Work Motivation and Performance A SocialIdentity Perspectiv.docx

Work Motivation and Performance: A Social
Identity Perspective
Daan van Knippenberg
University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
La motivation au travail et les performances ont eÂ teÂ
analyseÂ es dans la per-
spective de la theÂ orie de l'identiteÂ sociale et de celle de
l'auto-cateÂ gorisation.
Centrale aÁ cette analyse se trouve la relation entre
l'identification organisa-
tionnelle et la motivation d'exercer un effort pour le compte de
la collectiviteÂ .
Une analyse theÂ orique et une revue d' eÂ tudes empiriques
relatives aux relations
entre cette identification organisationnelle et la motivation et
les performances
conduisent aÁ la conclusion: l'identification est lieÂ e
positivement aÁ la motivation
au travail, avec les performances dans la reÂ alisation des taÃ
ches et dans le
contexte, pour autant a) que l'identiteÂ sociale soit saillante et
que b) les
performances eÂ leveÂ es soient percË ues comme eÂ tant dans
l'inteÂ reÃ t du groupe ou
de l'organisation.
Work motivation and performance were analysed from the
perspective of
social identity theory and self-categorisation theory. Central in
this analysis

is the relation of organisational identification with the
motivation to exert
effort on behalf of the collective. A theoretical analysis as well
as a review
of empirical studies of the relationship of organisational
identification with
motivation and performance leads to the conclusion that
identification is
positively related to work motivation, task performance, and
contextual
performance to the extent that (a) social identity is salient, and
(b) high
performance is perceived to be in the group's or organisation's
interest.
INTRODUCTION
The study of work motivation and performance forms one of the
key issues
in research in organisational behaviour. Although a variety of
motivations
may affect performance, and performance may be contingent on
a multitude
of other factors, one of the more important factors affecting
performance
________________
* Address for correspondence: Daan van Knippenberg,
University of Amsterdam, Work &
Organizational Psychology, Roetersstraat 15, 1018 WB
Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Email:
[email protected]
I wish to thank Alexander Haslam, Moshe Krausz, Barbara van

Knippenberg, Robert
Wood, and an anonymous reviewer for their comments on
previous drafts of this paper.
APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL REVIEW,
2000, 49 (3), 357±371
# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2000.
Published by Blackwell Publishers,
108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and 350 Main Street,
Malden, MA 02148, USA.
arguably is the motivation to perform well on the job. The
present study
focuses on work motivation, and analyses it from the
perspective of social
identity theory (Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Tajfel, 1978; Tajfel &
Turner, 1986)
and self-categorisation theory, which is an elaboration and
extension of social
identity theory (Turner, 1985; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, &
Wetherell,
1987). In the following, the theoretical backgrounds to the
social identity
approach (i.e. including both social identity theory and self-
categorisation
theory) to motivation and performance are presented, the
proposition that
organisational identification affects work motivation and
performance is
derived from this approach, and empirical evidence in support
of this
proposition is discussed.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUNDS
The social identity approach outlines how membership in social
groups affects
the self-concept. Central to the approach is the proposition that
through
social identification, the perception of oneness with or
belongingness to a
group (see Mael & Ashforth, 1992), individuals define
themselves in terms of
their group membership and ascribe characteristics that are
typical of the
group to the self. The concept of social identity, `̀ that part of
an individual's
self-concept which derives from his knowledge of his
membership of a group
(or groups) together with the value and the emotional
significance attached
to the membership'' (Tajfel, 1978, p. 63), reflects this
internalisation of
group membership as part of `̀ who you are'' (Ashforth & Mael,
1989;
Haslam, in press). Identification leads individuals to perceive
themselves
in terms of the characteristics they share with other members of
their
ingroupsÐtheir shared social identityÐrather than in terms of
the
idiosyncratic characteristics that differentiate them from other
indivi-
dualsÐtheir personal identity (Turner et al., 1987).
Identification thus blurs
the distinction between self and group, and turns the group,
psychologically,
into a part of the self (Smith & Henry, 1996). This `̀ social'' or `̀

collective''
self lies at the heart of the perceptual, attitudinal, and
behavioural effects of
group membership. The more one conceives of oneself in terms
of one's
membership in a group (i.e. the more one identifies with the
group), the
more likely one is to act in accordance with the group's beliefs,
norms, and
values, and generally to act in `̀ group-typical'' ways (Ashforth
& Mael,
1989; Dutton, Dukerich, & Harquail, 1994; Hogg & Abrams,
1988; Turner
et al., 1987).
Even though identification with a group may lead individuals to
act in
group-typical ways, this does not mean that individuals who
identify with a
group always act in accordance with the social identity based in
that group
membership. The influence of identification is contingent on
social identity
being salient or cognitively activated. That is, even if an
individual identifies
358 VAN KNIPPENBERG
with a group, that does not mean the individual is always highly
aware
of this group membership, and group membership only affects
attitudes

and behaviour to the extent that the individual is `̀ made aware''
of the
membership in the group. Although identification itself may
contribute to
social identity salience (Haslam, in press), contextual factors
affect salience
as well. Roughly speaking, any `̀ event'' that speaks to a group
membership
(i.e. rather than to the individual qua individual) may make the
social
identity based in that group membership salient. The prospect of
a merger
may, for instance, render organisational identity salient (van
Knippenberg,
van Knippenberg, Monden, & de Lima, 1999), conflict or
competition
between work groups may render work group identity salient
(Kramer,
1991), and the addition of individuals from another ethnicity to
a previously
ethnicly homogenous work group may focus on ethnic identity.
Identity
salience may endure for longer periods of time or may change in
a matter of
moments, for instance when departmental identity is salient in
an inter-
departmental meeting, and a telephone call from home
immediately after the
meeting focuses on family identity (for a more elaborate
discussion of the
salience of social identities in organisations, see e.g. Haslam, in
this issue;
Hogg & Terry, 2000; Kramer, 1991).
As the group seems to be where organisational behaviour
primarily takes

place, and organisations themselves may, from a social
psychological per-
spective, be viewed as social groups, the relevance of the social
identity
approach to the study of organisational behaviour is readily
apparent.
Social identity theory has, more or less from its conception,
been applied to
the study of organisational behaviour (e.g. Brown, 1978), but
the study of
social identity processes in organisations has only gained
momentum in
recent years. The social identity approach has been applied in
several areas
of organisational behaviour research, such as intergroup
relations within the
organisation (Brown, Condor, Mathews, Wade, & Williams,
1986; Kramer,
1991), mergers and acquisitions (Terry & Callan, 1998; van
Knippenberg et al.,
1999), group cohesiveness (Hogg, 1993; Hogg, Cooper-Shaw, &
Holzworth,
1993), organisational demography (Ely, 1994; Tsui, Egan, &
O'Reilly, 1992),
leadership (Haslam, McGarty, Brown, Eggins, Morrison, &
Reynolds, 1998;
Hogg, Hains, & Mason, 1998), promotion decisions (Fajak &
Haslam,
1998), and turnover (Mael & Ashforth, 1995). Most relevant to
the present
discussion, the social identity approach also has clear
implications for work
motivation and performance.
IDENTIFICATION, MOTIVATION, AND PERFORMANCE

Membership in an organisation implies multiple group
memberships:
membership in the organisation as a whole, in one's own
department, in
one's own team or work unit, and so forth (see Ashforth &
Mael, 1989;
IDENTIFICATION, MOTIVATION, AND PERFORMANCE 359
van Knippenberg & van Schie, in press; for a discussion of the
multiple foci
of organisational identification). An obvious question from the
point of
view of the social identity approach is how these identifications
affect
organisational behaviour, and especiallyÐgiven that this is so
central to
organisational lifeÐwork motivation and performance. The
answer to this
question is that identification motivates group members to work
for the
group's interests, which in turn may affect performance. These
arguments
are elaborated below.
Identification elicits a sense of oneness with the target of
identification.
This psychological oneness with the group (or organisation)
induces indi-
viduals to take the group's perspective and to experience the
group's goals
and interests as their own (see Dutton et al., 1994). Thus,

identification will
generally be associated with a motivation to achieve group
goals and work
for the group's interest. Yet, whether identification with the
organisation
or within-organisation subunit (i.e. team, work group) actually
results in
higher performance at work is contingent on a number of other
factors.
First, as outlined above, identification with the group or
organisation will
only affect attitudes and behaviour to the extent that social
identity is
salient. Thus, identification will only result in the motivation to
exert effort
on behalf of the collective to the extent that group or
organisational identity
is salient (see also Haslam, in this issue).
Second, the relationship between identification and motivation
to exert
effort on behalf of the collective may be positive (although the
strength of
the relationship will be contingent on social identity salience),
but this does
not necessarily mean that identification results in work
motivation. That is,
we should distinguish between the motivation to exert effort on
behalf of the
collective and the motivation to perform well on the job (i.e.
work moti-
vation). Even though identification may be associated with the
willingness
to exert effort on behalf of the collective, whether this results in
work
motivation is contingent on what the goals and interests of that

collective
are perceived to be. Identification may only be expected to be
positively
related to work motivation if high performance is perceived to
be in the
collective's interest. Only then will motivation to exert effort on
behalf of the
collective translate to motivation to perform well on the job.
Performance
standards may, however, not be particularly high, clear, or
salient as it is not
always clear in organisations or jobs what is expected or desired
in terms
of performance, and high performance may not be a goal.
Moreover,
performance standards may be different at the organisational
and subunit
level, as arises when the organisation advocates high
performance, while
informal work group norms promote minimisation of work
efforts or a
focus on interpersonal relations. If the primary target of
identification is
not perceived to have a commitment to high performance,
identification is
unlikely to result in striving to enhance performance.
360 VAN KNIPPENBERG
To the extent that identification results in work motivation (i.e.
con-
tingent on social identity salience and the perceived goals and

interests of
the target of identification) it will have a positive effect on
performance.
This should hold to the extent that performance is under
volitional control
(e.g. to the extent that performance is contingent on effort and
persistence)
rather than on, for example, knowledge, skills, abilities, or
available resources
(because this qualification is not specific for the social identity
analysis, but
holds for the relationship between work motivation and
performance in
general, it receives no further attention here).
The analysis presented above is modelled in Fig. 1. In this
model, identi-
fication affects the motivation to exert effort on behalf of the
collective to
the extent that social identity is salient, and this motivation
affects work
motivation to the extent that the collective's interests are
perceived to be
performance-related. Finally, work motivation is related to
performance to
the extent that performance is under volitional control. Note
that whereas
the relationships between identification and the motivation to
exert effort on
behalf of the collective, and between work motivation and
performance, are
assumed to be positive (although moderated by social identity
salience and
the extent to which performance is under volitional control,
respectively),
the relationship between the motivation to exert effort on behalf

of the
collective and work motivation may be either positive, negative,
or zero
contingent on the perceived goals and interests of the collective.
In the following, I review empirical studies to evaluate the
model. In order
to unambiguously assess the merits of the model and to avoid
confusion
with the effects of other concepts reflecting psychological
attachment, like
organisational commitment (Allen & Meyer, 1990; Mowday,
Steers, &
Porter, 1979) or dispositional group loyalty (James &
Cropanzano, 1994), or
with other conceptualisations of identification (e.g. O'Reilly &
Chatman,
1986), this review is limited to studies that explicitly focus on
identification
as defined in the social identity approach. Moreover, it is
limited to studies
that measured work motivation or performance and does not
address
studies of related attitudes or behaviour (e.g. Mael &
Ashforth's, 1992,
study of organisational identification and support for the
organisation; see
Haslam, in press, for a review of studies of the relationship of
identification
with a broader range of work attitudes and behaviour).
Where performance is concerned, a distinction is made between
`̀ task
performance'' and `̀ contextual performance''. Whereas task
performance
refers to performance on the job that `̀ you were hired to do'',

contextual
performance (cf. organisational citizenship behaviour; Organ,
1997) refers
to behaviour that supports the organisational, social, and
psychological
environment in which task performance takes place, like helping
others,
taking others' interests into consideration, and presenting a
positive image of
the organisation to outsiders (e.g. Borman & Motowidlo, 1993;
Moorman &
FIGURE 1. A social identity model of work motivation and
performance.
3
6
2
V
A
N
K
N
IP
P
E
N
B
E

R
G
#
In
tern
a
tio
n
a
l
A
sso
cia
tio
n
fo
r
A
p
p
lied
P
sy
ch
o
lo
g
y
,
2

0
0
0
.
Blakely, 1995; Organ, 1988). This distinction is of interest for
two reasons.
First, contextual performance may be assumed to be more under
volitional
control than task performance (Organ, 1988), because
behaviours like
helping others and taking others' interests into consideration are
generally
less contingent on skills, ability, resources, and so on, than task
perform-
ance. Moreover, contextual performance more or less by
definition refers to
behaviours that individuals are not required to perform, whereas
task
performance is part of job requirements. As a consequence, an
employee can
more easily refrain from contextual than from task behaviours.
Second, task
performance is more likely to benefit the self (e.g. in terms of
career
opportunities or bonuses) than contextual performance, and may
therefore
be less contingent on group-oriented motivations. These
considerations
suggest that the effects of identification may be more apparent
on con-
textual than on task performance. Moreover, contextual
performance may
benefit the task performance of the work unit as a whole

(Podsakoff,
Ahearne, & MacKenzie, 1997), even if it does not benefit the
task perform-
ance of the individual engaging in the contextual behaviours.
Even so, it
should be noted that although contextual performance may be in
the
collective's best interest, individuals need not perceive it as
such, and may
engage in contextual behaviours for other reasons than wanting
to contri-
bute to the collective interest (e.g. because they want to help a
friend). Thus,
the relationship between identification and contextual
performance may not
be straightforward either.
Identification andWork Motivation
To the author's knowledge, only one study has assessed the
relationship
between organisational identification and work motivation (van
Knippen-
berg & van Schie, in press). In a survey of work attitudes of the
employees of
a university, van Knippenberg and van Schie assessed work
motivation
(with Hackman & Lawler's, 1971, internal motivation scale) and
both work
group identification and organisational identification (with
Mael and Ash-
forth's, 1992, organisational identification questionnaire). In
addition, the
study included a measure of job involvement with items like `̀ I
am always
prepared to do my best'', which seems to come close to a

measure of work
motivation as defined here (i.e. as the willingness to exert effort
to perform
well). Work group identification was found to be related to
work motivation
(r = 0.30, P50.001) and both work group identification (r =
0.46,
P50.001) and organisational identification (r = 0.27, P50.01)
were related
to the job involvement measure. Although only a cross-sectional
study in
which all data were gathered with the same questionnaire, this
does
corroborate the proposition that identification may be associated
with the
motivation to exert effort on the job.
Identification andTask Performance
Evidence regarding the relationship between identification and
task
performance comes from a series of laboratory studies that all
used simple
tasks on which performance may be assumed to be highly
dependent on
effort and persistence rather than skills, knowledge, or ability.
Performance
on these tasks may thus be regarded as indicative of work
motivation.
Concerning the role of social identity salience and the

perception that high
performance is in the group's best interest, a study by James and
Greenberg
(1989) is especially relevant. James and Greenberg
experimentally manipu-
lated the salience of students' membership in their university by
presenting
half of the participants with cues that rendered their university
membership
salient (the university colours in the first experiment, reference
to the uni-
versity mascot in the second study). In addition, James and
Greenberg told
their participants that the performance of students from their
university
would be compared to the performance of students from another
university,
thus implicitly suggesting that high performance would be
beneficial to
the university's image (Experiment 1), or manipulated whether
such inter-
group comparison was implied or not (Experiment 2). Under
these different
experimental conditions, participants performed a simple
anagram task. As
predicted, participants in the high identification condition
solved more
anagrams, but only when intergroup comparison was salient.
James and
Greenberg did not assess identification, but Worchel,
Rothgerber, Day,
Hart, and Butemeyer (1998) included a measure of
identification in a study
that basically replicated the James and Greenberg study.
Worchel et al.
(Exp. 3) let participants work on an assembly task (making a

chain out of
strips of paper) either in the presence of another work group or
not and
either wearing group uniforms (same-colour lab coats) or not.
Individual
performance was higher when group members were wearing
group uniforms
(i.e. social identity was salient), but only when the other group
was present.
Moreover, mediation analysis indicated that the effects of the
experimental
manipulations were partly mediated by identification. Results of
these studies
support the proposition that identification results in increased
work motivation
and task performance, provided social identity is salient (see
also Pilegge &
Holtz, 1997), and high performance is seen as serving the
group's interests.
Evidence that identification may induce individuals to
experience the
group's interest as self-interest (i.e. social self-interest rather
than personal
self-interest) comes from a study by van Leeuwen and van
Knippenberg
(1999). Van Leeuwen and van Knippenberg investigated the
effects on
performance of work group identification, prosocial versus
proself value
orientations (an individual difference variable), and
expectations about
other group members' effort. Participants worked on a simple
group task
(putting sheets of paper in envelopes). Identification with the
work group

364 VAN KNIPPENBERG
and value orientations were measured and expectations about
other group
members' task effort were manipulated. Van Leeuwen and van
Knippenberg
predicted that identification would motivate group members to
exert effort
on the group task, especially for group members who were not
disposi-
tionally inclined to take others' interests into account (i.e.
individuals with
proself as compared with prosocial value orientations). Results
supported
these predictions. Performance (number of envelopes filled) was
higher
for participants who identified more with their work group, and
this effect
was stronger for group members with a proself rather than a
prosocial
orientation. Performance was also affected by expectations
about the effort
other group members would invest in the group task. Higher
expected effort
from others resulted in higher own performance, but more so for
partici-
pants with relatively low identification. High identifiers were
motivated
to perform more or less irrespective of the effort and
performance they
expected from their fellow group members. These results show

that identi-
fication is positively related to performance, even if it means
exerting effort
on behalf of the group while other group members are taking it
easy.
Moreover, and of more importance to the present discussion, the
fact that
identification was primarily related to performance of
individuals who
dispositionally focus on personal self-interest showed that
identification
may elicit the motivation to exert effort on behalf of the
collective because it
leads individuals to experience the collective's interests as self-
interest, albeit
social self-interest and not personal self-interest.
Identification and Contextual Performance
Only one study provides an empirical test of the relationship
between
identification as defined in the social identity approach and
contextual
performance (van Knippenberg & Sleebos, 1999). In a survey of
university
faculty, van Knippenberg and Sleebos measured identification
(using the
Mael & Ashforth scale), individualism±collectivism as an
individual differ-
ence variable (with Wagner & Moch's, 1986, measure), and
affective commit-
ment (with Allen & Meyer's, 1990, scale). Two weeks later they
assessed
self-reported contextual performance. This second survey
focused on two
dimensions: altruism, the helping of coworkers in their job

when needed,
and generalised compliance with norms defining `̀ what a good
employee
ought to do'' (Organ, 1988). Identification was found to be
positively related
to self-reports of both altruism and generalised compliance,
although for
generalised compliance this was only true for more individually
oriented as
compared with more collectively oriented employees.
The fact that identification was positively related to self-reports
of con-
textual performance obviously supports the social identity
analysis of moti-
vation and performance. It should, however, be noted that the
relationship
established in the van Knippenberg and Sleebos study is one
between
identification and self-reports of behaviour, and not between
identification
and actual performance (e.g. as in the previous section). Thus,
this relation-
ship still awaits a more conclusive test. The finding that the
relationship
between identification and (self-reported) contextual
performance was in
part moderated by individualism±collectivism is also highly
relevant to the

present discussion. Individualism±collectivism as an individual
difference
variable refers to a dimension that distinguishes individuals
who consider
their personal interests more important than the interests of the
group
(individualists) from individuals who are primarily focused on
the interests
of the group and would pursue group goals at the possible
expense of their
personal interests (collectivists). In other words, more
collectivistically oriented
individuals are dispositionally more inclined to exert effort on
behalf of
the group. Indeed, individualism±collectivism as an individual
difference
variable was found to be related to both task performance on
group tasks
(e.g. Wagner, 1995) and to contextual performance ratings
(Moorman
& Blakely, 1995). Analogous to van Leeuwen and van
Knippenberg's (1999)
reasoning concerning the interaction between identification and
social value
orientation, van Knippenberg and Sleebos argued that
individualism±
collectivism moderated the relationship between identification
and perform-
ance ratings, because identification leads individuals to
experience the
collective interest as self-interest (i.e. again, social rather than
personal self-
interest). This should affect individualists, who primarily focus
on self-
interest, to a greater extent than collectivists, for whom group
interest

generally prevails over personal interest.
Although not directly related to the social identity analysis of
motivation
and performance, one other finding from the van Knippenberg
and Sleebos
study is of interest here. Identification is conceptually similar to
the concept
of affective commitment, `̀ the employee's emotional attachment
to, identi-
fication with, and involvement in, the organisation'' (Allen &
Meyer, 1990,
p. 1; cf. Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979). In view of this
conceptual simi-
larity (especially the reference to identification), one may
wonder whether
identification as defined in the social identity approach is not
just a `̀ new
name for an old concept''. Addressing this issue, Ashforth and
Mael (1989)
argue that despite the apparent similarity, commitment and
identification
are different, because identification has a cognitive, self-
definitional com-
ponent (in addition to identification's affective component;
Karasawa, 1991;
Tajfel, 1978) that affective commitment has not (see also Pratt,
1998).
Corroborating this conceptual distinction, Mael (1988, in
Ashforth & Mael,
1989; Mael & Tetrick, 1992) showed that identification as
measured by
Mael and Ashforth's (1992) organisational identification
questionnaire is
empirically distinguishable from commitment measured with
Mowday

et al.'s (1979) Organisational Commitment Questionnaire.
Extending these
366 VAN KNIPPENBERG
findings, results from Confirmatory Factor Analysis in the van
Knippen-
berg and Sleebos study showed that identification is also
empirically dis-
tinguishable from commitment as assessed with Allen and
Meyer's (1990)
Affective Commitment Scale. The fit of a model with two
correlated factors
(w2 (76) = 125.71, P50.0001, NFI = 0.850, NNFI = 0.920, CFI
= 0.934)
was superior to that of a model with one single
identification/commitment
factor (w2 (77) = 162.25, P50.001, NFI = 0.807, NNFI = 0.865,
CFI =
0.886). Obviously, this is no proof that the difference between
the two lies
in the self-definitional aspect of identification, but it does show
that
identification and commitment are different concepts.
CONCLUSIONS
The number of studies of the relationship of identification with
motivation
and performance is as yet rather small, but these studies do
yield converging
evidence in support of the proposed social identity model of

motivation and
performance, and corroborate the conclusion that identification
is positively
related to work motivation, task performance, and contextual
performance
to the extent that (a) social identity is salient, and (b) high
performance is
perceived to be in the group's or organisation's interest. Even
so, some of
the relationships proposed by the model are not tested yet, only
implicated
by the results of the studies reviewed, or only established
correlationally
rather than experimentally. Therefore, more extensive testing of
the rela-
tions proposed in the model seems in order before more definite
conclusions
about the merits of the social identity approach to motivation
and perform-
ance may be drawn.
The relationship between social identity processes and
performance on
simple tasks (i.e. where performance is highly dependent on
motivation)
seems to be well established in the experimental research
reviewed. As
proposed in the model, but not addressed in the studies
reviewed here,
performance on more complex tasks (i.e. tasks on which
performance is less
contingent on motivation alone) may only be contingent on
social identity
processes to the extent that the individual possesses the
necessary skills,
knowledge, and so on, to render performance on the task

primarily an issue
of motivation. Yet, one may argue that especially on such tasks,
where
individuals may be more dependent on help, cooperation, and
information
from others, social identity processes may affect group
performance through
contextual performance (cf. Podsakoff et al., 1997) and
interpersonal co-
operation (cf. Kramer, 1991). The study of these more complex
relationships
would seem to be an obvious next step both from a theoretical
and from an
applied point of view.
Although the discussion has primarily focused on the positive
effect
identification may have on performance, there is a definite
potential for
social identity processes to result in lowered performance. Work
groups may
develop counter-productive norms, for instance as a result of a
conflict with
management (e.g. if the organisation is seen as exploitative,
nonproductivity
may be an obvious response) or because within the informal
network of the
work group doing as little as possible and getting away with it
is regarded as

an accomplishment. In such cases, increased identification and
increased
social identity salience may result in lowered productivity (note
that, in this
example, low productivity is undesirable from the organisation's
point of
view, but not from the point of view of the target of
identification, the work
group). In addition, for individuals who do not identify with the
group
or organisation, an emphasis on their group membership (which
would
enhance social identity salience) may actually elicit responses
aimed at
underscoring the individual's personal (i.e. as opposed to social)
identity
(van Prooijen & van Knippenberg, 2000) and thus engender
behaviour that
is incongruent with the implied social identity (e.g.
nonproductivity; see
Haslam, in press, for a more elaborate discussion of these
issues). Thus, it
would seem crucial for a proper understanding of the effects of
social
identity processes on motivation and performance not only to
study the
factors that affect organisational identifications and the salience
of organ-
isational identities, but also to study the factors that affect
perceptions of
the group's goals and interests.
Factors that affect organisational identification and identity
salience are
extensively discussed elsewhere (e.g. Ashforth & Mael, 1989;
Dutton et al.,

1994; Haslam, in press; Hogg & Terry, 2000; Pratt, 1998), and
although
factors that affect the extent to which high performance is
perceived to be in
the group's or organisation's interest have not received much
attention in
social identity research, they are addressed elsewhere (e.g. in
research on
organisational culture; cf. van Vianen, in press). A discussion
of these issues
is beyond the scope of the present study, and the conclusion of
the previous
paragraph is meant as a suggested agenda for research rather
than as an
issue to be resolved here. Even so, to conclude I may highlight
a factor that
may be especially relevant in this respect: group goal setting. A
large body of
evidence shows that setting clear and specific performance
goals has a
positive effect on the performance of individuals as well as
groups (Locke
& Latham, 1990; O'Leary-Kelly, Martocchio, & Frink, 1994). In
a recent
discussion of the effects of group goal setting, Wegge, in this
issue, argues
that setting group goals, especially setting group goals
participatively,
enhances social identity salience and increases group
identification. Because
group goal setting also provides a clear performance standard,
Wegge's
discussion implies that group goal setting may affect the three
variables
highlighted above: identification, identity salience, and group
goals. Thus,

group goal setting in particular may engender a social identity-
based
motivation to perform well. More definite conclusions about
this proposi-
368 VAN KNIPPENBERG
tion, and other propositions made here, will have to await the
results of
future research.
REFERENCES
Allen, N.J., & Meyer, J.P. (1990). The measurement and
antecedents of affective,
continuance and normative commitment to the organization.
Journal of Occu-
pational Psychology, 63, 1±18.
Ashforth, B.E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and
the organization.
Academy of Management Review, 14, 20±39.
Borman, W.C., & Motowidlo, S.J. (1993). Expanding the
criterion domain to include
elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt & W.C.
Borman (Eds.),
Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 71±98). New York:
Jossey-Bass.
Brown, R.J. (1978). Divided we fall: An analysis of relations

between sections of a
factory workforce. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation between
social groups: Studies in
the social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 395±429).
London: Academic Press.
Brown, R., Condor, S., Mathews, A., Wade, G., & Williams, J.
(1986). Explaining
intergroup differentiation in an industrial organization. Journal
of Occupational
Psychology, 59, 273±286.
Dutton, J.E., Dukerich, J.M., & Harquail, C.V. (1994).
Organizational images and
member identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39,
239±263.
Ely, R. (1994). The effects of organizational demographics and
social identity on rela-
tionships among professional women. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 39, 203±238.
Fajak, A., & Haslam, S.A. (1998). Gender solidarity in
hierarchical organizations.
British Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 73±94.
Hackman, J.R., & Lawler, E.E. (1971). Employee reactions to
job characteristics.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 55, 259±286.
Haslam, S.A. (in press). The psychology of organizations: A
social identity approach.
London & Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Haslam, S.A. (2000). Social identity, self-categorization and
work motivation:
Rethinking the contribution of the group to positive and
sustainable organiz-
ational outcomes. Applied Psychology: An International
Review.
Haslam, S.A., McGarty, C., Brown, P.M., Eggins, R.A.,
Morrison, B.E., &
Reynolds, K.J. (1998). Inspecting the emperor's clothes:
Evidence that random
selection of leaders can enhance group performance. Group
Dynamics: Theory,
Research, & Practice, 2, 168±184.
Hogg, M.A. (1993). Group cohesiveness: A critical review and
some new directions.
European Review of Social Psychology, 4, 85±111.
Hogg, M.A., & Abrams, D. (1988). Social identifications: A
social psychology of
intergroup relations and group processes. London: Routledge.
Hogg, M.A., Cooper-Shaw, L., & Holzworth, D.W. (1993).
Group prototypicality
and depersonalized attraction in small interactive groups.
Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 19, 452±465.
Hogg, M.A., Hains, S.C., & Mason, I. (1998). Identification and
leadership in small

groups: Salience, frame of reference, and leader stereotypicality
effects on leader
evaluations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75,
1248±1263.
Hogg, M.A., & Terry, D.J. (2000). Social identity and self-
categorization processes in
organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25,
121±140.
James, K., & Cropanzano, R. (1994). Dispositional group
loyalty and individual
action for the benefit of an ingroup: Experimental and
correlational evidence.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 60,
179±205.
James, K., & Greenberg, J. (1989). In-group salience,
intergroup comparison, and
individual performance and self-esteem. Personality and Social
Psychology
Bulletin, 15, 604±616.
Karasawa, M. (1991). Toward an assessment of social identity:
The structure of
group identification and its effects on in-group evaluations.
British Journal of
Social Psychology, 30, 293±307.

Kramer, R. (1991). Intergroup relations and organizational
dilemmas. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 13, 191±228.
Locke, E.A., & Latham, G.P. (1990). A theory of goal setting
and task performance.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
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.
Mael, F., & Ashforth, B.E. (1995). Loyal from day one:
Biodata, organizational
identification, and turnover among newcomers. Personnel
Mael, F.A., & Tetrick, L.E. (1992). Identifying organizational
identification.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52, 813±824.
Moorman, R.H., & Blakely, G.L. (1995). Individualism-
collectivism as an individual
difference predictor of organizational citizenship behavior.
Journal of Organiza-
tional Behavior, 16, 127±142.
Mowday, R.T., Steers, R.M., & Porter, L.W. (1979). The
measurement of organ-
izational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14,
224±247.

O'Leary-Kelly, A.M., Martocchio, J.J., & Frink, D.D. (1994). A
review of the
influence of group goals on group performance. Academy of
Management
Journal, 37, 1285±1301.
O'Reilly, C.A., & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational
commitment and psycholo-
gical attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and
internalization on
prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71,
492±499.
Organ, D.W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The
good soldier syndrome.
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Organ, D.W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It's
construct clean-up
time. Human Performance, 10, 85±97.
Pilegge, A.J., & Holtz, R. (1997). The effects of social identity
on the self-set goals
and task performance of high and low self-esteem individuals.
Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 70, 17±26.
Podsakoff, P.M., Ahearne, M., & MacKenzie, S.B. (1997).
Organizational citizen-
ship behavior and the quality and quantity of work group
performance. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 82, 262±270.

Pratt, M.G. (1998). To be or not to be? Central questions in
organizational
identification. In D.A. Whetten & P.C. Godfrey (Eds.), Identity
in organiz-
ations: Building theory through conversations (pp. 171±207).
Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
370 VAN KNIPPENBERG
Smith, E.R., & Henry, S. (1996). An in-group becomes part of
the self: Response
time evidence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22,
635±642.
Tajfel, H. (1978). Differentiation between social groups:
Studies in the social
psychology of intergroup relations. London: Academic Press.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J.C. (1986). The social identity theory of
intergroup behaviour.
In S. Worchel & W.G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup
relations (2nd edn.,
pp. 7±24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Terry, D.J., & Callan, V.J. (1998). In-group bias in response to
an organizational
merger. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 2,

67±81.
Tsui, A., Egan, T., & O'Reilly, C. (1992). Being different:
Relational demography
and organizational attachment. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 37, 549±579.
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, 2
(pp. 77±122). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Turner, J.C., Hogg, M.A., Oakes, P.J., Reicher, S.D., &
Wetherell, M.S. (1987).
Rediscovering the social group. A self-categorization theory.
Oxford: Blackwell.
van Knippenberg, D., & Sleebos, E. (1999). Identification,
commitment, and
individualism-collectivism: Their interrelations and relationship
with organiza-
tional citizenship behavior. Unpublished manuscript, University
of Amsterdam.
van Knippenberg, D., van Knippenberg, B., Monden, L., & de
Lima, F. (1999). A
social categorization perspective on mergers and acquisitions.
Unpublished
manuscript, University of Amsterdam.
van Knippenberg, D., & van Schie, E.C.M. (in press). Foci and
correlates of organ-
izational identification. Journal of Occupational and

Organizational Psychology.
van Leeuwen, E., & van Knippenberg, D. (1999). Social value
orientations and group
performance: The role of expectations of other group members'
effort. Un-
published manuscript, Leiden University.
van Prooijen, J.W., & van Knippenberg, D. (2000).
Individuation or depersonal-
ization: The influence of personal status position. Group
Processes & Intergroup
Relations, 3, 63-77.
van Vianen, A. (in press). Person-organization fit: The match
between newcomers'
and recruiters' preferences for organizational cultures.
Personnel Psychology.
Wagner, J.A. (1995). Studies of individualism-collectivism:
Effects on cooperation in
groups. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 152±172.
Wagner, J.A., & Moch, M.K. (1986). Individualism-
collectivism: Concept and
measure. Group and Organization Studies, 11, 280±304.
Worchel, S., Rothgerber, H., Day, E.A., Hart, D., & Butemeyer,
J. (1998). Social
identity and individual productivity within groups. British
Journal of Social

Top of Form
Implementation of the IOM Future of Nursing Report
1
Unsatisfactory
0.00%
2
Less than Satisfactory
75.00%
3
Satisfactory
79.00%
4
Good
89.00%
5
Excellent
100.00%
80.0 %Content
5.0 %Provided an original summary of the key messages of the
IOM report, Future of Nursing: Leading Change, Advancing
Health. Any specific references should be cited.
Did not attempt to provide a summary of the key messages of
the IOM report, Future of Nursing: Leading Change, Advancing
Health, or failed to cite specific references to the IOM report.
Provided a skeletal summary of the key messages of the IOM
report, Future of Nursing: Leading Change, Advancing Health.
Some of the specific references to the IOM report were cited or
were done incorrectly.
Demonstrates a moderate knowledge of the subject. Recognizes
the basic ideas. Misinterprets evidence on the committee's

initiative.
Demonstrates good knowledge of the subject. Correctly
describes the committee's initiative. Justifies some of the
impacts on the Future of Nursing.
Provided an original summary of the key messages of the IOM
report, Future of Nursing: Leading Change, Advancing Health.
References specific to the IOM report were properly cited.
15.0 %Identify the role of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
Initiative and the American Association of Retired Persons on
the Future of Nursing Campaign for Action and the State Based
Action Coalitions
Does not demonstrate knowledge of role. Fails to identify the
impact of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Initiative on the
Future of Nursing.
Demonstrates minimal knowledge of subject. Does not
adequately visualize or justify the work of the Committee of the
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Initiative on the Future of
Nursing.
the basic ideas. Misinterprets evidence on the committee's
initiative.
describes the committee's initiative. Justifies some of the
impacts on the Future of Nursing.
Demonstrates a full and deep knowledge of subject. Develops
and explains an informed position on the committee's initiative,
integrates and justifies the impact on the Future of Nursing
15.0 %Identify the importance of the IOM FON report related to
the nursing workforce
Does not demonstrate knowledge of the concept or its role. Fails
to identify the importance of the IOM FON report related to the
nursing workforce.
Demonstrates minimal knowledge of the subject. Does not
adequately visualize or justify the importance of the IOM FON

report related to the nursing workforce.
the basic ideas. Misinterprets evidence on the importance of the
IOM FON report related to the nursing workforce.
describes importance of the IOM FON report related to the
nursing workforce.
Demonstrates a full and deep knowledge of the subject.
Develops and explains the importance of the IOM FON report,
integrates and justifies the importance of the IOM FON report
related to the nursing workforce.
15.0 %Discuss the intent of the Future of Nursing Campaign for
Action
to identify the intent of the Future of Nursing Campaign for
Action.
adequately visualize or identify the intent of the Future of
Nursing Campaign for Action.
the basic ideas. Misinterprets evidence on the intent of the
Future of Nursing Campaign for Action.
describes the intent of the Future of Nursing Campaign for
Action.
Develops and explains the intent of the Future of Nursing
Campaign for Action, integrates and justifies the intent of the
Future of Nursing Campaign for Action.
15.0 %Identify the rationale of state-based action coalitions
to identify the rationale of state-based action coalitions.
adequately identify the rationale of state-based action

coalitions.
the basic ideas. Misinterprets evidence on the rationale of state-
based action coalitions.
identifies the rationale of state-based action coalitions.
Develops and explains and identifies the rationale of state-based
action coalitions and justifies a rationale for state-based action
coalitions.
15.0 %Discuss one state-based action coalition and two
initiatives
to identify one state-based action coalition and two initiatives.
adequately identify one state-based action coalition and two
initiatives.
the basic ideas. Identifies but misinterprets one state-based
action coalition and two initiatives.
identifies one state-based action coalition and two initiatives.
Develops and explains the one state-based action coalition and
two initiatives, integrates and justifies one state-based action
coalition and two initiatives.
15.0 %Organization and Effectiveness
5.0 %Thesis Development and Purpose
Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.
Thesis and/or main claim are insufficiently developed and/or
vague; purpose is not clear.
Thesis and/or main claim are apparent and appropriate to
purpose.

Thesis and/or main claim are clear and forecast the development
of the paper. Is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and
appropriate to purpose.
Thesis and/or main claim are comprehensive; contained within
the thesis is the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes
the purpose of the paper clear.
5.0 %Paragraph Development and Transitions
Paragraphs and transitions consistently lack unity and
coherence. No apparent connections between paragraphs are
established. Transitions are inappropriate to purpose and scope.
Organization is disjointed.
Some paragraphs and transitions may lack logical progression of
ideas, unity, coherence, and/or cohesiveness.Some degree of
organization is evident.
Paragraphs are generally competent, but ideas may show some
inconsistency in organization and/or in their relationships to
each other.
A logical progression of ideas between paragraphs is apparent.
Paragraphs exhibit a unity, coherence, and cohesiveness. Topic
sentences and concluding remarks are appropriate to purpose.
There is a sophisticated construction of paragraphs and
transitions. Ideas progress and relate to each other. Paragraph
and transition construction guide the reader. Paragraph structure
is seamless.
5.0 %Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation,
grammar, language use)
Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede
communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice and/or
sentence construction are used.
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader.

Inconsistencies in language choice (register), sentence
structure, and/or word choice are present.
Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but are not overly
distracting to the reader. Correct sentence structure and
audience-appropriate language are used.
Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may
be present. A variety of sentence structures and effective
figures of speech are used.
Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic
English.
5.0 %Format
2.0 %Paper Format (1- inch margins;12-point-font;double-
spaced;Times New Roman, Arial, or Courier)
Template is not used appropriately or documentation format is
rarely followed correctly.
Template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken;
lack of control with formatting is apparent.
Template is used, and formatting is correct, although some
minor errors may be present.
Template is fully used; There are virtually no errors in
formatting style.
All format elements are correct.
3.0 %Research Citations (In-text citations for paraphrasing and
direct quotes, and reference page listing and formatting, as
appropriate to assignment)
No reference page is included. No citations are used.
Reference page is present. Citations are inconsistently used.
Reference page is included and lists sources used in the paper.
Sources are appropriately documented, although some errors
may be present.
Reference page is present and fully inclusive of all cited
sources. Documentation is appropriate and GCU style is usually
correct.

In-text citations and a reference page are complete. The
documentation of cited sources is free of error.
100 %Total Weightage
Bottom of Form
Identity
The term identity implies a construct that gives the self a
meaning or purpose. Weigert, Teitge, and Teitge (1986) gave
another brief definition: "identity is a definition that transforms
a mere biological individual into a human person" (p. 31). To
explicate further, identity is how people define themselves via
many different expressions such as autobiographical memories
(personal identity) and identification with groups (social
identity). Social and personal identity are not completely
separable but overlap and interact with one another very closely
to guide a person's perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors as well
as form a general identity. See the figure below.
We will briefly explore the concept of personal identity before
returning to the main concept of social identity.
Personal Identity
Mayer, Greenbaum, Kuenzi, and Shteynberg (2009) state
"personal identity consists of moral sensibility and conscience,
and also a desire for achievement, mastery, and competence."
Personal identity is the combination of objective biosocial
markers such as age, race, sex, and so on, and the personal life
history of the individual (Brewer & Gardner, 1996; Weigert et

al., 1986). These factors are often considered part of social
identity as well because they place the individual into a group.
That said, they involve attributes of individuals (even if they
are shared within groups characterized by values of those
markers), so the biosocial markers also create a personal
identity. Personal identity is those aspects of the self that are
unique to the individual and are used to define the individual
(Brewer & Gardner, 1996).
Social Identity
The most widely accepted definition of social identity comes
from Tajfel (1981): "that part of an individual's self-concept
which derives from his [sic] knowledge of his membership in a
social group (or groups) together with the value and emotional
significance attached with that membership" (p. 255).
According to Tajfel, social identity has three components:
· Self-categorization: Belief of group membership
· Group self-esteem: Importance of group membership to one's
self-concept
· Group commitment: Desire for group membership
Therefore, Tajfel (1981) theorizes that it is not enough to
belong to an organization; a person needs to feel connected to
the group, and some sort of social-esteem must also be derived
from that group membership. When a person categorizes
her/himself as part of the group, feels committed to the group,
and gains some esteem from the group, then that group has
become the person's in-group. All other groups are potential
rivals/competitors for resources and are known as out-groups.
Identity, Threat, and Behavior
There is convincing evidence that under certain conditions, such
as various types of group membership and threat conditions, one
of the major components of identity is likely to emerge as the
primary determinant of behavior (Ellemers et al., 2002; Nario-
Redmond, Biernat, Eidelman, & Palenske, 2004). For example,
it has been demonstrated that under threat to a high-status
group, the behavior of a group member is likely to be
determined by her/his social identity (Ellemers et al., 2002;

Haslam, O'Brien, & Jetten, Vormedal, & Penna, 2005). In
contrast, while under personal threat, the same person's personal
identity is likely to emerge as the primary determinant of
behavior (Ellemers et al., 2002; Nario-Redmond et al., 2004).
See the table below.
Threat and Behavioral Determinants
THREATENED ENTITIES PRIMARY BEHAVIORAL
DETERMINANTS SECONDARY BEHAVIORAL
DETERMINANTS
Person Personal identity General identity, social identity
High-status in-group Social identity General identity,
personal identity
Group Status and Self-Esteem
Social identity theory explains a person's behavior in a group
using that person's status within the group as a social
comparison. Every group has a certain amount of social status
attached to its membership (Morton, Postmes, Haslam, &
Hornsey, 2009; Tajfel & Turner, 1979, 1986), which gives it
value for the individual who is a member of that particular
group. Individual group members use the status from their group
membership to gain and maintain self-esteem (Derks, van Laar,
& Ellemers, 2009; Morton, Postmes, Haslam, & Hornsey, 2009).
Status provides self-esteem for group members because it
fulfills the need for a positive social identity (Hogg, 1992;
Hogg & Abrams, 1988; 1990; 1993). The motivations to
enhance self-esteem and gain status cause individuals to behave
in ways that maintain the group and their membership in the
group (Derks, van Laar, & Ellemers, 2009; Hogg & Abrams,
1990; Morton, Postmes, Haslam, & Hornsey, 2009). The better
one's own group looks in comparison to other groups, the more
status the group gains, and the more self-esteem it can provide
for its members (Morton, Postmes, Haslam, & Hornsey, 2009;
Tajfel & Turner, 1979, 1986). See the figure below.
Self-esteem is not necessarily the mechanism by which a
positive social identity is achieved. Status itself can also be

enough to trigger a positive social identity. In this case,
individuals seek to join a high-status group to improve their
own social identity in general rather than to improve their self-
esteem per se (Bettencourt, Dorr, Charlton, & Hume, 2001). But
in either case the motivation is a positive social identity from
which the person gains benefits (e.g. self-esteem, higher status,
possibly power or wealth) through self-identification with the
high-status group. The benefits of social identity have recently
been demonstrated by Peeters and Oerlemans (2009) who
studied two different organizations and found that those with
strong social identification with their organization had greater
feelings of well-being than those with weaker social
identification.
In summary, social identity theory proposes that self-esteem and
status are the main reasons that social identity motivates
individuals. But remember that a person must also first describe
her/himself as part of the group (self-categorization) as well as
want to be a part of the group (commitment).
Organizational Applications
Application of social identity theory in organizations is still
relatively new (since about the turn of the century). However,
because of the success of the theory and the large amounts of
empirical evidence, several books have been written (e.g.
Haslam, 2004; Hogg & Terry, 2001) that not only synthesize the
vast amount of research but also provide many useful tips on
how to manage certain aspects of organizations.
The theory has been applied in many different areas of
organizations, and it has been used to not only explain why
some groups are motivated to experience conflict with groups
within their own organization but also why their organization
may experience conflict with other organizations. It has also
been used to resolve those conflicts or avoid them altogether.
Specifically, it has been used to manage group relationships
with regards to the following: majority-minority relations,
corporate mergers, people with multiple roles in an
organization, workgroup socialization, power usage, and

leadership, as well as others. Experienced success of
organizations in motivating their people through those often
difficult tasks reflects the relative easiness of implementation of
the theory's basic components as described in Tajfel's
definition. For instance, during a corporate merger where both
organizations have strong corporate identities, leadership in
organizations with knowledge of this theory will know that
there will be a great resistance to the merger as neither
organization will want to give up its social identity. As such,
they may want to proceed slowly with the merger and work on
creating a shared identity before an official merger occurs so
that all involved will be motivated to join the new group. See
the figure below. You may have noticed that when corporations
merge, a new name may be chosen for the new combined
organization.

Work Motivation and Performance A SocialIdentity Perspectiv.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Work Motivation and Performance A SocialIdentity Perspectiv.docx

Similar to Work Motivation and Performance A SocialIdentity Perspectiv.docx (20)

More from ambersalomon88660

More from ambersalomon88660 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Work Motivation and Performance A SocialIdentity Perspectiv.docx