Social Identity Theory and the Organization
Author(s): Blake E. Ashforth and Fred Mael
Source: The Academy of Management Review , Jan., 1989, Vol. 14, No. 1 (Jan., 1989), pp.
20-39
Published by: Academy of Management
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/258189
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/258189?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact .
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Academy of Management is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
The Academy of Management Review
This content downloaded from
154.59.124.111 on Sun, 14 Sep 2025 12:12:11 UTC
,? Academy of Management Review, 1989, Vol. 14, No. 1, 20-39.
Social Identity Theory
and the Organization
BLAKE E. ASHFORTH
Concordia University
FRED MAEL
Wayne State University
It is argued that (a) social identification is a perception of oneness
with a group of persons; (b) social identification stems from the cat-
egorization of individuals, the distinctiveness and prestige of the
group, the salience of outgroups, and the factors that traditionally
are associcr>ed with group formation; and (c) social identification
leads to activities that are congruent with the identity, support for
institutions that embody the identity, stereotypical perceptions of self
and others, and outcomes that traditionally are associated with
group formation, and it reinforces the antecedents of identification.
This perspective is applied to organizational socialization, role con-
flict, and intergroup relations.
Organizational identification has long been view of the literature on SIT, the antecedents
recognized as a critical construct in the literature
and consequences of social identification in or-
on organizational behavior, affecting both the ganizations are discussed. This perspective is
satisfaction of the individual and the effective- then applied to three domains of organizational
ness of the organization (Brown, 1969; Hall, behavior: socialization, role conflict, and inter-
Schneider, & Nygren, 1970; Lee, 1971; O'Reilly group
& relations.
Chatman, 1986; Patchen, 1970; Rotondi, 1975).
However, as discussed below, theoretical and
empirical work has often confused organiza- Social Identity Theory
tional identification with related constructs such
as organizational commitment and internaliza- According to SIT, people tend to classify them-
tion and with affect and behaviors, which are selves and others into various social categories,
more appropriately seen as antecedents and/or such as organizational membership, religious
consequences of identification. affiliation, gender, and age cohort (Tajfel &
Social identity theory (SIT) can restore some Turner, 1985). As these examples suggest, peo-
coherence to organizational identification, and ple may be classified in various categories, and
it can suggest fruitful applications to organiza- different individuals may utilize different catego-
tional behavior. SIT offers a social-psychological rization schemas. Categories are defined by
perspective, developed principally by Henri prototypical characteristics abstracted from the
Tajfel (1978, 1981; Tajfel & Turner, 1985) andmembers
John (Turner, 1985). Social classification
Turner (1975, 1982, 1984, 1985). Following a re- serves two functions. First, it cognitively seg-
20
This content downloaded from
154.59.124.111 on Sun, 14 Sep 2025 12:12:11 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
,ments and orders the social environment, pro- stopgap job; I'm trying to save enough to start
viding the individual with a systematic means of my own business).
defining others. A person is assigned the proto- The major focus of both SIT and the present
typical characteristics of the category to which paper is to understand the implications of the
he or she is classified. As suggested by the lit- second function of classification, that of social
erature on stereotypes, however, such assign- identification.
ments are not necessarily reliable (e.g., Hamil-
Social Identification and Group Identification
ton, 1981).
Second, social classification enables the indi- Social identification appears to derive from
vidual to locate or define him- or herself in the the venerable concept of group identification
social environment. According to SIT, the self- (Tolman, 1943). (Indeed, we will use social and
concept is comprised of a personal identity en- group identification interchangeably.) The liter-
compassing idiosyncratic characteristics (e.g., ature on group identification suggests four prin-
bodily attributes, abilities, psychological traits, ciples that are relevant to our discussion. First,
interests) and a social identity encompassing sa- identification is viewed as a perceptual cogni-
lient group classifications. Social identification, tive construct that is not necessarily associated
therefore, is the perception of oneness with or with any specific behaviors or affective states.
belongingness to some human aggregate. For To identify, an individual need not expend effort
example, a woman may define herself in terms toward the group's goals; rather, an individual
of the group(s) with which she classifies herself need only perceive him- or herself as psycho-
(I am a Canadian; I am a woman). She per- logically intertwined with the fate of the group.
ceives herself as an actual or symbolic member Behavior and affect are viewed only as potential
of the group(s), and she perceives the fate of the antecedents or consequences (Foote, 1951;
group(s) as her own. As such, social identifica- Gould, 1975). As noted below, this conceptual-
tion provides a partial answer to the question, ization distinguishes identification from related
Who am I? (Stryker & Serpe, 1982; Turner, 1982). concepts such as effort on behalf of the group
Note that the definition of others and the self (behavior) and loyalty (affect). However, our
are largely "relational and comparative" (Tajfel view does contrast with some literature on SIT,
& Turner, 1985, p. 16); they define oneself rela- which includes affective and evaluative dimen-
tive to individuals in other categories. The cate- sions in the conceptualization of identity (e.g.,
gory of young is meaningful only in relation to Tajfel, 1978).
the category of old. It should be noted, however, Second, social/group identification is seen as
that social identification is not an all-or-none personally experiencing the successes and fail-
phenomenon. Although many social categories ures of the group (Foote, 1951; Tolman, 1943).
are indeed categorical (e.g., Canadian, female, Often, identification is maintained in situations
a member of XYZ Co.), the extent to which the involving great loss or suffering (Brown, 1986),
individual identifies with each category is missed potential benefits (Tajfel, 1982), task fail-
clearly a matter of degree. Further, such identi- ure (Turner, 1981), and even expected failure
ties tend to be viewed positively inasmuch as the (Gammons, 1986).
individual vests more of his or her self- Third, although not clearly addressed in the
conceptions in valued personas (Adler & Adler, literature, social identification is distinguishable
1987; Schneider, Hall, & Nygren, 1971). Thus, from internalization (Hogg & Turner, 1987) (cf.
Jackall (1978) found that people working at me- Kelman, 1961; O'Reilly & Chatman, 1986).
nial jobs in a bank often distanced themselves Whereas identification refers to self in terms of
from their implied identity (e.g., This is only a social categories (I am), internalization refers to
21
This content downloaded from
154.59.124.111 on Sun, 14 Sep 2025 12:12:11 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
, the incorporation of values, attitudes, and so ganizational behavior, including searches for
forth within the self as guiding principles (I meaning, connectedness, empowerment, and
believe). Although certain values and attitudes immortality (e.g., Denhardt, 1987; Fox, 1980;
typically are associated with members of a Katz & Kahn, 1978). To the extent the organiza-
given social category, acceptance of the cate- tion, as a social category, is seen to embody or
gory as a definition of self does not necessarily even reify characteristics perceived to be proto-
mean acceptance of those values and attitudes. typical of its members, it may well fulfill such
An individual may define herself in terms of the motives for the individual. At the very least, SIT
organization she works for, yet she can disagree maintains that the individual identifies with so-
with the prevailing values, strategy, system of cial categories partly to enhance self-esteem
authority, and so on (cf. "young Turks," Mintz- (Hogg & Turner, 1985; Tajfel, 1978). This is un-
berg, 1983, p. 210; "counterculture," Martin & derstandable in view of the relational and com-
Siehl, 1983, p. 52). parative nature of social identities. Through so-
Finally, identification with a group is similar to cial identification and comparison, the individ-
identification with a person (e.g., one's father, ual is argued to vicariously partake in the
football hero) or a reciprocal role relationship successes and status of the group: Indeed, pos-
(e.g., husband-wife, doctor-patient) inasmuch itive and negative intergroup comparisons have
as one partly defines oneself in terms of a social been found to affect a member's self-esteem ac-
referent. To be sure, the various literatures cordingly (Oakes & Turner, 1980; Wagner, Lam-
reach this conclusion from different directions. pen, & Syllwasschy, 1986).
Whereas identification with a group is argued to The individual's social identity may be de-
be predicated on the desire for self-definition, rived not only from the organization, but also
identification with an individual-referred to as from his or her work group, department, union,
"classical identification" (Kelman, 1961, p. 63) lunch group, age cohort, fast-track group, and
is argued to be predicated on the desire to ap- so on. Albert and Whetten (1985) distinguished
pease, emulate, or vicariously gain the qualities between holographic organizations in which in-
of the other (e.g., Bandura & Walters, 1963; Kets dividuals across subunits share a common iden-
de Vries & Miller, 1984). Kelman (1961), for ex- tity (or identities) and ideographic organizations
ample, argued that in classical identification the in which individuals display subunit-specific
individual "attempts to be like or actually to be identities. General examples of the former in-
the other person" (p. 63). Nevertheless, the ele- clude Ouchi's (1981) Theory Z organization in
ment of self-definition suggests that these forms which "management styles are blended to-
of identification are complementary. Indeed, we gether and diffused evenly throughout the entire
will suggest that organizations often seek to gen- organization" (Albert & Whetten, 1985, p. 271)
eralize identification with an individual to iden- and Mintzberg's (1983) missionary organization
tification with the organization through the rou- in which members strongly subscribe to a com-
tinization of charisma. mon set of values and beliefs. Given the com-
parative rarity of such organizations, however,
Social Identification and the Organization
the notion of a single or blended organizational
The individual's organization may provide identification is problematic in most complex or-
one answer to the question, Who am I? Hence, ganizations. Thus, as discussed below, the or-
we argue that organizational identification is a ganizationally situated social identity may, in
specific form of social identification. This search fact, be comprised of more or less disparate and
for identity calls to mind a family of existential loosely coupled identities. This parallels work in
motives often alluded to in the literature on or- various social domains which indicates that in-
22
This content downloaded from
154.59.124.111 on Sun, 14 Sep 2025 12:12:11 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Author(s): Blake E. Ashforth and Fred Mael
Source: The Academy of Management Review , Jan., 1989, Vol. 14, No. 1 (Jan., 1989), pp.
20-39
Published by: Academy of Management
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/258189
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/258189?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact .
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Academy of Management is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
The Academy of Management Review
This content downloaded from
154.59.124.111 on Sun, 14 Sep 2025 12:12:11 UTC
,? Academy of Management Review, 1989, Vol. 14, No. 1, 20-39.
Social Identity Theory
and the Organization
BLAKE E. ASHFORTH
Concordia University
FRED MAEL
Wayne State University
It is argued that (a) social identification is a perception of oneness
with a group of persons; (b) social identification stems from the cat-
egorization of individuals, the distinctiveness and prestige of the
group, the salience of outgroups, and the factors that traditionally
are associcr>ed with group formation; and (c) social identification
leads to activities that are congruent with the identity, support for
institutions that embody the identity, stereotypical perceptions of self
and others, and outcomes that traditionally are associated with
group formation, and it reinforces the antecedents of identification.
This perspective is applied to organizational socialization, role con-
flict, and intergroup relations.
Organizational identification has long been view of the literature on SIT, the antecedents
recognized as a critical construct in the literature
and consequences of social identification in or-
on organizational behavior, affecting both the ganizations are discussed. This perspective is
satisfaction of the individual and the effective- then applied to three domains of organizational
ness of the organization (Brown, 1969; Hall, behavior: socialization, role conflict, and inter-
Schneider, & Nygren, 1970; Lee, 1971; O'Reilly group
& relations.
Chatman, 1986; Patchen, 1970; Rotondi, 1975).
However, as discussed below, theoretical and
empirical work has often confused organiza- Social Identity Theory
tional identification with related constructs such
as organizational commitment and internaliza- According to SIT, people tend to classify them-
tion and with affect and behaviors, which are selves and others into various social categories,
more appropriately seen as antecedents and/or such as organizational membership, religious
consequences of identification. affiliation, gender, and age cohort (Tajfel &
Social identity theory (SIT) can restore some Turner, 1985). As these examples suggest, peo-
coherence to organizational identification, and ple may be classified in various categories, and
it can suggest fruitful applications to organiza- different individuals may utilize different catego-
tional behavior. SIT offers a social-psychological rization schemas. Categories are defined by
perspective, developed principally by Henri prototypical characteristics abstracted from the
Tajfel (1978, 1981; Tajfel & Turner, 1985) andmembers
John (Turner, 1985). Social classification
Turner (1975, 1982, 1984, 1985). Following a re- serves two functions. First, it cognitively seg-
20
This content downloaded from
154.59.124.111 on Sun, 14 Sep 2025 12:12:11 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
,ments and orders the social environment, pro- stopgap job; I'm trying to save enough to start
viding the individual with a systematic means of my own business).
defining others. A person is assigned the proto- The major focus of both SIT and the present
typical characteristics of the category to which paper is to understand the implications of the
he or she is classified. As suggested by the lit- second function of classification, that of social
erature on stereotypes, however, such assign- identification.
ments are not necessarily reliable (e.g., Hamil-
Social Identification and Group Identification
ton, 1981).
Second, social classification enables the indi- Social identification appears to derive from
vidual to locate or define him- or herself in the the venerable concept of group identification
social environment. According to SIT, the self- (Tolman, 1943). (Indeed, we will use social and
concept is comprised of a personal identity en- group identification interchangeably.) The liter-
compassing idiosyncratic characteristics (e.g., ature on group identification suggests four prin-
bodily attributes, abilities, psychological traits, ciples that are relevant to our discussion. First,
interests) and a social identity encompassing sa- identification is viewed as a perceptual cogni-
lient group classifications. Social identification, tive construct that is not necessarily associated
therefore, is the perception of oneness with or with any specific behaviors or affective states.
belongingness to some human aggregate. For To identify, an individual need not expend effort
example, a woman may define herself in terms toward the group's goals; rather, an individual
of the group(s) with which she classifies herself need only perceive him- or herself as psycho-
(I am a Canadian; I am a woman). She per- logically intertwined with the fate of the group.
ceives herself as an actual or symbolic member Behavior and affect are viewed only as potential
of the group(s), and she perceives the fate of the antecedents or consequences (Foote, 1951;
group(s) as her own. As such, social identifica- Gould, 1975). As noted below, this conceptual-
tion provides a partial answer to the question, ization distinguishes identification from related
Who am I? (Stryker & Serpe, 1982; Turner, 1982). concepts such as effort on behalf of the group
Note that the definition of others and the self (behavior) and loyalty (affect). However, our
are largely "relational and comparative" (Tajfel view does contrast with some literature on SIT,
& Turner, 1985, p. 16); they define oneself rela- which includes affective and evaluative dimen-
tive to individuals in other categories. The cate- sions in the conceptualization of identity (e.g.,
gory of young is meaningful only in relation to Tajfel, 1978).
the category of old. It should be noted, however, Second, social/group identification is seen as
that social identification is not an all-or-none personally experiencing the successes and fail-
phenomenon. Although many social categories ures of the group (Foote, 1951; Tolman, 1943).
are indeed categorical (e.g., Canadian, female, Often, identification is maintained in situations
a member of XYZ Co.), the extent to which the involving great loss or suffering (Brown, 1986),
individual identifies with each category is missed potential benefits (Tajfel, 1982), task fail-
clearly a matter of degree. Further, such identi- ure (Turner, 1981), and even expected failure
ties tend to be viewed positively inasmuch as the (Gammons, 1986).
individual vests more of his or her self- Third, although not clearly addressed in the
conceptions in valued personas (Adler & Adler, literature, social identification is distinguishable
1987; Schneider, Hall, & Nygren, 1971). Thus, from internalization (Hogg & Turner, 1987) (cf.
Jackall (1978) found that people working at me- Kelman, 1961; O'Reilly & Chatman, 1986).
nial jobs in a bank often distanced themselves Whereas identification refers to self in terms of
from their implied identity (e.g., This is only a social categories (I am), internalization refers to
21
This content downloaded from
154.59.124.111 on Sun, 14 Sep 2025 12:12:11 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
, the incorporation of values, attitudes, and so ganizational behavior, including searches for
forth within the self as guiding principles (I meaning, connectedness, empowerment, and
believe). Although certain values and attitudes immortality (e.g., Denhardt, 1987; Fox, 1980;
typically are associated with members of a Katz & Kahn, 1978). To the extent the organiza-
given social category, acceptance of the cate- tion, as a social category, is seen to embody or
gory as a definition of self does not necessarily even reify characteristics perceived to be proto-
mean acceptance of those values and attitudes. typical of its members, it may well fulfill such
An individual may define herself in terms of the motives for the individual. At the very least, SIT
organization she works for, yet she can disagree maintains that the individual identifies with so-
with the prevailing values, strategy, system of cial categories partly to enhance self-esteem
authority, and so on (cf. "young Turks," Mintz- (Hogg & Turner, 1985; Tajfel, 1978). This is un-
berg, 1983, p. 210; "counterculture," Martin & derstandable in view of the relational and com-
Siehl, 1983, p. 52). parative nature of social identities. Through so-
Finally, identification with a group is similar to cial identification and comparison, the individ-
identification with a person (e.g., one's father, ual is argued to vicariously partake in the
football hero) or a reciprocal role relationship successes and status of the group: Indeed, pos-
(e.g., husband-wife, doctor-patient) inasmuch itive and negative intergroup comparisons have
as one partly defines oneself in terms of a social been found to affect a member's self-esteem ac-
referent. To be sure, the various literatures cordingly (Oakes & Turner, 1980; Wagner, Lam-
reach this conclusion from different directions. pen, & Syllwasschy, 1986).
Whereas identification with a group is argued to The individual's social identity may be de-
be predicated on the desire for self-definition, rived not only from the organization, but also
identification with an individual-referred to as from his or her work group, department, union,
"classical identification" (Kelman, 1961, p. 63) lunch group, age cohort, fast-track group, and
is argued to be predicated on the desire to ap- so on. Albert and Whetten (1985) distinguished
pease, emulate, or vicariously gain the qualities between holographic organizations in which in-
of the other (e.g., Bandura & Walters, 1963; Kets dividuals across subunits share a common iden-
de Vries & Miller, 1984). Kelman (1961), for ex- tity (or identities) and ideographic organizations
ample, argued that in classical identification the in which individuals display subunit-specific
individual "attempts to be like or actually to be identities. General examples of the former in-
the other person" (p. 63). Nevertheless, the ele- clude Ouchi's (1981) Theory Z organization in
ment of self-definition suggests that these forms which "management styles are blended to-
of identification are complementary. Indeed, we gether and diffused evenly throughout the entire
will suggest that organizations often seek to gen- organization" (Albert & Whetten, 1985, p. 271)
eralize identification with an individual to iden- and Mintzberg's (1983) missionary organization
tification with the organization through the rou- in which members strongly subscribe to a com-
tinization of charisma. mon set of values and beliefs. Given the com-
parative rarity of such organizations, however,
Social Identification and the Organization
the notion of a single or blended organizational
The individual's organization may provide identification is problematic in most complex or-
one answer to the question, Who am I? Hence, ganizations. Thus, as discussed below, the or-
we argue that organizational identification is a ganizationally situated social identity may, in
specific form of social identification. This search fact, be comprised of more or less disparate and
for identity calls to mind a family of existential loosely coupled identities. This parallels work in
motives often alluded to in the literature on or- various social domains which indicates that in-
22
This content downloaded from
154.59.124.111 on Sun, 14 Sep 2025 12:12:11 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
