on commitments to the relevant collectives. However, the focus of their discussion
was on implications for affective commitment. As noted earlier, this is not surprising given that
affective commitment has generally received the most attention in both the commitment and social
identity literatures. In light of the evidence provided by Ellemers and Rink and the logic outlined in the
development of our previous propositions, we offer the following propositions concerning the impact
of multiple identities on affective commitment.
Proposition 11: Individuals with multiple identities in nested collectives identify most strongly with
the lower-level collective and develop stronger value-based commitment to that collective and its
goals than they do to the higher-level collective.
Proposition 12: Individuals with multiple identities in cross-cutting collectives develop value-based
commitment to the collective and its goals in proportion to the strength of their identity vis-à-vis
these collectives. When identities are reinforcing, employees experience value-based commitment
to both collectives. When identities are diluting, employees develop a stronger value-based
commitment to that collective with which they come to identify most strongly.
When considering other forms of commitment, things become more complicated. Space does not
permit a detailed analysis of the many possibilities that can result when the potential for multiple foci,
multiple configurations, and multiple forms of commitment is realized. Instead, we provide illustrative
examples to serve as a guide for future theory development and research. To begin, in nested
collectives, membership at a lower level (e.g., work team) requires membership in the higher-level
collective. Therefore, employees who develop a deep structure identity with a work team might see loss
of membership as a cost of leaving the organization. This could contribute to the development of
continuance commitment to the organization. However, the direction of influence could be the
opposite. For example, an individual who identifies with and values membership in a prestigious
organization might be willing to take an assignment in a division or workgroup merely to remain an
employee of the organization. Consequently, identifying with the lower-level collective might be
considered situated and could lead to a feeling of normative commitment, continuance commitment, or
both.
Turning now to cross-cutting foci, we have already seen that multiple identities can be considered
reinforcing or diluting and that this has implications for the individual’s affective commitment to the
collectives. Although dependencies are less salient in cross-cutting collectives than in nested
collectives, they can exist. For example, consider an employee whose involvement in a profession
requires that he or she work for a particular organization (e.g., the nurse working in the only hospital in
town). If conditions in the organization are not sufficient to engender a deep structure identity and
affective commitment, identification with and commitment to the profession can lead to the
development of continuance commitment to the organization. In another case, employees whose
associations with one group affords them opportunities they would not otherwise have to become
members of another highly valued group might develop strong normative commitment to the first
group. Such would be the case for an individual who landed a job in a prestigious organization as a
result of his or her involvement in a public service group. He or she might remain a member of the
service group partially out of obligation stemming from the opportunity it provided (e.g., ‘I owe them
too much to leave’).
Although there are many more possibilities than we have described here, the key point is that the
nature and strength of one’s identification with a specific collective can influence the nature of the
commitment to other collectives. Therefore, we offer the following proposition.
Proposition 13: When individuals have multiple identities involving dependencies, a deep structure
identity and value-based commitment to one collective can contribute to the development of a
situated identity and exchange-based commitment to another.
Discussion and Implications
Our objective was to bring together two extensive bodies of work, one dealing with social identity and
the other with employee commitment. Although it was impossible to do justice to either literature given
their complexity, it is our hope that our model will offer direction for future research and stimulate
communication between theorists and researchers within the two areas. We believe that those with
interest in workplace commitment have much to learn from the identity literature, and vice versa.
Therefore we conclude by outlining some of the ways that commitment and identity theories might
benefit from our integrative framework, and the boundary conditions of this framework.
Commitment theory can benefit in several ways from an expanded understanding of the role that
collective identities can play in the development of commitment. First, recognizing that identities can
take different forms varying in content and level of involvement (e.g., situated and deep-structure)
raises the possibility that a collective identity can contribute to the development of more than just
affective commitment. Employees with situated identities, perhaps because their relationship with a
collective (e.g., organization) is temporary or conditional, might be inclined to focus primarily on the
short-term benefits of their relationship with the collective. If so, any commitments they make are likely
to be exchange-based rather than value-based. Although exchange-based commitments can be useful in
that they increase the predictability of future behavior, the terms of exchanged-based commitments
must be specified clearly. Unlike value-based commitments, exchange-based commitments bind the
individual only to the focal (non-discretionary) behaviors defined within the terms of the commitment.
Second, by acknowledging that employees can develop multiple identities, we hope to raise
awareness of the role played by identity in the formation of commitment to all work-relevant foci.
Although some work has been conducted on this topic (e.g., Becker, 1992; Becker et al., 1996), much
attention continues to be focused on commitment to organizations (Meyer et al., 2002). As more
researchers expand their interest to commitment to supervisors, work teams, occupations, and other
work-relevant foci (e.g., Clugston, Howell, & Dorfman, 2000; Stinglhamber, Bentein, &
Vandenberghe, 2002), it is essential for them to consider how identities pertaining to these foci
might help to explain both the nature and strength of employee commitments.
Third, we hope to alert commitment researchers to the possibility that commitment to a specific
collective (e.g., organization) might be influenced by identities with other, possibly multiple, foci (e.g.,
profession, team, union). Further, it is important to remember that the influence can be positive or
negative. For example, individuals who identify with their professions might develop strong
commitments to organizations that reinforce and provide opportunities for free expression of the values
of the profession. That same strong professional identity could prevent or weaken value-based
commitment with the organization if employees see the values of the profession and organization as
being in conflict.
Identity theorists can also benefit from our integrative model because it helps to clarify the links
between identification and important behavioral outcomes, including retention, job performance, and
organizational citizenship. We focused here on clarifying the links between social identities
and commitments, but also acknowledged the links between commitment and employee motivation
and work behaviors. The Meyer et al. (2004) model of commitment and motivation picks up where our
model ends and, together, the two provide an elaborate description of the mechanisms that might be
involved in the connection between workplace identities and behaviors. Both models are grounded in
established theory and research, but also introduce propositions to be tested in future research.
We believe that other theories might also benefit from our model. In general, any theory of
organizational behavior that includes identity or commitment as process or outcome variables can
benefit from clarification of the distinction and relationship between the two. For example, theory and
research pertaining to charismatic or transformational leadership (Bass, 1998; Conger & Kanungo,
1998; House & Shamir, 1993) commonly views identification with, or commitment to, the leader, work
group, or organizations as outcomes in their own right, or as mechanisms by which leadership
influences follower behavior. However, little attention is given to the complexities of identity and
commitment and the relationship between them. Our model suggests that leadership directed at
building strong identification with a collective is likely to affect commitment indirectly, and that the
nature and focus of the commitment will depend on whether the identity is with the leader him/herself,
a workgroup, or the organization. Kark and Shamir (2002) recently argued that transformational
leadership could foster identification with the leader or a collective depending on whether it focuses
attention on the dyadic relationship or a broader collective goal. If this is the case, then these leadership
behaviors might have corresponding effects on commitments to these foci. Our model can serve as a
guide to leadership theorists and researchers as they examine these indirect effects on commitment. It
could also serve as an important guide to theorists and researchers interested in direct effects of
leadership on commitment (cf. Meyer et al., 2004).
Of course, all theories have boundary conditions. Two that we believe are particularly relevant to our
framework are extreme identification tendencies and the effects of bases of commitment other than
identification. A person who is extraordinarily individualistic, or who has an attachment disorder, may
form a loose, situated identity as a result of the demands of social context. However, due to his or her
unique condition, even in the presence of situational facilitators he or she may not develop a deep
structure identity. On the other hand, a person whose self-esteem depends almost entirely on
membership in high-status collectives may automatically commit to such a collective once the
corresponding identity is formed. In this case, the distinction between identity and commitment would
be blurred. Regarding the bases of commitment, variables other than identification can have powerful
effects on commitment to social foci and goal commitment. Examples are value congruence,
socialization, and personal investments (Meyer et al., 2004). When one or more of these bases of
commitment have more potent effects than identification, the direct and indirect effects of identification
on commitment and behavior may be ‘washed out’—i.e., diminished or eliminated. Thus, these other
bases of commitment would serve as boundary conditions to identity effects.
The value of our model for theory development in any of the forgoing domains, and for the practical
application of these theories, will depend on the extent of boundary conditions and the validity of our
propositions. Therefore, we hope that researchers will take up the challenge and test these propositions
and examine the boundary conditions. In so doing, it is important to give careful consideration to the
nature of the measures used. Measures of identity and commitment should reflect the essence of
the constructs as they are defined. This might require the refinement of existing measures or the
development of new ones. To illustrate, in his recent meta-analysis, Riketta (2005) found that
the strength of the relation between organizational identity and affective organizational commitment
varied as a function of the measures used. Differences in relations with other variables also varied as a
function of the measure, particularly the measure of identification. More specifically, correlations
between organizational identification and affective commitment were greater in studies using the
Organizational Identification Questionnaire (OIQ; Cheney, 1983) than in those using (Mael’s, 1989;
Mael & Tetrick, 1992) scale. Relations between identification and other variables (e.g., job satisfaction,
turnover intention) were also more similar to correlations for affective commitment in studies using the
OIQ. Riketta argued that this might be due to the fact that development of the OIQ was based on a very
broad conceptualization of identification (i.e., Patchen, 1970). In contrast, Mael’s measure was based
on a narrower definition and consequently has less item overlap with the Organizational Commitment
Questionnaire (OCQ; Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979) and the Affective Commitment Scale (ACS;
Allen & Meyer, 1990; Meyer, Allen, & Smith, 1993).
Because they were based on definitions of commitment that included identification as part of the
construct, the ACS and OCQ may also measure a broader construct than that reflected in our definition.
Meyer and Herscovitch (2001) recently argued that there might be a need for refinement of existing
measures of organizational commitment, and that measures developed in the future to assess
commitments to other foci should be based on sound definitions that clearly reflect the nature (e.g.,
mindsets) and terms of the commitment as it pertains to the target of interest. Therefore, we encourage
researchers interested in testing the propositions presented here to pay careful attention to the selection
or development of the measures they use.
Finally, although they may only be realized once our propositions have been fully tested, we believe
that our integrative model has important implications for human resource management. For instance,
our model suggests that the nature of identity and commitment might be different for contractual,
temporary, or marginal employees than it is for full-time core employees. It might be difficult for the
former to develop anything more than a situated identity and an exchange-based commitment to the
organization. As noted above, situated identity and exchange-based commitment can have benefits for
the organization as long as the organization’s expectations for these employees (i.e., the terms of their
commitment) can be clearly specified. However, given the uncertainties of the modern workplace, it is
possible that even contract or temporary employees will be empowered to make decisions (e.g., how to
respond to a customer’s complaint). Exchange-based commitment might not be sufficient to ensure that
employees consider the organization’s best interest in making such decisions. If developing a strong
affective commitment to the organization is not possible (e.g., due to the need to maintain flexibility in
the employment relationship), it is possible that employers can achieve the desired behaviors from
contractual or temporary employees by selecting for or helping to establish a deep structure identity and
value-based commitment to another collective (e.g., occupation, clientele) with similar goals and
values.
More generally, our model, in combination with the model of commitment and motivation proposed
by Meyer et al. (2004), helps to explain two key forms of employee attachment and their links to self-
regulatory processes, motivation, and behavior. This explanation, if correct, holds the potential for
generating additional insights into the effects of antecedents of attachment. Among these are
transformational leadership (Avolio, 1999; Bass, 1998), perceived-organizational support (Rhoades &
Eisenberger, 2002), organizational justice (Blader & Tyler, 2005; Konovsky & Cropanzano, 1991), and
high-involvement work practices (Arthur, 1994; Huselid, 1995). Ultimately, a valid model of employee
identities and commitments would allow behavioral scientists to trace the impact of these antecedents
through the chain of mechanisms contained in the model to important behaviors, including retention,
performance, and citizenship. The effects of even more distal factors, such as specific human resource
practices, could be followed through to their ultimate ends using models such as ours. It is often difficult
or impossible to demonstrate the impact of such practices on employee behavior, let alone the
organization’s bottom line. However, if clear connections can be established between specific HR
practices and identification or commitment, it would become possible to better understand and predict
how these practices influence individual and organizational effectiveness (Meyer & Smith, 2000).
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to Denise Rousseau for her comments on an earlier version of this paper. We
also thank Fred Mael, Michael Pratt, Lynne Shore, and Bob Vandenberg for stimulating comments. The
first author was supported by a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of
Canada.
Author biographies
John P. Meyer received his PhD in personality and social psychology at the University of Western
Ontario, where he is now a professor and chair of the graduate program in industrial-organizational
psychology. His research interests include work place commitments, work motivation, organizational
justice, leadership, and organizational change.
Thomas E. Becker earned is PhD in 1990 in industrial-organizational psychology at the Ohio State
University, and is now an associate professor in the department of business administration at the
University of Delaware. His primary research interests are employee commitment, integrity, motiv-
ation, and job performance.
Rolf Van Dick received his PhD in 1999 in social psychology at the Philipps University in Marburg,
Germany. He is now chair of social psychology at Goethe Universität Frankfurt, Germany and also
hold’s a part time chair at Aston University in Birmingham, UK. Rolf’s primary research is on
individuals’ attachment to organizational groups and social identity processes in organizations. Rolf is
associate editor of the European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology.
References
Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1989). Attachments beyond infancy. American Psychologist, 44, 709–716.

Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance, and normative
commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 1–18.
Arthur, J. B. (1994). Effects of human resource systems on manufacturing performance and turnover. Academy of
Management Journal, 37, 670–687.
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review,
14, 20–39.
Ashmore, R. D., Deaux, K., & McLaughlin-Volpe, T. (2004). An organizing framework for collective identity:
Articulation and significance of multidimensionality. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 80–114.
Avolio, B. J. (1999). Full leadership development: Building the vital forces in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 50, 248–287.
Bargh, J. A., & Ferguson, M. J. (2000). Beyond behaviorism: On the automaticity of higher mental processes.
Psychological Bulletin, 126, 925–945.
Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industrial, educational, and military impact. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a
fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529.
Becker, T. E. (1992). Foci and bases of commitment: Are they distinctions worth making? Academy of
Management Journal, 35, 232–244.
Becker, T. E. (1998). Integrity in organizations: Beyond honesty and conscientiousness. Academy of Management
Review, 23, 154–161.
Becker, T. E., & Billings, R. S. (1993). Profiles of commitment: An empirical test. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 14, 177–190.
Becker, T. E., Billings, R. S., Eveleth, D. M., & Gilbert, N. W. (1996). Foci and bases of commitment: Implications
for performance. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 464–482.
Becker, T. E., Billings, R. S., Eveleth, D. M., & Gilbert, N. W. (1997). Validity of three attachment style scales:
Exploratory and confirmatory evidence. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57, 477–493.
Becker, T. E., & Kernan, M. (2003). Matching commitment to supervisors and organizations to in-role and extra-
role performance. Human Performance, 16, 327–348.
Becker, T. E., Randall, D. M., & Riegel, C. D. (1995). The multidimensional view of commitment and the theory of
reasoned action: A comparative evaluation. Journal of Management, 21, 617–638.
Berg, M. B., Janoff-Bulman, R., & Cotter, J. (2001). Perceiving value in obligations and goals: Wanting to do what
should be done. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 982–995.
Bergami, M., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2000). Self-categorization, affective commitment and group self-esteems as
distinct aspects of social identity in the organization. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 555–577.
Bishop, J. W., & Scott, K. D. (2000). An examination of organizational and team commitment in a self-directed
team environment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 439–450.
Blader, S. L., & Tyler, T. R. (2005). How can theories of organizational justice explain the effects of fairness? In
J. Greenberg, & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 329–354). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Blanton, H., Christie, C., & Dye, M. (2002). Social identity versus reference frame comparisons: The moderating
role of stereotype endorsement. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 252–267.
Brown, R. B. (1996). Organizational commitment: Clarifying the concept and simplifying the existing construct
typology. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49, 230–251.
Brown, R. J. (1978). Divided we fall: An analysis of relations between sections of a factory workforce. In H. Tajfel
(Ed.), Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 395–
429). New York: Academic Press.
Cameron, J. E. (2004). A three-factor model of social identity. Self and Identity, 3, 239–262.
Cheney, G. (1983). On the various and changing meanings of organizational membership: A field study of
organizational identification. Communication Monographs, 50, 342–362.
Clugston, M., Howell, J. P., & Dorfman, P. W. (2000). Does cultural socialization predict multiple bases and foci of
commitment? Journal of Management, 26, 5–30.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1998). Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organizational effec-
tiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York:
Plenum.
Ellemers, N., De Gilder, D., & Haslam, S. A. (2004). Motivating individuals and groups at work: A social identity
perspective on leadership and group performance. Academy of Management Review, 29, 459–478.
Ellemers, N., Kortekaas, P., & Ouwerkerk, J. W. (1999). Self-categorization, commitment to the group and group
self-esteem as related but distinct aspects of social identity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 371–
389.
Ellemers, N., & Rink, F. (2005). Identity in work groups: The beneficial and detrimental consequences of multiple
identities and group norms for collaboration and group performance. Advances in Group Processes, 22, 1–41.
Foreman, P., & Whetten, D. A. (2002). Members’ identification with multiple-identity organizations. Organization
Science, 13, 618–637.
Gautam, T., Van Dick, R., & Wagner, U. (2004). Organizational identification and organizational commitment:
Distinct aspects of two related concepts. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 7, 301–315.
Gellatly, I. R., Meyer, J. P., & Luchak, A. A. (in press). Combined effects of the three components of commitment
on focal and discretionary behavior: A test of Meyer and Herscovitch’s propositions. Journal of Vocational
Behavior.
Harris, G. E., & Cameron, J. E. (2005). Multiple dimensions of organizational identification and commitment as
predictors of turnover intentions and psychological well-being. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 37,
159–169.
Haslam, S. A. (2004). Psychology in organizations: The social identity approach (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
Haslam, S. A., & Ellemers, N. (2005). Social identity in industrial and organizational psychology: Concepts,
controversies and contributions. In G. P. Hodgkinson, & J. K. Ford (Eds.), International review of industrial and
organizational psychology (Vol. 20, pp. 39–118). Chichester: Wiley.
Hernes, H. (1997). Cross-cutting identifications in organizations. In S. A. Sachman (Ed.), Cultural complexity in
organizations: Inherent contrasts and contradictions (pp. 343–366). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Herscovitch, L., & Meyer, J. P. (2002). Commitment to organizational change: Extension of a three-component
model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 474–487.
Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts.
Academy of Management Review, 25, 121–140.
House, R. J., & Shamir, B. (1993). Toward the integration of transformational, charismatic, and visionary theories.
In M. M. Chemers, & R. Ayman (Eds.), Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and directions (pp. 81–
107). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Huselid, M. A. (1995). The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity, and
corporate financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 635–672.
Jackson, J. W. (2002). Intergroup attitudes as a function of different dimensions of group identification and
perceived intergroup conflict. Self and Identity, 1, 11–33.
Kark, R., & Shamir, B. (2002). The dual effect of transformational leadership: Priming relational and collective
selves and further effects on followers. In B. J. Avolio, & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Transformational and
charismatic leadership: The road ahead (Vol. 2, pp. 67091 ). Amsterdam: JAI Press.
Kelman, H. C. (1958). Compliance, identification, and internalization: Three processes of attitude change. Journal
of Conflict Resolution, 2, 51–60.
Klein, H. J., Wesson, M. J., Hollenbeck, J. R., Wright, P. M., & DeShon, R. P. (2001). The assessment of goal
commitment: A measurement model meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
85, 32–55.
Konovsky, M. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1991). Perceived fairness of employee drug testing as a predictor of
employee attitudes and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 698–707.
Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of individual’s fit at work: A
meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychol-
ogy, 58, 281–342.
Lawler, E. J. (1992). Affective attachment to nested groups: A choice-process theory. American Sociological
Review, 57, 327–339.
Mael, F. (1989). Organizational identification: Construct redefinition and a field application with organizational
alumni. (Doctoral dissertation, Wayne State University, 1988). Dissertation Abstracts International, 49, 5050.
Mael, F. A., & Tetrick, L. E. (1992). Identifying organizational identification. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 52, 813–824.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human
Resource Management Review, 1, 61–89.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and application. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and occupations: Extension and test
of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 538–551.
Meyer, J. P., Becker, T. E., & Vandenberghe, C. (2004). Employee commitment and motivation: A conceptual
analysis and integrative model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 991–1007.
Meyer, J. P., & Herscovitch, L. (2001). Commitment in the workplace: Toward a general model. Human Resource
Management Review, 11, 299–326.
Meyer, J. P., & Smith, C. A. (2000). Human resource management practices and organizational commitment: Test
of a mediation model. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 17, 319–331.
Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance and normative
commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 61, 20–52.
Miller, V. D., Allen, M., Casey, M. K., & Johnson, J. R. (2000). Reconsidering the organizational identification
questionnaire. Management Communication Quarterly, 13, 626–658.
Morrow, P. C. (1993). The theory and measurement of work commitment. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1982). Organizational linkages: The psychology of commitment,
absenteeism, and turnover. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 14, 224–247.
O’Reilly, C. A. III. & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The effects
of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71,
492–499.
Patchen, M. (1970). Participation, achievement, and involvement on the job. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Pratt, M. G. (1998). To be or not to be? Central questions in organizational identification. In D. A. Whetten, & P. C.
Godgrey (Eds.), Identity in organizations: Building theory through conversations (pp. 171–207). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 87, 698–714.
Riketta, M. (2005). Organizational identification: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 358–
384.
Riketta, M., & Van Dick, R. (2005). Foci of attachment in organizations: A meta-analytic comparison of the
strength and correlates of workgroup versus organizational identification and commitment. Journal of Voca-
tional Behavior, 67, 490–510.
Riketta, M., Van Dick, R., & Rousseau, D. M. (in press). Employee attachment in the short and long run:
Antecedents and consequences of situated and deep-structure identification. Zeitschrift für Personalpsychologie.
Rousseau, D. M. (1989). Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Employee Responsibilities and
Rights Journal, 2, 121–139.
Rousseau, D. M. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations: Understanding written and unwritten
agreements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rousseau, D. M. (1998). Why workers still identify with organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19,
217–233.
Rousseau, D. M., & Parks, J. M. (1993). The contracts of individuals and organizations. Research in Organiz-
ational Behavior, 15, 1–43.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social
development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78.
Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1998). Not all personal goals are personal: Comparing autonomous and controlled
reasons for goals as predictors of effort and attainment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 546–
557.
Siders, M. A., George, G., & Dharwadkar, R. (2001). The relationship of internal and external commitment foci to
objective job performance measures. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 580–590.
Staw, B. M., & Ross, J. (1987). Behavior in escalation situations: Antecedents, prototypes, and solutions. In L. L.
Cummings, & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 9, pp. 39–78). Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press.
Stinglhamber, F., Bentein, K., & Vandenberghe, C. (2002). Extension of the three-component model of
commitment to five foci: Development of measures and substantive test. European Journal of Psychological
Assessment, 18, 123–138.
Tajfel, H. (1978). Social categorization, social identity, and social comparison. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation
between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 61–76). London: Academic
Press.
Tajfel, H., Flament, C., Billig, M. G., & Bundy, R. P. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behavior.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 149–178.
Van Dick, R. (2001). Identification in organizational contexts: Linking theory and research from social and
organizational psychology. International Journal of Management Reviews, 3, 265–283.
Van Dick, R., Wagner, U., Stellmacher, J., & Christ, O. (2004). The utility of a broader conceptualization of
organizational identification: Which aspects really matter? Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 77, 171–191.
Van Dick, R., Wagner, U., Stellmacher, J., & Christ, O. (2005). Categroy salience and organizational identification.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78, 273–285.
Van Knippenberg, D., & Sleebos, E. (2006). Organizational identification versus organizational commitment: Self-
definition, social exchange, and job attitudes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 571–584 (this issue).
Van Vugt, M., & Hart, C. M. (2004). Social identity as social glue: The origins of group loyalty. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 585–598.
Verquer, M. L., Beehr, R. A., & Wagner, S. H. (2003). A meta-analysis of relations between person-organization fir
and work attitudes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63, 473–489.
Wasti, S. A. (2005). Commitment profiles: Combinations of organizational commitment forms and job outcomes.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 290–308.

Committment

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Committment

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Journal of Organizational Behavior

J. Organiz. Behav. 27, 665–683 (2006)

Social identities and commitments at

Distinguishing Social Identities and Commitment

Table 1. Differences between social identity and commitment

Essence Deﬁnition of self reﬂecting Binding to target and course of action

An Integrative Process Model

Figure 1. An integrative process model of identity and commitment

Social identities and situational facilitators

that situated identities might be characteristic of temporary or marginal employees in today’s

Identity, identity-relevant outcomes, and commitment

Commitment, motivation, and work behavior

Identities and commitments involving multiple foci

Discussion and Implications

Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1989). Attachments beyond infancy. American Psychologist, 44, 709–716.

Potrebbero piacerti anche