Social Identity & Performance, page 1
Identity matters: Identity as a proximal determinant of employee performance
Steven L. Blader
New York University
Stern School of Business, Management Department
40 West 4th Street
Room 7-18
New York, NY 10012
Tel: (212) 998-0431
sblader@stern.nyu.edu
Tom R. Tyler
New York University
Department of Psychology
6 Washington Place, 5th Floor
New York, NY 10003
Tel: (212) 998-7816
tom.tyler@nyu.edu
Social Identity & Performance, page 2
Identity matters: Identity as a proximal determinant of employee performance
Abstract
Two field studies test and extend the group engagement model (Tyler & Blader, 2000,
2003) by applying the model to the issue of employee performance. Consistent with the group
engagement model’s predictions, results of these studies indicate that the social identities
employees form around their work groups and their organizations are a critical determinant of
their work performance, insofar as social identity not only directly shapes their performance but
also explains the impact of other factors that have been shown to shape performance. In
particular, the findings indicate that social identity mediates the effect of procedural justice
judgments and economic outcomes on supervisor ratings of performance. Overall, these studies
provide strong indication that social identity is critical in determining people’s behavior within
their work organizations and provide strong support for the application of the group engagement
model in organizational settings.
Keywords: Social identity, Procedural justice, Economic outcomes, Employee performance
Social Identity & Performance, page 3
The integration of social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) into organizational
research represents one of the most successful recent examples of how basic psychological
research can enhance our understanding of people in organizational contexts. Since Ashforth &
Mael’s (1989) seminal piece, which advocated the utilization of social identity theory to clarify
and extend our understanding of how people use their organizations as a basis for self-definition,
interest in the application of social identity theory to understand organizational phenomena has
flourished. Indeed, the insights of social identity theory, which at their core emphasize the
importance people place on group membership for understanding both themselves and the world
around them, have been embraced by many organizational researchers and the theory has
emerged as an important framework for analyzing the psychology of the individual in the
organization (e.g., Haslam, 2004). Some theorists have even gone so far as to argue that social
identity provides an essential approach for understanding organizational life and, moreover,
makes organizational life possible (Haslam, Postmes, & Ellemers, 2003).
One recent theoretical model that shares this perspective and places social identity centerstage is the group engagement model (Tyler & Blader, 2000; 2003), which argues that social
identity is a critical ingredient for understanding the psychological basis of people’s engagement
with their groups, organizations, and societies. Attesting to the widespread interest in the
application of social identity to organizational phenomena, the group engagement model has
already been integrated into much organizational research and theorizing (e.g., Boezeman &
Ellemers, in press-a, in press-b; Fuller, et al., 2006; Haslam & Reicher, 2006; Olkkonen &
Lipponen, 2006; Sparrowe, Soetjipto, & Kraimer, 2006 ). However, interest in the model has
developed despite the fact that empirical tests and theoretical extensions of the model are still
Social Identity & Performance, page 4
quite limited, with the only comprehensive test of the model to date (Tyler & Blader, 2000)
relying exclusively on self-report measures of engagement.
In response, the two studies presented below were conducted to further test the group
engagement model. In particular, they examine a key hypothesis derived from the model, namely
that social identity plays a critical role in shaping employee job performance. Support for this
hypothesis can help further validate the arguments of the group engagement model and can also
provide broader support for the argument that identity is important to the study of behavior in
work settings. These studies also use the group engagement model as a basis for examining the
interrelationship between social identity and two other factors that have been found to have
strong linkages with employee performance: procedural justice judgments and economic
outcome evaluations. In addition, they extend earlier work on identity in organizational contexts
by adopting a conceptualization of social identity that is broader than that used in previous
research but which more directly reflects the original thinking about this construct in the social
psychological literature, and by focusing on two different identity targets regularly implicated by
organizational membership, i.e., identity connected to one’s work group and identity connected
to one’s work organization.
The Group Engagement Model: Social Identity and Performance
A core principle of the group engagement model is that a person’s orientation towards the
collectives to which he or she belongs (broadly referred to as their groups) is primarily shaped by
the role the group plays in his or her self definition. That is, the model argues that a person’s
orientation towards their group—as manifested in his or her attitudes and behaviors within the
group—is determined by the role the group plays in how he or she thinks and feels about himself
or herself. This impact of group membership on someone’s self-definition is known as the social
Social Identity & Performance, page 5
identity (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) they form around the group, and the perspective that social
identity is a primary driver of people’s orientation towards their groups is based on the
underlying argument that a critical element of what people seek from their groups relates to their
social or collective selves, i.e., that aspect of the self-concept that is focused on the self as it
relates to groups (Brewer & Gardner, 1996). In particular, people seek a sense of connectedness
and membership from their groups—especially when that connectedness is of positive valence.
People are thus likely to socially identify with groups that positively fulfill their desire for
connections with a collective, since such groups enable people to satisfy needs linked to their
collective selves and, thus, impact people’s feelings of well-being and self-worth (Hogg &
Abrams, 1988).
Based on the role social identity plays in serving such fundamental psychological needs,
the group engagement model predicts that more positive attitudes and greater behavioral effort in
support of group goals will emerge among those with social identities focused on a particular
group. These positive attitudinal and behavioral implications are likely precipitated by social
identity because such attitudes and behaviors facilitate the viability of the group and can enhance
the individual’s acceptance in the group (Haslam & Ellemers, 2005; Klein, Spears & Reicher,
2007; Kramer, Hanna, Su, & Wei, 2001; Tajfel, 1978; Tyler & Blader, 2000, 2003; van
Knippenberg & Ellemers, 2003). People who draw more of their social identity from a group will
be more strongly concerned with ensuring the group’s success, as well as ensuring their inclusion
in the group. One consequence of such social identity-motivated engagement in organizational
contexts will likely be increased levels of employee performance.
Past research supporting the fundamental basis of this argument has shown important
effects of social identity on people’s efforts on behalf of their groups. For instance, social
Social Identity & Performance, page 6
identity has been linked to ingroup-favoritism (Brewer, 1979; Hinkle & Brown, 1990; Tajfel,
Billig, Bundy, & Flament, 1971), coordination of efforts with other group members to advance
group goals (Kelly & Kelly, 1994; LaLonde & Silverman, 1994), monetary donations to one’s
group (Mael & Ashforth, 1992), and loyalty to the group (Abrams, Ando & Hinkle, 1998;
Ellemers, Spears, & Doosje, 1997) (for reviews, see Haslam, 2004; Turner & Reynolds, 2001).
These empirical demonstrations are complemented by theories that argue that social identity
shapes behaviors that advance group goals (e.g., Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Brewer & Gardner,
1996; Dukerich et al., 2002; Dutton et al., 1994; Ellemers et al., 2004; Kramer et al., 2001).
While this work suggests that social identity may influence employee performance, not
all actions geared toward promoting the in-group are created equal. Indeed, employee
performance is a highly complex behavior with a wide variety of determinants (e.g., Kanfer,
1990; Roe, 1999), greater costs to the self (e.g., effort), and potentially greater benefits than
many other types of behaviors that have been linked to social identity (Ouwerkerk, Ellemers, &
de Gilder, 1999). As a result, the threshold for detecting an impact of social identity on employee
performance is likely more stringent than it might be for other efforts to advance group goals,
which makes direct examination of the social identity-employee performance link critical.
Toward this end, past experimental research has found that social identity increases the
level of effort that participants put forth on behalf of their group (Worchel et al., 1998) and
reduces social loafing (Karau & Williams, 1993; Williams, Karau, & Bourgeois, 1993). Similar
effects have been found in naturalistic work settings, where social identity impacted self-reported
internal motivation (van Knippenberg & van Schie, 2000), self-reported work performance
(Tyler & Blader, 2000), and supervisor ratings of work effort among a select group of employees
participating in a community outreach program (Bartel, 2001). These findings are consistent with
Social Identity & Performance, page 7
the argument that social identity shapes employee performance. However, the reliance on
experimental paradigms that may not replicate to real-world settings, the use of self-report
measures as proxies of performance, and the focus on restricted samples of employees that may
not be representative of the general population makes it difficult to draw definitive conclusions
about the social identity-employee performance link from these findings.
Given the prominence of both identity and employee performance in the organizational
literature, there is a need for stronger examination of the relationship between these constructs.
Doing so may not only shed empirical light on the relationship between two important
constructs, but may also contribute to our theoretical understanding of the bases of behavior in
organizations. Moreover, examining the performance implications of social identity provides a
much-needed test of social identity’s motivational consequences, filling a gap in identity
research within organizational contexts created by more rapid theory development than theory
testing (Corley et al., 2006; Dukerich, Golden, & Shortell, 2002; Foreman & Whetten, 2002). In
response, our current studies test the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: Employee social identity will shape employee performance.
The Group Engagement Model: Procedural justice and economic outcome evaluations
A critical element of the group engagement model is that it not only emphasizes the
importance of social identity for analyzing people’s engagement in their groups, but it also tries
to facilitate a broader understanding by emphasizing the importance of locating identity in a
framework that includes other antecedents of engagement. To do this, the group engagement
model draws on a key distinction in the psychology literature between two different bases of
people’s reactions to their encounters with groups and organizations (Brockner & Wiesenfeld,
1996). Each of these bases has been shown to be a critical precursor of people’s attitudes and
Social Identity & Performance, page 8
behaviors in groups. One basis for people’s reactions is the processes and treatment they
experience while in a group -- or those elements of the group that determine how the group
functions and, as a result, shape the nature of one’s experience as a group member. Research has
shown that a primary dimension along which people evaluate the processes and treatment they
encounter is with regards to their fairness (Tyler, 2000, Tyler and Blader, 2000). Thus, this basis
of people’s reactions to their groups is embodied in their judgments of procedural fairness. The
second basis of people’s reactions to encounters with their groups are the economic outcomes
they attain as a result of their membership in the group. This basis is embodied in various
judgments they make about the economic outcomes they receive from the group. Together these
two bases characterize a great deal about the experience of group membership for the individual,
insofar as they capture elements of what life is like within the group and what the implications of
group membership are for the individual.
The importance of considering each of these bases of people’s reactions is underscored
by the extensive research that has been conducted on them within organizational contexts, much
of it focused on the impact of processes and outcomes on employee performance. The influence
of procedural justice on employee performance is supported by a rich set of findings from both
psychology and organizational research that collectively indicate that employee evaluations of
the fairness of decision-making processes and quality of treatment (referred to by some
researchers as interactional justice, cf. Blader & Tyler, 2003a, 2003b) shape the level and nature
of people’s behavior in groups (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson,
Porter, & Ng, 2001). People become more engaged in groups when they regard those groups as
operating in procedurally fair ways (Tyler, 1999; Tyler & Blader, 2000, 2003), and in the
workplace employee performance represents one form that such increased engagement may take
Social Identity & Performance, page 9
(Blader & Tyler, 2005; Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, &
Ng, 2001; Tyler & Blader, 2000).
The group engagement model argues that the impact of procedural justice on
performance (and, more generally, on attitudes and behavior) can be attributed to the social
identity implications that follow from assessments of procedural justice. The basis of this
argument is rooted in past research on the relational models of procedural justice (Lind & Tyler,
1988; Tyler & Lind, 1992), which emphasize that the fairness of decision making processes and
treatment experienced in a group provide a cue people use to evaluate the quality of their
relationship with their group. In particular, people use procedural justice to evaluate whether or
not a particular group is one in which they can safely invest their social identities (Tyler &
Blader, 2002, 2003) since it communicates to them whether or not they are respected members of
the group and whether or not they can be proud of the group (Tyler, Degoey, & Smith, 1996).
As such, procedural justice judgments are an antecedent of whether people come to socially
identify with a particular group.
In sum, the group engagement model takes the findings that a) procedural justice shapes
group members’ attitudes and behaviors, and b) procedural justice shapes social identity and uses
them to make the argument that the impact of procedural justice on people’s attitudes and
behaviors in groups is mediated by social identity. This argument is again based on the key
premise that social identity is a fundamental concern people have in their relations with their
groups, and as such, it explains the impact of other factors that also seem to affect how people
relate to their groups. The current studies directly test this proposition by examining the
following hypothesis:
Social Identity & Performance, page 10
Hypothesis 2: The effect of procedural justice on employee performance will be mediated by
employee social identity.
Extensive theorizing and research indicate that judgments of the economic outcomes one
receives from their group or organization will also have a major impact on employee
performance. These judgments include evaluations of pay, benefits, and opportunities for
promotion, as well as other short- and long-term financial benefits that may be provided by the
organization. It would be difficult to overstate the extent to which laymen, organizational
practitioners, and academic researchers believe that such judgments impact employee
performance. It is generally accepted that people respond to favorable economic outcome
evaluations with high levels of work performance, especially when those outcomes are seen as
linked to their behavior (Lawler, 1990, 2000; Rynes, Gerhart & Park, 2005). The influence of
economic outcomes on employee behavior is central to many applications of exchange theory
(which emphasizes that the receipt of valued outcomes begets an obligation to reciprocate, often
in the form of high levels of work performance) as well as expectancy theory (which emphasizes
that people are motivated to engage in behaviors that are likely to facilitate the receipt of valued
outcomes and will continue to engage in those behaviors if doing so perpetuates the receipt of
those outcomes). This in turn has led to a major focus on ideal ways of designing and leveraging
economic outcomes (such as compensation) in ways that most strongly encourage high
performance (e.g., Milkovich & Newman, 1999).
Underlying the link between economic outcomes and performance is the view that people
are fundamentally resource-seeking actors. This viewpoint dominates many theories within the
social sciences and, thus, the organizational sciences as well. However, this perspective has not
received uniform support, and considerable evidence demonstrates digressions from resource-
Social Identity & Performance, page 11
maximizing behavior in organizations as well as in broader contexts (e.g., see Gintis, Bowles,
Boyd, & Fehr, 2005; Haslam & Ellemers, 2005; Kohn, 1999; Miller & Ratner, 1998; Pearce,
1987). These findings suggest that, to the extent people do react to the economic outcomes they
receive from their work organizations, those reactions may be rooted in part in alternate concerns
that are unrelated to resource-maximization goals.
One such alternate concern is suggested by findings that economic outcomes carry
important symbolic—as opposed to material—value for evaluations of self-worth, success,
relationships, and status, among other things (Furnham & Argyle, 1998; Goldberg & Lewis,
1978; Mitchell & Mickel, 1999; Opsahl & Dunnette, 1966; Porter, Bigley, & Steers, 1996).
When economic outcomes from the group are regarded positively, they communicate a positive
message to people about their contributions and, more generally, about what the group and its
authorities think of them. Thus, people’s reactions to their economic outcomes may be explained
by the symbolic message these economic outcomes convey, rather than by their material value
alone.
The group engagement model (Tyler & Blader, 2000, 2003) builds on the insight that
economic outcomes carry symbolic value and specifically argues that economic outcomes may
carry symbolic social identity-relevant value. In particular, the group engagement model states
that economic outcomes can convey a message to group members that resembles the message
conveyed by procedural justice – insofar as both cues let group members know whether or not
they are respected by the group, whether or not the group is one that they can be proud of, and
more generally, whether or not they can safely invest their social identities with the group. In
other words, people may often use economic outcomes to evaluate their standing within their
group, the status of the group, and whether or not their social identity needs will be met by the
Social Identity & Performance, page 12
group. These identity relevant inferences may actually explain the impact of economic outcome
judgments on employee performance. That is, economic outcomes may impact employee
performance because of their social identity implications. To examine this, the current studies
test the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3: The effect of economic outcome evaluations on employee performance will
be mediated by employee social identity.
Hypotheses two and three test the group engagement model’s argument that social
identity is the proximal determinant of employee performance among the three antecedents of
performance considered here. They propose that social identity is the psychological intermediary
through which employee perceptions of these two critical aspects of the workplace shape
performance. We focus on these aspects because they are primary characteristics of people’s
encounters with their work organizations and because they have been shown in previous research
to be potent predictors of performance. By predicting that social identity mediates their effects
on performance, these studies not only test the argument that social identity plays an especially
central role as a performance antecedent but more generally provide an empirical test of the
perspective that social identity and the collective self are among people’s most fundamental
concerns (Brewer & Roccas, 2001; Brewer & Weber, 1994; Ellemers, Spears, & Doosje, 2002;
Haslam & Ellemers, 2005; Hogg, 2001).
While our focus is on the group engagement model and its predictions, it is important to
note that the underlying rationale is consistent with the general framework articulated in the
uncertainty management model of justice (Van den bos and Lind, 2002). That model also
suggests that people use information to understand their social environments and, like earlier
theorists (Brockner & Wiesenfeld, 1996; Thibaut & Walker, 1975), that model emphasizes that
Social Identity & Performance, page 13
people are especially likely to focus on information about processes and outcomes. The group
engagement model, however, goes further and argues that people use information about
processes and outcomes to shape their social identities. As such, the model advances the point of
view that these pieces of social information are valued because they are identity-relevant.
Conceptualizing Social Identity
Importantly, the group engagement model conceptualizes social identity much as it was
understood in original social psychological theorizing: as a multi-dimensional construct with
various elements that work in coordination to produce the implications of group membership on
the self concept (e.g., Bergami & Bagozzi, 2000; Haslam, 2004; Tajfel, 1978, 1982). This
conceptualization characterizes social identity as impacting people’s thoughts and feelings about
themselves. One key component of this conceptualization is the cognitive component, i.e., an
employee’s sense of “oneness” with the organization (known as their identification with the
organization). This component reflects what is typically meant by identity in organizational
research and is consistent with self-categorization theory’s emphasis (Turner, 1985; Turner,
Oakes, Haslam & McGarty, 1994) on the cognitive processes that underlie a sense of group
membership. The cognitive aspect of identity captures the extent to which group membership is
relevant and self-defining and thus determines the implications group membership for how
people think of themselves.
A second component of social identity is the evaluative component. This component
embodies the value connotations people place on group membership, and thus, determines the
implications group membership has for how people feel about themselves. Although not
typically examined in organizational research on identity, the importance of this component was
noted in some of the very earliest theorizing on social identity (Tajfel, 1982) and is critical to
Social Identity & Performance, page 14
social identity theorists’ arguments that a social identity has greater fit and impact to the extent
that it fosters positive self-definition and self-esteem (Ellemers, 1993; Ellemers et al., 1997;
Haslam et al., 2000; Hogg & Abrams, 1990; Mael & Ashforth, 1992; Tajfel & Turner, 1979).
Even outside of social identity theory itself, it has been noted that evaluative aspects of group
membership are critical for understanding the nature of identity and for predicting reactions to
identity (Ashmore, Deaux, & McLaughlin-Volpe, 2004; Dutton et al., 1994; March and Simon,
1958). As such, the group engagement model includes an evaluative component and in so doing,
tests a broader conceptualization of identity than that examined in most organizational research.
The cognitive and evaluative components of social identity are assessed in the studies
that follow by measuring respondents’ 1) cognitive representation of the connection between the
group and the self (i.e., their identification) and 2) evaluative judgments of pride and respect
(Tyler, Degoey, & Smith, 1996). Pride refers to evaluations of the standing of one’s group
overall; it is an intergroup evaluative judgment. Respect, on the other hand, refers to evaluations
of one’s standing and acceptance within his or her group; it is an intragroup evaluative judgment.
Prior research confirms that both pride and respect are critical judgments for understanding the
impact of group membership on the self (e.g., Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Ellemers, Spears, &
Doosje, 1997; Smith & Tyler, 1997; Tyler & Blader, 2000, 2001, 2003; Tyler, Degoey, & Smith,
1996). Such intergroup and intragroup evaluative judgments will likely be especially important
in contexts such as work organizations, where group boundaries are permeable, membership is
voluntary, and numerous structures are in place to accentuate both intergroup and intragroup
comparisons.
In addition, the studies presented below advance previous research on the group
engagement model by recognizing that different social identity targets may be implicated by
Social Identity & Performance, page 15
organizational membership (Johnson et al., 2006; Pratt & Foreman, 2000). These social identity
targets include social identity connected to one’s work group and social identity connected to
one’s work organization. Both targets represent groups that accompany affiliation to most work
organizations, and both represent social identities that will prompt an impact of organizational
membership on the self-concept (Ashforth & Johnson, 2001; Johnson et al., 2006). Perhaps most
important for the current studies, social identity related to each of these targets is likely to have
expression through employee performance, since performance may benefit the work group, the
organization, or both. In study one we examine social identity vis-à-vis the work group, an
extension of previous research on the group engagement model that has focused on social
identity vis-à-vis the organization. In study two, we return to a focus on social identity vis-à-vis
the organization. By examining different social identity targets across the two studies, we hope to
more fully explore the robust nature of the social identity-performance relationship.
Current Research
The two field studies presented below test three hypotheses that emerge from the group
engagement model and which examine the implications of social identity for employee
performance. They test the proposition that social identity shapes employee performance, and
test the additional propositions that social identity accounts for the effect both procedural justice
and economic outcome judgments on performance. These tests use a multi-faceted
conceptualization of social identity that examines social identity as it relates to both the work
group (study 1) and organizational (study 2) levels. Overall, the studies test whether social
identity is the proximal determinant of performance in a model that includes two workplace
conditions that have themselves demonstrated strong linkages to performance. The theoretical
Social Identity & Performance, page 16
model that follows from these proposals—and which represents the key ideas of the group
engagement model—is presented in Figure 1.
The first study presented below was conducted in a major financial services organization
and represents an effort to test these hypotheses in a context where financial incentives and
economic concerns are especially prominent. As a result, this context provides a particularly
stringent test of the impact of identity. The second study, which sought to provide a broader test,
was conducted on sample of workers heterogeneous with regard to location, industry, job,
income, etc.
STUDY ONE
Method
Participants and procedure. Five hundred and forty (540) U.S. employees of a single
division of an international financial services organization responded to a survey that included
the measures described below (a total of 1,350 employees, representing the entire U.S. division,
received the survey, and thus there was a 40% response rate). Employees received the
questionnaires via interoffice mail and were asked to complete them while at work and to return
them directly to the investigators using enclosed business-reply envelopes. They were assured
confidentiality by both the investigators and directly by the organization’s management.
Supervisor surveys were also distributed to the immediate supervisors of all 1,350 employees in
the division. Four hundred and fifteen (415) of these surveys were returned (a 31% response
rate). Of these, the overlap with the employee respondent pool led to a final employeesupervisor matched sample of 112 employees.
Among this subsample of matched employee-supervisor respondents (n = 112), 52%
were female and 46% had pursued some post-bachelor’s education. The mean tenure with the
Social Identity & Performance, page 17
firm was 13.7 years and the mean age was 44.47 years. The sample was only moderately
heterogeneous with respect to race, with 82% Caucasian, 13% Latino, 4% African American,
and 2% Asian. Importantly, these demographics closely resembled the sample of employee
respondents (n =540), in which 53% were female, 48% had pursued some post-bachelor
education, the mean tenure was 13.67 years, the mean age was 42.9 years, and race was
distributed such that there were 74% Caucasian, 11% Latino, 5% African American, and 5%
Asian. The demographics among the full population of employees in the division were quite
similar, among whom 59% were female, the mean tenure was 13 years, the mean age was 43
years, and in which race was distributed such that there were 63% Caucasian, 17% Latino, 11%
African American, and 8% Asian. Reliable education data were unavailable for employees in the
division overall.
Measures. Social identity vis-à-vis one’s work group, economic outcome judgments, and
procedural justice were all assessed via measures included in the employee survey. Assessments
of employee performance were included on the supervisor survey. Responses were on a scale of
1 to 6 (strongly disagree to strongly agree, unless otherwise noted). The items composing the
scales were adapted from previous studies (Tyler & Blader, 2000, 2001, 2002; except where
otherwise noted) and all scales demonstrated strong reliability (coefficient alphas are listed in
Table 1).
Social identity vis-à-vis the work group was measured using scales that assessed
identification, pride, and respect, which were all loaded onto a common latent factor in the
structural equation models presented below. Identification with the work group was measured
using a five-item scale. Sample items included “When I talk about my work group, I usually say
“we” rather than they” and “I have a sense that I personally belong in my work group.” Pride in
Social Identity & Performance, page 18
the work group was measured using a 4-item scale, with sample items such as “I feel proud to be
a part of my work group” and “My work group is highly respected within the company.” Respect
in the work group was measured using a six-item scale that included items such as “My manager
values me as a member of my work group” and “My work group manager respects my workrelated ideas.”
Economic outcome judgments were measured using scales that assessed evaluations of
current pay, expectations of future economic outcomes, outcome fairness, and incentives, which
were all loaded onto a common latent factor in the structural equation models presented below.
Instructions asked respondents to consider these statements with respect to the job they currently
hold within their work group. Evaluations of pay were assessed by four items that asked
respondents to indicate their agreement with such items as “I am satisfied with my pay” and
“Overall, I receive excellent pay at (company name).” Expectations of future economic outcomes
were assessed with three items such as “I have good opportunities for promotion.” Outcome
fairness was measured by asking respondents three items, such as “How fairly are resources
allocated among employees where you work?” (1—not at all fairly; 6—very fairly). Finally,
incentives were measured by assessing agreement with six items, such as “If you do your job
well, how much does that improve your pay and benefits?” (1—very little, 6—a lot).
Procedural justice was measured by a five-item scale with items such as “How often do
you feel that decisions are made in fair ways at your job?” (1—rarely, 6—very often). Again
respondents were instructed to consider these statements with respect to the job they currently
hold within their work group.
Employee performance was assessed via three measures on the supervisor survey, based
on scales by Williams & Anderson (1991) and Smith, Organ, & Near (1983). There were
Social Identity & Performance, page 19
measures of inrole behavior (three items, e.g., “How often does this employee fulfill their job
responsibilities?”), extrarole behavior (three items, e.g., “How often does this employee
volunteer to do helpful things not required by their job description?”), and an overall assessment
of performance (four items, e.g., “Overall, how would you rate this employee’s performance?”).
These three performance measures were loaded onto a common latent factor in the structural
equation models presented below.
Results
Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, and a correlation matrix for all
measures. Three control variables were included in all analyses: age, tenure, and gender.
One potential concern regarding the sample is that it represents a fairly small segment (n
= 112) of the total pool of respondents (n = 540). Although response rates to the employee and
supervisor surveys (as noted in the method section above) were independent from one another
and within traditional ranges for field research in organizational settings—and thus there are no
apparent systematic methodological issues that indicate the sample is biased—the overlap
between them nevertheless yielded a somewhat small sample of respondents. Thus, as an
additional check, we examined the equivalence between the subsample of matched employeeemployer respondents and the remaining pool of employee respondents on the mean levels of all
variables collected in the employee survey. The results indicate that there were no major
differences between the subsample of employees included in the analyses below and the broader
employee respondent group, i.e., means on all variables (except for age) were not significantly
different from one another between the two groups (all Fs < 3.30, ps > .05). While the mean age
of respondents in the subsample was somewhat higher than that in the group of remaining
respondents (44.5 vs 42.9 years old), the effect size indicates that this difference is relatively
Social Identity & Performance, page 20
minor (² = .009) and it is not clear that this age difference would impact interpretation of the
results below. Thus, there are both methodological and empirical reasons to believe that the
subsample of matched employee-supervisor respondents represents a random, non-biased sample
from the larger pool of employee respondents.
Structural equation modeling (via AMOS) was used to test the conceptual model
presented in Figure 1 and, more specifically, to test the predicted impact of social identity on
employee performance as well as the predicted mediating role of social identity in explaining the
effect of procedural justice and economic outcomes on employee performance. The results of
these structural equation models are presented in Table 2. Prior to these analyses, however, the
fit of the proposed measurement model was examined via a confirmatory factor analysis that
included the three social identity measures (identification, pride, and respect) loaded onto a
common latent factor (“social identity”), the four outcome judgments (pay evaluations,
expectations of future economic outcomes, outcome fairness, and incentives) loaded onto a
common latent factor (“economic outcomes”), and procedural justice. This analysis confirmed
that the proposed measurement model fit the data well (2 = 44.5, df = 18, CFI = .98, IFI = .98)
and moreover, was better fitting than a model that loaded all the variables on a single factor (2
= 37.9, df = 2, p > .01).
Hypothesis one predicted that social identity (in this study, regarding one’s work group)
would significantly influence employee performance. A structural equation model testing this
prediction, presented in Table 2 (model 1), indicates strong support for this hypothesis, since
social identity was significantly related to performance ( = .40, p < .001) and explained a
considerable portion of the variance in supervisor’s ratings of performance (R2 = 17%). This
result confirms the prediction that social identity is an important antecedent of performance.
Social Identity & Performance, page 21
Hypothesis two predicted that social identity would mediate the effects of procedural
justice on performance. Before testing this hypothesis, an analysis was conducted to determine if
procedural justice significantly influenced employee performance in this dataset. That analysis
(Table 2, model 2) confirms that procedural justice does shape performance ( = .25, p < .01; R2
= 7%). Consistent with previous research (Colquitt et al., 2001; Tyler & Blader, 2000, 2001,
2003), employee perceptions of process fairness in their work place was associated with stronger
engagement in the organization -- in this case, in the form of higher levels of work performance.
Most critical to the current analysis, however, is whether or not work group social identity
explains the effects of procedural justice on performance. Analyses examining this question,
presented in Table 2 (model 3), provide strong support for this hypothesis. That analysis shows
that all of the conditions for mediation (Baron & Kenny, 1996) are met in this data: procedural
justice is related to social identity ( = .67, p < .001), social identity is related to performance (
= .55, p < .01), and most importantly, the effect of procedural justice on performance becomes
non-significant ( = -.11, ns) when work group social identity is included in the analysis.
Hypothesis three predicted that social identity (again, with one’s work group) would
mediate the effects of economic outcomes on employee performance. To test this, we first
verified that economic outcome judgments had an impact on performance in this data, as would
be predicted by the extensive literature that advocates an influence of economic concerns on
employee behavior. That analysis (Table 2, model 4) confirms that economic outcome
evaluations shape performance ( = .34, p < .001; R2=12%), such that more positive evaluations
of issues such as pay, future economic outcomes, outcome fairness, and incentives foster higher
levels of employee performance. Next, we tested hypothesis three’s prediction that social identity
mediates this impact of economic outcome evaluations on performance (Table 2, model 5). This
Social Identity & Performance, page 22
analysis provided strong confirmation of hypothesis three. It shows that the conditions for
mediation (Baron & Kenny, 1996) are all met in this data: economic outcome evaluations are
related to social identity ( = .67, p < .001), social identity is related to performance ( = .45, p <
.05), and the effect of economic outcome evaluations on performance becomes non-significant (
= .05, ns) when social identity is included in the analysis.
Model 6 (Table 2) simultaneously examines the effects of social identity, procedural
justice, and economic outcome evaluations. As might be expected based on Models 3 and 5, the
results indicate an effect of social identity on performance ( = .52, p < .001), but no effect of
economic outcome evaluations ( = .19, ns) or procedural justice ( = -.23, ns) when accounting
for social identity. Interestingly, this analysis revealed effects for both procedural justice ( =
.39, p < .001) and economic outcome evaluations ( = .36, p < .01) on social identity (R2 = 50%),
indicating that procedural justice and economic outcomes each have unique implications for
work group social identity.
Discussion
Study one indicates strong support for the three key hypotheses examined in the current
research and, more generally, for application of the group engagement model to the issue of
employee performance. First, strong performance implications were found for the nature of
employees’ social identities vis-à-vis their work group. This finding corroborates the value of
social identity in organizational contexts and highlights the importance of examining social
identity with the work group as the target. Moreover, this study shows the value of adopting a
multi-faceted conceptualization of social identity and advocates moving beyond a sole focus on
the cognitive elements of social identity, as has been the norm in organizational research to date.
Social Identity & Performance, page 23
In addition to demonstrating that work group social identity matters, these findings go a
step further to show how social identity relates to two key elements of the workplace that have
been shown to impact performance. Namely, the results indicate that work group social identity
accounted for the impact of procedural justice judgments and evaluations of the economic
outcomes employees experience at work. As such, it appears that evaluations of these workplace
conditions shape performance in this data because they impact the social identities employees
form around their work group. Many researchers have examined and discussed the reasons
people react to their process fairness and economic outcome judgments. These results contribute
to that conversation and highlight that the social identity implications of process fairness and
economic outcomes should also be a focus of those efforts. Overall, these results confirm the
group engagement model’s argument that social identity may be a psychological integrator that
provides the route through which at least some features of the workplace impact employee
performance.
While compelling, the results of study one require further examination. The sample was
drawn from a single organization, which means that the effects for work group social identity in
these data are possibly an artifact of the specific organization or its context. Therefore, it is
important to test the hypotheses using a sample that is more heterogeneous with regard to
context, occupation, industry, etc. Moreover, the sample size in study one was somewhat small -particularly given the complexity of some of the models examined (e.g., model 6). As such, it is
desirable to replicate these results on a larger sample. Finally, while study one examines the
social identities that employees form around their work groups, it is also critical to examine
whether similar results emerge for the social identities employees form around their
Social Identity & Performance, page 24
organizations overall. Study two directly addresses these issues by examining a large (n=831)
and heterogeneous panel of employees from throughout the United States.
STUDY TWO
Method
Participants and procedure. Participants in study two were a random sample drawn from
a national panel of respondents designed to be representative of the entire US population.
Members of this national panel, which is maintained by a for-profit private organization
(Knowledge Networks, Inc.), are initially contacted for their participation via random digit
dialing. An incentive of free internet access via WebTV is provided to all those that join the
panel, and all surveys administered to the panel are conducted over WebTV (for more details on
the panel, please contact the authors).
All potential respondents for the current study were screened to ensure that they worked
at least 20 hours a week, had a primary supervisor, and had worked at their current employer for
at least 3 months. Respondents meeting these criteria completed the survey in two parts, one
week apart. In total, there were 4,430 employee respondents in the sample. Each of these
respondents was asked if they would be willing to have their supervisor complete and return a
confidential questionnaire. Financial incentives were offered to employees and supervisors for
each completed supervisor questionnaire received. 2,020 (46%) employee respondents allowed
their supervisor to be contacted, and of these, 831 supervisors (41%) actually completed and
returned the questionnaire they were sent. The data presented below are based on this subsample
of 831 matched employee-employer respondents.
Employees in the subsample of matched employee-supervisor respondents came from a
variety of organizations. Twenty-six percent (26%) worked for small businesses, nineteen
Social Identity & Performance, page 25
percent (19%) for large companies in one location, thirty-six percent (36%) for large multi-city
American companies, and seventeen percent (17%) for multinational companies. The sample
was evenly split by gender (48% female). The sample’s average tenure at their current job was
4.49 years, 75% had at least some college experience (only 9% had earned a post-bachelor
degree), and the mean age was 44 years old.
Measures. Constructs and measures generally paralleled those in study one, although a
few scales were adjusted in an effort to examine broader or different conceptualizations of
certain constructs. In particular, in study two we focused on social identity linked to the
organization (rather than the work group), and thus the social identity measures were adjusted
accordingly. Also, instructions for the questionnaire asked respondents to consider the questions
in the survey with regard to their work organization (as compared to study 1 instructions which
focused them on their current job in their work group). In addition, the procedural and
distributive justice scales were expanded (to ten- and eight-items, respectively) to not only
capture assessments of the fairness of the culture of the overall organization (Naumann &
Bennett, 2000) as in study one, but to also index the perceived fairness directly experienced by
individuals (including items such as “Decisions that affect me are usually made in fair ways at
my company”). The performance scales on the supervisor survey were also expanded to inquire
about a broader range of inrole (e.g., “How often does this employee complete their work in a
timely, effective manner?”) and extrarole (e.g., “How often does this employee share their
knowledge with others even when they will not receive credit?”) behaviors. Incentives were not
measured in study two due to space constraints on the employee survey as a result of expansion
of these other scales.
All scales demonstrated strong reliability (coefficient alphas are listed in Table 3).
Social Identity & Performance, page 26
Results
Means, standard deviations, and the interscale correlation matrix for all measures are
presented in Table 3. Table 3 also includes three control variables that were included in all
analyses: age, tenure with the organization, and gender.
As in study one, mean ratings on each of the variables collected from employees were
compared between the subsample of matched employee-employer respondents and the remaining
pool of employee respondents (for whom no supervisor ratings were available). The results of
this comparison again suggest that differences between the two groups were inconsequential.
Due to the large sample sizes involved in this study, statistical significance does not provide a
meaningful indicator of the equivalence of the groups because even negligible differences will
likely have statistical significance. However, investigation of the effect sizes of these differences
indicates that there were no sizable differences in the means of any of the variables between the
two respondent groups (all ² < .02), which indicates that the subsample of matched employeesupervisor respondents is likely equivalent to the larger pool of employees in our study.
We again used structural equation modeling (via AMOS) to test the model presented in
Figure 1 and, in particular, to test the interrelationship of social identity, procedural justice,
economic outcome evaluations, and employee performance. The results of these structural
equation models are presented in Table 4. Prior to testing these models, however, we used
confirmatory factor analysis to examine the fit of the proposed measurement model, which
includes the three social identity measures (identification, pride, and respect) loaded onto a
common latent factor (“social identity”), the three economic outcome judgments (evaluations of
pay, expectations of future economic outcomes, and outcome fairness) loaded onto a common
latent factor (“economic outcomes”), and procedural justice. This analysis confirmed that the
Social Identity & Performance, page 27
proposed measurement model fit the data well (2 = 190.9, df = 12, CFI = .99, IFI = .99) and that
it fit significantly better than a simpler one-factor model (2 = 132.5, df =2, p < .001).
The results presented in Table 4 provide strong confirmation of our hypotheses. The
results presented in model 1 confirm hypothesis 1, since they indicate a strong impact of social
identity on supervisor ratings of employee performance ( = .26, p < .001). Hypothesis 2, which
predicted that social identity would mediate the effects of procedural justice on performance, was
also confirmed by our results. As shown in model 2, the effect of procedural justice on
performance was replicated in this dataset ( = .21, p < .001), which again corroborates the
robust finding in the organizational behavior literature that process fairness shapes employee
engagement (Colquitt et al., 2001; Tyler & Blader, 2000). More importantly, model 3 indicates
that the effect of procedural justice on performance is fully explained by social identity,
consistent with the prediction set forth by hypothesis two. When social identity is included in the
analysis, procedural justice is significantly related to social identity ( = .79, p < .001), but no
longer has a significant influence on performance ( = .01, ns) while social identity does
influence performance ( = .26, p < .001).
Furthermore, the results of models 4 and 5 confirm hypothesis 3. First, we found that
economic outcome evaluations shape performance ( = .15, p < .001) -- more positive
evaluations of economic outcomes are associated with higher levels of performance. Second,
adding social identity to this analysis (model 5) reduces the effect of economic outcome
evaluations to nonsignificance ( = -.14, ns), but does reveal a strong effect of social identity (
= .34, p < .01). Similarly, there was a significant effect of economic outcome evaluations on
social identity ( = .83, p < .001).
Social Identity & Performance, page 28
Once again, we conducted a comprehensive test of the model presented in Figure 1
(model 6, Table 4). The results indicate that social identity impacts performance ( = .32, p <
.01), but that when accounting for this effect procedural justice only has a marginal impact ( =
.18, p < .10) and economic outcomes actually have a significant but negative direct effect on
performance ( = -.27, p < .01). This analysis again confirms that both procedural justice ( =
.31, p < .001) and economic outcomes ( = .55, p < .001) have independent effects on social
identity (R2 = 71%).
Discussion
Study two directly confirms the results of study one in verifying several key propositions
of the group engagement model and in demonstrating the important role of social identity in
shaping employee performance. The results of study two indicate that the social identity that an
employee forms around their work organization is an important determinant of their work
performance. Beyond mere demonstration that social identity matters, study two also confirms
that social identity can explain the impact of other factors (i.e., procedural justice and economic
outcome evaluations) that are themselves often investigated for their influence on performance.
The consistency in findings with study one is striking and considerably increases
confidence in the robust nature of these results. This is reinforced by the fact that study two was
conducted on a large and extremely heterogeneous sample of employees. Respondents were
drawn from throughout the United States, worked in a wide variety of occupations, industries,
and organizations, and came from a diverse range of levels within their organization’s structure.
Moreover, study two focused on a different social identity target than study one (organizational
social identity rather than work group social identity), yet the overall pattern of results replicated
that found in study one. This suggests that since employee performance impacts both sub- and
Social Identity & Performance, page 29
super-ordinate group goals and success, it may be a form of behavioral engagement that is linked
to the various levels of social identity targets that may are relevant in organizational life.
One difference with the results of study one was that a significant but negative effect of
economic outcome evaluations on employee performance was detected in the overall analysis
that simultaneously examined all the variables under consideration. This result is intriguing
because it suggests a complex interrelationship between economic outcomes, procedural justice,
and social identity. In particular, it suggests that extrinsic issues such as economic outcomes may
actually have detrimental effects on performance once their symbolic or intrinsic value has been
accounted for. These results may be related to the classic finding that extrinsic rewards can have
detrimental effects on behaviors that are otherwise intrinsically motivated (Deci, Koestner, &
Ryan, 1999). Additional work is needed to investigate this possibility, particularly since this
result did not emerge in study one. Nevertheless, the results of the current study do indicate that
the observed positive effect of economic outcomes on performance is explained by social
identity.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
These studies make an important contribution to research on the group engagement
model and to our theoretical understanding of the motivational consequences of social identity in
organizational contexts. They do so by finding that social identity plays an important role in
shaping employee performance, and by demonstrating that social identity explains the
performance implications of two key facets of people’s experiences with their work
organizations (i.e., the procedural justice they experience and the economic outcomes they
receive). These findings are consistent with the group engagement model’s emphasis on social
identity as the basis of people’s engagement in their groups, and on the importance of locating
Social Identity & Performance, page 30
social identity within the landscape of other factors that shape engagement. These studies further
contribute to research on social identity in organizations by 1) highlighting the value of a multifaceted conceptualization of identity that is rooted in principles of social identity theory, and 2)
by applying this conceptualization to two focal social identity targets (i.e., the work group and
the organization).
The research presented here advances previous work with regard to each of these issues
and makes clear that cognitive and evaluative components of social identity—with regard to both
the work group and the organization—can act in coordination to shape performance. Importantly,
these studies show that social identity explains a comparatively favorable proportion of variance
in performance relative to other predictors that have been examined in other research (e.g.,
perceived organizational support (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002); psychological well being
(Wright & Cropanzano, 2000); job satisfaction (Judge et al., 2001); commitment (e.g., Becker et
al., 1996); and incentives (Jenkins, Mitra, Gupta & Shaw, 1998)). Further, they show these
potent effects of social identity among employees working in a wide variety of organizations,
occupations, hierarchical levels, regions, etc.
Further, by going beyond mere demonstration that social identity matters, the results
reveal that social identity is a proximal determinant of performance insofar as it explains the
impact of two organizational conditions that have received a great deal of attention for their
relation to performance: 1) perceptions of the procedural justice experienced at work and 2)
evaluations of the economic outcomes received from work. Determining that social identity
provides the mechanism by which these organizational conditions influence organizational
behavior provides critical insight into understanding how, when, and why efforts to shape the
context of employees’ work experiences will impact their behavior. It also contributes to the
Social Identity & Performance, page 31
growing acknowledgement within psychology that the collective self—the aspect of the self most
closely linked to social identity—plays a fundamental role in shaping behavior (Hogg, 2001).
The results for economic outcomes in these studies may seem somewhat surprising.
Indeed, it is traditionally believed that pay, benefits, expectations of promotion (and thus hopes
for greater pay), and the like impact behavior because of their economic or instrumental value.
However, studies investigating the utility of these economic outcome-based approaches raise
questions about their actual impact (e.g., Jenkins et al., 1998; Kerr, 1995; Kohn, 1993; Pearce,
1987) and psychological research suggests that such extrinsic factors can have a detrimental
effect on people’s intrinsic drives and motivations (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999). The current
findings may provide some potential insight into the equivocal effect of outcome concerns on
performance. In particular, they suggest that a primary way in which outcomes may impact
performance is through their impact on social identity, which explains earlier observations that
identity can trigger many of the same effects as economic incentives (Dukerich, Golden, &
Shortell, 2002). One important implication of this finding is that economic outcomes are most
likely to impact performance when they lead employees to regard their relationship with the
organization positively and when they lead employees to integrate the organization into their self
concept. When the economic outcomes an employee experiences fail to prompt these positive
evaluations—such as when they are dispensed in an environment marked by threats or guided by
obligations—it becomes less likely that economic outcomes will have a positive impact on
performance.
On a more general level, these findings suggest that the basis of employees’ relationships
with their organizations is primarily linked to the role the organization plays in determining how
employees think and feel about themselves. Of course, there are likely boundary conditions to
Social Identity & Performance, page 32
our findings. For employees at lower socioeconomic levels, for whom resources are literally
critical, the impact of economic outcomes on behavior may be more direct. Similarly, social
identity may not be likely to shape behavior among employees who have tenuous links to the
organization such as temporary and contract workers, nor perhaps among workers that do not
share demographic group memberships or values with the organization. Still, the results of the
current and related (Tyler & Blader, 2000) research clearly suggest the potential value, under
many circumstances, of a social identity-based understanding of employees’ attachments to their
organizations and of social identity-based ways of stimulating higher levels of employee
performance.
Limitations and future research
A note of caution is necessary regarding the causal directions advocated in our
conceptual model. While our research avoids the problem of common method variance by
linking employee judgments to supervisor ratings of behavior, it cannot provide definitive
evidence regarding the causal relations we have proposed. Consistent with the orientation
adopted in the psychology and management literatures, we advocate the perspective that
behavior flows from identity. However, it is possible that supervisor judgments that an
employee is high-performing actually lead employees to identify with the group through a social
exchange process. While plausible, it is not clear what the theoretical basis would be for
expecting that employees reciprocate their supervisors’ regard for them as high performers by
integrating the group into the self (i.e., it is not clear why employees would use such a
psychological currency in their exchange). Ultimately, alternate research methods that can help
further tease apart causal relationships are needed to provide more definitive support for the
causal relations we propose.
Social Identity & Performance, page 33
A variety of issues raised by this research require further investigation. First, it is
important to investigate other organizational conditions that shape performance -- aside from
procedural justice and economic outcomes -- in order to better understand the relationship
between social identity and these other factors. Indeed, a myriad of factors have been linked to
performance, and the current contribution is only one small step toward truly developing a map
of performance antecedents and their relationships with one another. Second, additional work is
needed to understand factors that may determine the dynamics between social identity and
performance. Relations between the various foci of social identity (work group, organization,
etc.), the salience of a given social identity in a particular circumstance, and group norms
regarding performance may all impact the particular behaviors resulting from a strong sense of
social identity (Haslam & Ellemers, 2005; van Knippenberg & Ellemers, 2003). Indeed, it is
likely that there may even be distinctions in the types of performance-related behaviors that
result from social identity linked to work groups vs. organizations. Having achieved the goal of
the current studies of mapping social identity onto performance in general, future work should
focus on how specific instantiations of social identity-based performance may vary depending on
the focal social identity group.
Third, a deeper understanding of the psychological mechanism by which social identity
impacts performance is also needed. Does social identity shape performance because it a)
prompts an intrinsic concern with the group’s welfare, b) leads to conformity to group norms, c)
facilitates internalization of group goals, or d) leads people to seek acceptance via high
performance that benefits the group? Uncovering the mechanisms involved is not only
theoretically important, but also has practical significance because it facilitates an understanding
of the circumstances under which social identity will matter most, the people for whom social
Social Identity & Performance, page 34
identity will matter most, and the behaviors that social identity is most likely to provoke.
Finally, research is needed to understand the linkages between social identity and other variables
that assess attachment to organizations, such as affective commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1997).
Like many other identity researchers (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Ashmore, Deaux & McLaughlinVolpe, 2004; Cameron, 2004; Ellemers, Kortekaas, & Ouwerkerk, 1999; Haslam, 2004;
Ouwerkerk et al., 1999; Pratt, 2000), we feel that social identity is fundamentally different from
affective commitment because it relies on the self-concept to understand people’s attachment to
organizations. Unlike affective commitment, social identity focuses on the basis of attachment to
the group and is much more than a simple barometer of attachment. Thus, we view social
identity as operating on a more fundamental level than affective commitment (Haslam, 2004)
and we regard affective commitment as a potential outcome of social identity (Tyler & Blader,
2000). Yet clearly additional work is needed to understand the dynamics between social identity
and affective commitment.
Conclusion
This need for future work notwithstanding, we hope that the current studies aid in
highlighting the value of the group engagement model for organizational research. Like the
group engagement model itself, these studies make strong theoretical contributions to research
on procedural justice, on why money and related economic issues matter, and on how to foster
higher levels of employee performance. The current research impacts these diverse research
areas by highlighting one key integrating concept: social identity. As such, perhaps the single
most important contribution of these studies is their argument that researchers and practitioners
alike have much to gain by adopting a focus on social identity in efforts to understand people in
group and organizational contexts. By understanding the fundamental concerns that drive
Social Identity & Performance, page 35
people’s behavior in groups, it is more likely that groups will be designed and will operate in
ways that both motivate and satisfy their members.
Identity matters, page 36
FIGURE 1
Conceptual Model
Procedural Justice
Identification
Pride
Respect
Economic
Outcomes
Evaluation of
Pay
Future
Economic
Outcomes
Outcome
Fairness
Incentives
Inrole
Social Identity
Employee
Performance
Extrarole
Overall
Identity matters, page 37
TABLE 1
Study 1: Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations Among Scales
Scale
1
0.96
2
1. Procedural justice
M (SD)
3.34 (1.10)
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
2. Identification
4.45 (0.85)
0.43
0.85
3. Pride
4.05 (1.09)
0.36
0.57
0.88
4. Respect
4.48 (1.19)
0.58
0.50
0.48
0.97
5. Evaluations of pay
2.87 (1.13)
0.50
0.13#
0.26
0.43
0.95
6. Future economic
outcomes
7. Outcome fairness
3.16 (1.01)
0.52
0.33
0.41
0.49
0.48
0.70
2.84 (1.19)
0.69
0.23
0.34
0.43
0.68
0.57
0.85
8. Incentives
3.15 (1.15)
0.68
0.26
0.39
0.57
0.61
0.57
0.74
0.88
9. Inrole performance
5.40 (0.63)
0.22
0.17#
0.12#
0.45
0.27
0.22
0.25
0.26
0.93
10. Extrarole perf.
4.72 (0.98)
0.26
0.30
0.24
0.39
0.21
0.19
0.21
0.27
0.54
0.94
11. Overall perf.
5.06 (0.78)
0.17#
0.18#
0.15#
0.31
0.20
0.19
0.20
0.24
0.72
0.61
0.94
12. Gender
--
-0.03#
0.08#
-0.01#
0.07#
-0.15#
0.00
-0.05#
-0.06#
0.03#
0.10#
-0.07
--
13. Tenure
13.70 (8.56)
0.00#
-0.01#
-0.09#
-0.08#
-0.05#
-0.07#
-0.19
-0.06#
-0.16#
-0.05#
-0.07#
-0.03#
--
14. Age
44.47 (8.75)
0.20
0.13#
0.09#
0.10#
0.14#
0.07#
0.17#
0.23
0.00#
0.01#
0.01#
-0.05#
0.44
Note: n = 112. Higher numbers indicate greater endorsement of the construct (e.g., more positive fairness, stronger identification, etc.).
Numbers on the diagonal represent coefficient alphas for the scale.
All correlations are significant at p < .05 unless marked #.
13
Identity matters, page 38
TABLE 2
Study 1: Results of Structural Equation Models
Model 1
b (SE) 
Model 2
b (SE) 
Model 3
b (SE) 
Model 4
b (SE) 
Model 5
b (SE) 
Model 6
b (SE) 
DV: Supervisor ratings of performance
Social identity
0.32 (.10) 0.40***
------- ------- -------
0.50 (.17) 0.55**
------- ------- -------
0.44 (.18)
0.45*
0.49 (.18) 0.52***
Procedural justice
------- ------- -------
0.11 (.05) 0.25**
-0.05 (.07) -0.11ns
------- ------- -------
------- ------- -------
-0.11 (.08) -0.23ns
Economic outcome evaluations ------- ------- -------
------- ------- -------
------- ------- -------
0.21 (.07) 0.34***
.03 (.09) 0.05ns
0.12 (.12) 0.19ns
R2
17%
7%
24%
12%
24%
26%
2
df
Fit indices:
CFI
IFI
61.5
38.3
70.25
57.8
112.1
126.9
26
14
33
34
62
72
0.98
0.98
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.98
0.99
0.99
0.98
0.99
0.99
0.97
Economic outcome evaluations ------- ------- -------
------- ------- -------
------- ------- -------
------- ------- -------
0.43 (.09) 0.67***
0.24 (.11) 0.36*
Procedural justice
------- ------- -------
------- ------- -------
0.35 (.06) 0.67***
------- ------- -------
------- ------- -------
0.19 (.07) 0.39**
-------
-------
45%
-------
45%
DV: Social identity
R2
50%
Note: n = 112. All analyses include controls for the effects of age, gender, and tenure on performance (though in no case did any of these controls have significant
effects).
Identity matters, page 39
TABLE 3
Study 2: Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations Among Scales
Scale
1
0.95
2
1. Procedural justice
M (SD)
3.24 (0.99)
2. Identification
3.10 (0.91)
0.48
0.84
3. Pride
3.57 (0.95)
0.56
0.58
0.90
4. Respect
5.22 (1.46)
0.51
0.46
0.44
0.94
5. Evaluations of pay
3.17 (0.95)
0.66
0.38
0.53
0.39
0.89
6. Future economic
outcomes
7. Outcome fairness
3.07 (0.98)
0.58
0.43
0.51
0.44
0.66
0.72
2.89 (0.95)
0.83
0.44
0.50
0.43
0.71
0.60
0.90
8. Inrole performance
6.11 (0.80)
0.13
0.07#
0.03#
0.19
0.08
0.04#
0.08
0.94
9. Extra role perf.
5.49 (1.16)
0.16
0.15
0.07
0.23
0.07
0.06#
0.12
0.57
0.91
10. Overall perf.
4.26 (0.67)
0.15
0.13
0.07
0.21
0.08
0.11
0.12
0.58
0.60
0.91
11. Gender
--
-0.02#
0.11
0.06#
0.05
-0.07
-0.06#
-0.09
0.11
0.09
0.07
--
12. Tenure
4.49 (0.70)
-0.03#
0.08
0.08
0.01#
0.06#
0.09
-0.03#
0.08
0.05#
0.03#
-0.03#
--
43.87 (10.36)
0.11
0.13
0.12
0.10
0.09
-0.01#
0.05#
0.03#
0.00#
-0.05#
0.09
0.19
13. Age
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Note: n = 831. Higher numbers indicate greater endorsement of the construct (e.g., more positive fairness, stronger identification, etc.).
Numbers on the diagonal represent coefficient alphas for the scale.
All correlations are significant at p < .05 unless marked #.
12
Identity matters, page 40
TABLE 4
Study 2: Results of Structural Equation Models
Model 1
b (SE) 
Model 2
b (SE) 
Model 3
b (SE) 
Model 4
b (SE) 
Model 5
b (SE) 
Model 6
b (SE) 
DV: Supervisor ratings of performance
Social identity
0.57 (.09) .26***
------- ------- -------
0.40 (.15) 0.26**
------- ------- -------
0.51 (.19) .34**
0.49 (.19) 0.32**
Procedural justice
------- ------- -------
0.19 (.03) 0.21***
0.01 (.08) 0.01ns
------- ------- -------
------- ------- -------
0.17 (.08) 0.19^
ns
-0.32 (.15) -0.27*
Economic outcome evaluations ------- ------- -------
***
------- ------- -------
------- ------- -------
0.16 (.04) 0.15
9%
7%
9%
5%
8%
11%
126.1
78.4
173.7
118.2
274.1
403.7
34
20
42
34
62
71
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
Economic outcome evaluations ------- ------- -------
------- ------- -------
------- ------- -------
------- ------- -------
0.62 (.04) 0.83***
0.43 (.07) 0.55***
Procedural justice
------- ------- -------
------- ------- -------
0.46 (.03) 0.79***
------- ------- -------
------- ------- -------
0.18 (.05) 0.31***
-------
-------
-------
69%
R2
2
df
Fit indices:
CFI
IFI
-0.15 (.13) -.14
DV: Social identity
R2
63%
71%
Note: n = 831. All analyses include controls for the effects of age, gender, tenure, and company size on performance. In all models, there was a significant, positive
effect for tenure. All models also demonstrated an effect for gender such that females were rated as having higher performance. There were no significant effects for
age.
Identity matters, page 41
References
Abrams, D., Ando, K., & Hinkle, S. (1998). Psychological attachment to the group: Crosscultural differences in organizational identification and subjective norms as predictors of
workers’ turnover intentions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 1027-1039.
Ashforth, B. E., & Johnson, S. A. (2001). Which hat to wear? The relative salience of multiple
identities in organizational contexts. In M. Hogg & D. Terry (Eds.), Social identity processes
in organizational contexts (pp. 31-48). Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
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.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality & Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
Bartel, C. A. (2001). Social comparisons in boundary-spanning work: Effects of community
outreach on members’ organizational identity and identification. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 46, 379-413.
Baumeister, R. F. & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal
attachments as a fundamental human motive. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497-529.
Becker, T. E., Billings, R. S., Eveleth, D. M., & Gilbert, N. L. (1996). Foci and bases of
employee commitment: Implications for job performance. Academy of Management Journal,
39, 464-482.
Identity matters, page 42
Bergami, M., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2000). Self-categorization, affective commitment and group selfesteem as aspects of social identity in the organization. British Journal of Social Psychology,
39, 555-577.
Blader, S. L. & Tyler, T. R. (2003). A four component model of procedural justice: Defining the
meaning of a "fair" process. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 747-758.
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: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers.
Boezeman, E.J. & Ellemers, N. (in press-a). Volunteering for charity: Pride, respect, and the
commitment of volunteer workers. Journal of Applied Psychology.
Boezeman, E.J. & Ellemers, N. (in press-b). Pride and respect in volunteers' organizational
commitment. European Journal of Social Psychology.
Brewer, M. B. (1979). In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitivemotivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 307-324.
Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this “we”? Levels of collective identity and selfrepresentations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 83-93.
Brewer, M. B., & Roccas, S. (2001). Individual values, social identity, and optimal
distinctiveness. In C. Sedikides & M. Brewer (Eds.), Individual self, relational self, collective
self (pp. 219-237). New York: Psychology Press.
Brewer, M. B., & Weber, J. G. (1994). Self-evaluation effects of interpersonal versus intergroup
social comparison. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 268-275.
Identity matters, page 43
Brockner, J. & Wiesenfeld, B. M. (1996). An integrative framework for explaining reactions to
decisions: Interactive effects of outcomes and procedures. Psychological Bulletin, 120,
189-208.
Cameron, J. E. (2004). A three-factor model of social identity. Self & Identity, 3, 239-262.
Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A metaanalysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 278-321.
Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the
millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 86, 425-445.
Corley, K., Harquail, C. V., Pratt, M. G., Glynn, M. A., Fiol, C. M., Hatch. M. J. (2006). Guiding
organizational identity through aged adolescence. Journal of Management Inquiry, 15, 8599.
Deci, E., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the
effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 627-668.
Dukerich, J. M., Golden, B. R., & Shortell, S. M. (2002). Beauty is in the eye of the beholder:
The impact of organizational identification, identity, and image on the cooperative behaviors
of physicians. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 507-533.
Dutton, J. E., & Dukerich, J. M. (1991). Keeping an eye on the mirror: Image and identity in
organizational adaptation. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 517-554.
Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V. (1994). Organizational images and member
identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 239-263.
Identity matters, page 44
Ellemers, N. (1993). The influence of socio-structural variables on identity management
strategies. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European Review of Social Psychology
(Vol. 4). London: Wiley.
Ellemers, N., de Gilder, D., & Haslam, 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., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (1997). Sticking together of falling apart: In-group
identification as a psychological determinant of group commitment versus individual
mobility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 617-626.
Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (2002). Self and social identity. Annual Review of
Psychology, 53, 161-186.
Foreman, P., & Whetten, D. (2002). Members’ identification with multiple-identity
organizations. Organization Science, 13, 618-635.
Fuller, J. B., Hester, K., Barnett, T., Frey, L., Relyea, C., & Beu, D. (2006). Perceived external
prestige and internal respect: New insights into the organizational identification process.
Human Relations. 59, 815-846.
Furnham, A., & Argyle, M. (1998). The psychology of money. Florence, KY: Taylor &
Frances/Routledge.
Gintis, H., Bowles, S., Boyd, R., & Fehr, E. (2005). Moral sentiments and material interests:
The foundations of cooperation in economic life. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Identity matters, page 45
Haslam, S. A. (2004). Psychology in organizations: The social identity approach. London: Sage.
Haslam, S. A., & Ellemers, N. (2005). Social identity in industrial and organizational
psychology: Concepts, controversies and contributions. In G. P. Hodgkinson (Ed.),
International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (vol. 20). Chichester:
Wiley.
Haslam, S. A., Postmes, T., & Ellemers, N. (2003). More than a Metaphor: Organizational
Identity Makes Organizational Life Possible. British Journal of Management, 14, 357-369.
Haslam, S. A., Powell, C., & Turner, J. C. (2000). Social identity, self-categorizations, and work
motivation: Rethinking the contribution of the group to positive and sustainable
organizational outcomes. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49, 319-339.
Haslam, S. A., & Reicher, S. (2006). Stressing the group: Social identity and the unfolding
dynamics of responses to stress. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1037-1052.
Hinkle, S. W., & Brown, R. J. (1990). Intergroup comparisons and social identity: Some links
and lacunae. In D. Abrams & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Social identity theory. New York:
Springer-Verlag.
Hogg, M. A. (2001). Social identity and the sovereignty of the group: A psychology of
belonging. In C. Sedikides & M. Brewer (Eds.), Individual self, relational self, collective self
(pp.125-146). New York: Psychology Press.
Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1990). Social motivation, self-esteem and social identity. In D.
Abrams & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Social identity theory: Constructive & critical advances. New
York: Springer-Verlag.
Jenkins, G. D., Mitra, A., Gupta, N., & Shaw, J. D. (1998). Are financial incentives related to
performance? Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 777-787.
Identity matters, page 46
Johnson, M., Morgeson, F., Ilgen, D., Meyer, C., Lloyd, J. (2006). Multiple professional
identities: Examining differences in identification across work-related targets. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 91, 498-506.
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction-job
performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, 127,
376-407.
Kanfer, R. (1990). Motivation Theory and Industrial and Organizational Psychology. In M. D.
Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology
(pp. 75-170). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Karau, S. J., & Williams, K, D. (1993). Social loafing: a meta-analytic review and theoretical
integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 681-706.
Kelly, C., & Kelly, J. (1994). Who gets involved in collective action? Human Relations, 47, 6388.
Klein, O., Spears, R., & Reicher, S. (2007). Social Identity Performance: Extending the
Strategic Side of SIDE. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 1-18
Kohn, A. (1993). Why incentive plans cannot work. Harvard Business Review, 71, 54-63.
Kohn, A. (1999). Punished by rewards. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Kramer, R. M., Hanna, B. A., Su, S., & Wei, J. (2001). Collective identity, collective trust and
social capital: Linking group identification and group cooperation. In M. E. Turner (Ed.),
Groups at work: Theory and research (pp.173-196). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
LaLonde, R. N., & Silverman, R. A. (1994). Behavioral preferences in response to social
injustice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 78-85.
Identity matters, page 47
Lawler III, E. E. (1990). Strategic pay. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lawler III, E. E. (2000). Rewarding excellence: Pay strategies for the new economy. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lind, E. A. & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York:
Plenum Press.
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,
103-123.
March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Milkovich, G. T., & Newman, J. M. (1999). Compensation (6th ed.). Boston: Irwin/McGrawHill.
Miller, D. T., & Ratner, R. K. (1998). The disparity between the actual and assumed power of
self-interest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 53-62.
Mitchell, T. R., & Mickel, A. E. (1999). The meaning of money: An individual-difference
perspective. Academy of Management Review, 24, 568-579.
Naumann, S., & Bennett, N. (2000). A case for procedural justice climate: Development and test
of a multilevel model. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 881-889.
Olkkonen, M.E., & Lipponen, J. (2006). Relationships between organizational justice,
identification with organization and work unit, and group-related outcomes. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 100, 202-215.
Opsahl, R. L., & Dunnette, M. D. (1966). Role of financial compensation in industrial
motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 66, 94-118.
Identity matters, page 48
Ouwerkerk, J. W., Ellemers, N., & de Gilder, D. (1999). Group commitment and individual
effort in experimental and organizational contexts. In N. Ellemers & R. Spears (Eds.), Social
identity: Context, commitment, content (pp. 184-204). Oxford, England: Blackwell Science
Ltd.
Pearce, J. L. (1987). Why merit pay doesn’t work: Implications from organizational theory. In D.
B. Balkin & L. R. Gomez-Meija (Eds.), New perspectives on compensation. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Porter, L. W., Bigley, G., & Steers, R. M. (1996). Motivation and work behavior. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Pratt, M. G. (2000). The good, the bad, and the ambivalent: Managing identification among
Amway distributors. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 456-493.
Pratt, M. G., & Foreman, P. (2000). Classifying managerial responses to multiple organizational
identities. Academy of Management Review, 25, 18-42.
Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the
literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 698-714.
Roe, R. A. (1999). Work performance: A multiple regulation perspective. In C. L. Cooper & I. T.
Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology. New
York: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Rynes, S.L., Gerhart, B., & Parks, L. (2005). Personnel Psychology: Performance Evaluation and
Pay for Performance. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 571-600.
Skitka, L. (2003). Of different minds: An accessible identity model of justice reasoning.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 286-297.
Identity matters, page 49
Smith, C., Organ, D., & Near, J. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and
antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 653-663.
Smith, H. J., & Tyler, T. R. (1997). Justice and power: When will justice concerns encourage the
advantages to support policies which redistribute economic resources and the disadvantaged
to willingly obey the law? European Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 171-200.
Sparrowe, R.T., Soetjipto, B.W., & Kraimer, M.L. (2006). Do leaders' influence tactics relate to
members' helping behavior? It depends on the quality of the relationship. Academy of
Management Journal, 49, 1194-1208.
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. 77-98). London: Academic Press.
Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33,
1-39.
Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. P., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and
intergroup behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 149-178.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. Austin & S.
Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Monterey, CA:
Brooks.
Turner, J. C. (1985). Social categorization and the self-concept: A social cognitive theory of
group behavior. In E. J. Lawler (Ed.), Advances in group processes. Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press.
Turner, J. C., Oakes, P. J., Haslam, S. A., & McGarty, C. A. (1994). Self and collective:
Cognition and social context. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 545-63.
Identity matters, page 50
Turner, J. C., & Reynolds, K. J. (2001). The social identity perspective in intergroup relations:
theories, themes and controversies. In R. J. Brown & S. Gaertner (Eds.), Blackwell Handbook
of Social Psychology. Oxford: Blackwell.
Tyler, T. R. (1999). Why people cooperate with organizations. Research in Organizational
Behavior, 21, 201-246.
Tyler, T.R. (2000). Social justice: Outcome and procedure. International Journal of Psychology,
35, 117-125.
Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2000). Cooperation in groups: Procedural justice, social identity,
and behavioral engagement. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2001). Identity and cooperative behavior in groups. Group
Processes & Intergroup Relations, 4, 207-226.
Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2002). Autonomous vs. comparative status: Must we be better than
others to feel good about ourselves? Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes,
89, 813-838.
Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2003). The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social
identity, and cooperative behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 349-361.
Tyler, T. R., Degoey, P., & Smith, H. J. (1996). Understanding why the justice of group
procedures matters: A test of the psychological dynamics of the group-value model. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 913-930.
Tyler, T. R. & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. In M. Zanna (Ed.),
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 115-191. New York: Academic Press.
Identity matters, page 51
Van den Bos, K. & Lind, E.A. (2002). Uncertainty management by means of fairness judgments.
In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (vol. 34, pp. 1-60). N.Y.:
Academic.
van Knippenberg, D., & Ellemers, N. (2003). Social identity and group performance:
Identification as the key to group-oriented effort. In S. A. Haslam, D. van Knippenberg, M. J.
Platow, & N. Ellemers (Eds.) Social identity at work: Developing theory for organizational
practice (pp. 29-42). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
van Knippenberg, D. (2000). Work motivation and performance: A social identity perspective.
Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49, 357-371.
van Knippenberg, D., van Knippenberg, B., De Cremer, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2004). Leadership,
self, and identity: A review and research agenda. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 825-856.
van Knippenberg, D., & van Schie, E. C. M. (2000). Foci and correlates of organizational
identification. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, 137-147.
van Leeuwen, E., van Knippenberg, D., & Ellemers, N. (2003). Continuing and changing group
identities: The effects of merging on social identification and ingroup bias. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 679-690.
Williams, L., & Anderson, S. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as
predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17,
601-617.
Williams, K., Karau, S. J., & Bourgeois, M. (1993). Working on collective tasks: social loafing
and social compensation. In M. A. Hogg & D. Abrams (Eds.), Group motivation: Social
psychological perspectives (pp. 130-148). London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Identity matters, page 52
Worchel, S., Rothgerber, H., Day, E. A.,, Hart, D., & Butemeyer, J. (1998). Social identity and
individual productivity within groups. British Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 389-413.
Wright, T. A., & Cropanzano, R. (2000). Psychological well-being and job satisfaction as
predictors of job performance. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 84-94.