Multiple identity configurations and their influence on prosocial behavior in organizations
Abstract
Bringing one’s whole self to a task is considered an appealing goal for individuals and
organizationsas it is likely to yield positive outcome. This goal is particularly attractive to nonprofit organizations, which are trying to meld task performance and altruistic motives, or what
can be called prosocial behavior (Grant, 2008; Grant, Dutton &Rosso, 2008). This paper
examinesthe question how and when bringing one’s whole self (multiple identities compared to
just its parts) to bear on a prosocial behavior can be beneficial.In contrast to research that
examines how a single, salient identity affects prosocial behavior (Stets & Burke, 2000; Tajfel &
Turner, 1979), we investigate the effects on prosocial behavior of multiple identities, as well as
the structure and interaction between those identities (Ashforth, Harrison &Corely, 2008;
Edwards &Rothbard, 2000; Ramarajan& Reid, 2013;Rothbard, 2001). We identify and study
identity configurations (structure and relationships) of prosocial, individual and collective
identities combined in conflicting and enhancing ways (Rothbard&Ramarajan, 2009; Dutton et
al. 2010).Generally, we find that the mix of conflict and enhancement relationships among
multiple identities results in different identity structural configurations, and that these
configurations, in turn, influencemeasured prosocial outcomes.
Relying on a mixed method approach, we study participants in international charity sport
eventsusing 31 in-depth interviews, 162 pre- and post-event surveys from 3 different rides andwe
conduct a field experiment to text generalizability of our findings. We test whether participants’
multiple identities influence three measured behavioral outcomes: amount donated to a charity,
attitudes towards the organization organizing the event, and the participants’ fundraising
network.
The paper is structured as follows. First, we review the literature on identity in organizations,
identifying three types of identity contents: individual, collective, and relational (prosocial) (e.g.,
Bartel, Blader&Wrzesniewski, 2007). Second, we establish the importance of identity structures or
configurations (e.g., George &Chattopadhyay, 2005; Lipponen et al., 2005). We propose
competing hypotheses regarding the effect of the ‘holistic’ configuration, in which all three
identity contents are mutually enhancing, on prosocial behavior (e.g., Mael&Ashforth,
1992).Third, we illustrate – using qualitative and quantitative data – how individuals experience
enhancement and conflict relationships among identities, and how the relationships between
identities create unique structural configurations.In addition to holistic configuration, we
identifythree other relevant structural configurations,which are labeled:the Focused
Enhancement (enhancing relationships between prosocial and collective identities while the
individualistic identity less enhanced), the Divided (conflicting relations between identities), and
the Independent Self (minimal relationships between the identities). Finally, we test the
relationship between identity configurations and three prosocial outcomes: amount donated to a
charity, attitudes towards the organization organizing the event, and the participants’ fundraising
network
We find that those who experienced enhancement only within a subset of their identities (the
focused enhancement) perform better on prosocial outcomes (raise significantly more funds, and
approach widernetworkof supporters in their fundraising efforts) while those who experienced
high enhancement across all three identities (the holistic configuration) held more positive
attitudes towards the charity organization in charge of the event. We replicated our findingsin
two experiments manipulating configurations of work-related identitiesin order to strengthen
generalizability and causality.
Overall, we demonstrate that the Holistic configuration is less effective than the Focused
Enhancement configuration for prosocial behavior. We discuss the theoretical implications of
examining the individual, collective, and relational context of identities for organizational
scholarship.The paper advances organizational research on identities and prosocial behavior by
taking a structural approach and suggesting that devoting one’s “whole self” to helping others
may not be as effective as a more focused enhancement among identities.
References
Ashforth, B. E., Harrison, S. H., & Corley, K. G. 2008. Identification in Organizations: An
Examiniation of Four Fundamental Questions. Journal of Management, 34: 325-374.
Bartel, C., Blader, S. L.&Wrzesniewski, A. (Eds.). 2007. Identity and The Modern
Organization. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dutton, J. E., Roberts, L. M., & Bednar, J. S. 2010. Pathways for positive identity construction at
work: Four types of positive identity and the building of social resources. Academy of
Management Review, 35(2): 265-293.
Edwards, J. R., & Rothbard, N. P. 2000. Mechanisms Linking Work and Family: Clarifying the
Relationship Between Work and Family Constructs. Academy of Management Review,
25: 178-199.
George, E. &Chattopadhyay, P. 2005. One foot in each camp: The dual identification of contract
workers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50: 68-99.
Grant, A. M. 2008b. Employees without a cause: The motivational effects of prosocial impact in
public service. International Public Management Journal, 11(1): 48-66.
Grant, A., Dutton, J. E., & Rosso, B. D. 2008. Giving Commitment: Employee Support
Programs and the Prosocial Sensemaking Process. Academy of Management Journal,
51(5): 898-918.
Lipponen, J., Helkama, K., Olkkonen, M.-E. &Juslin, M. (2005). Predicting the different profiles
of organizational identification: A case of shipyard subcontractors. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78: 97–112.
Mael, F. &Ashforth, B. E. 1992. Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated
model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13: 103123.
Ramarajan, L. & Reid, E. 2013. Shattering the myth of separate worlds: Negotiating nonwork
identities at work. Academy of Management Review, 38(4): 621-644.
Rothbard, N. P. 2001. Enriching or Depleting? The Dynamics of Engagment in Work and
Family Roles. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(4): 655-684.
Rothbard, N. P., & Ramarajan, L. 2009. Checking your identities at the door? Positive
relationships between nonwork and work Identities. In L. M. Roberts, & J. E. Dutton
(Eds.), Exploring Positive Identities and Organizations: 125-144. New York, NY:
Psychology Press.
Stets, J. E., & Burke, P. J. 2000. Identity Theory and Social Idenity Theory. Social
Psychological Quarterly, 63: 224-237.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. F. 1979. An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict. In W. G. Austin,
& S. Worschel (Eds.), Psychology of Intergroup Relations: 33-47. Monterey, CA:
Brooks-Cole.