Generalizing Newcomers' Relational and Organizational Identifications: Processes and Prototypicality

® Academy of Management Journal2012, Vol. 55, No. 4, 949-975.http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0420

GENERALIZING NEWCOMERS' RELATIONALAND ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTIFICATIONS:

PROCESSES AND PROTOTYPICALITY

DAVID M. SLUSSGeorgia Institute of Technology

ROBERT E. PLOYHARTUniversity of South Carolina

M. GLENN COBBU.S. Army Research Institute

BLAKE E. ASHFORTHArizona State Universify

A recent theoretical proposal is that relational identification generalizes to organiza-tional identification through affective, cognitive, and behavioral mediating mecha-nisms. The generalization process is strengthened when a relational other is prototyp-ical—that is, is seen as promoting core organizational values. We investigate thesepropositions via two field studies. First, we find, via temporally lagged data fi-om 186newcomers to the telemarketing industry, that relational identification with a super-visor generalizes to organizational identification through affective (i.e., affect transfer),cognitive (i.e., social influence), and behavioral (i.e., behavioral "sensemaking") me-diating mechanisms. Second, we find, via temporally lagged data fi-om 1,101 newcom-ers to the U.S. Army, that a newcomer's relational identification with his/her super-visor generalizes to the newcomer's organizational identification, but only when thesupervisor is perceived to be prototypical. Our combined findings suggest that (1)multiple identifications are more integrative than exclusive and (2) organizationalmembership may be more personalized and relational than previously assumed inextant research.

Theory and research on newcomer socializationdescribe how a newcomer "becomes" an adjusted,integrated, and accepted member of a new organi-zation (Ashforth, Sluss, & Harrison, 2007a; Bauer,Bodner, Erdogan, Truxillo, & Tucker, 2007; VanMaanen & Schein, 1979). Inherent in the process ofbecoming is the process of identification (Ashforth

The authors thank Associate Editor Michael Pratt andthree anonymous reviewers for their constructive com-ments. The authors also thank Peter Hom and Anne Tsuifor their comments on a draft of Study 1. Study 1 waspresented at the 2006 Academy of Management meetingssupported (in part) by the State Farm Gompanies Foun-dation Dissertation Award. The first author deeply ap-preciates data collection support from the AmericanTeleservices Association. The views expressed are thoseof the authors and do not necessarily represent the offi-cial policy or position of the Department of Defense, theU.S. Army, or the U.S. Army Research Institute.

Editor's note: The manuscript for this article was ac-cepted for publication during the term of AMfs formereditor-in-chief, R. Duane Ireland.

& Mael, 1989). In short, newcomers must answer aquintessential (and, at times, existential) question:"Who am I (now)?" Newcomers, therefore, strive todefine themselves within their new organizationalsettings to facilitate adjustment (Ashforth & Mael,1989; Pratt, 1998).

According to recent advancements in social iden-tity theory, common referents for this process ofself-definition include (1) a newcomer's employingorganization (organizational identification) and (2)the newcomer's immediate supervisor (relationalidentification [Sluss & Ashforth, 2007, 2008]). Or-ganizational identification has drawn the bulk ofscholarly attention, which has only recently fo-cused on relational identification (Brickson, 2000;Flynn, 2005; Sluss & Ashforth, 2007, 2008). Re-search, as a result, has clearly shown that organi-zational identification impacts a wide range of pos-itive attitudes and behaviors (e.g., less absenteeism,less turnover, more proactive learning, more satis-faction, more organizationally beneficial behaviors[Ashforth, Harrison, & Corley, 2008; Pratt, 1998,

949

Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not he copied, emaOed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder's expresswritten permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.

950 Academy of Management Journal August

2000; Riketta, 2005; van Dick, 2004]). In an effort topredict organizational identification, scholarlywork has focused on (1) organizational practicesthat increase identification both during and aftersocialization, such as collective and formalized ori-entation programs (Ashforth & Saks, 1996; Ash-forth, Sluss, & Saks, 2007b; Atzori, Lombardi, Frac-caroli, Battistelli, & Zaniboni, 2008; BuUis & Bach,1989) and (2) organizational properties such as per-ceived prestige and attractiveness (Bartels, Pruyn,de Jong, & Joustra, 2007; Dukerich, Golden, & Shor-tell, 2002; Mael & Ashforth, 1992; Riketta, 2005).

Although organizational practices and propertiesprovide insight into the process of identification,research has largely overlooked the influence ofrelational context—especially relational identifica-tion with a supervisor (Sluss & Ashforth, 2007).Research has demonstrated that his/her supervi-sory relationship serves a formative and facultativefunction in a newcomer's organizational experi-ence (Bauer & Green, 1994; Gersick, Bartunek, &Dutton, 2000; Kammeyer-Mueller & Wanberg,2003; Major, Kozlowski, Chao, & Gardner, 1995).However, surprisingly little is known about howand under what conditions identification with his/her supervisory relationship influences a newcom-er's organizational identification (cf. Pratt, 2000;Sias, 2009). In two separate studies, we investigatethe dynamics through which newcomers' relationalidentification generalizes (or spills over) to thenewcomers' organizational identification. First, weinvestigate the affective, cognitive, and behavioralmechanisms (i.e., how) by which relational identi-fication generalizes to, organizational identifica-tion. Second, in a separate study, we investigatehow a newcomer's supervisor's prototypicality be-comes a key moderator (i.e., condition) in general-izing relational identification to organizationalidentification. Taken together, these two studiescontribute significantly to understanding of hownewcomers define themselves in their organiza-tional contexts as well as demonstrating that mul-tiple identifications may be more cooperative thancompetitive.

Investigating how and under what conditions re-lational identification generalizes to organizationalidentification is important for three major reasons.First, our studies advance theory on multiple iden-tifications in organizational settings by modeling amore parsimonious and holistic process than cur-rent research supposes. Social identity theory indi-cates that individuals interact with others of thesame or different groups on the basis of a deperson-alized understanding of these relational otherswhen the social identity of groups is salient (Hogg,2006; Tajfel & Turner, 1986). For example, social

identity theory would predict that a newcomer willbase interaction with his/her supervisor upon asomewhat faceless (i.e., depersonalized) under-standing of the supervisor rather than a nuancedpicture of him/her as an individual (cf. Hogg, Mar-tin, Epitropaki, Mankad, Svensson, & Weeden,2005; Hogg & Terry, 2000). Similarly, social iden-tity theory would predict that a newcomer is notlikely to transfer personalized and/or idiosyncraticsupervisory attributes to the newcomer's generalunderstanding of an organization. In short, socialidentity theory, as well as recent advances in re-search on levels of self (Brewer & Gardner, 1996;Cooper & Thatcher, 2010), does not entertain thepossibility for identification with a personalizedrelationship to influence or "talk to" identificationwith a more depersonalized collective. As a result,most research on multiple identifications has fo-cused on comparing the strength of identificationacross various referents, often with the apparentassumption that increasing identification with onereferent is associated with a decrease in identifica-tion with another (e.g., Johnson, Morgeson, Ilgen,Meyer, & Lloyd, 2006; Riketta & van Dick, 2005; cf.Hekman, Bigley, Steensma, & Hereford, 2009; Hek-man, Steensma, Bigley, & Hereford, 2009). Testingthe generalization process of relational and organ-izational identifications will provide essential evi-dence on the processes by and conditions underwhich personalization informs (and possiblymutes) depersonalization. In addition, our studiesmay help show that multiple identifications cancooperate with each other rather than conflict andcompete.

Second, the influence of a newcomer's supervi-sor on his/her identification, and therefore adjust-ment, may be the dark horse of the socializationprocess (cf. Kammeyer-Mueller & Wanberg, 2003).Scholars can "ill afford to ignore the role of thesupervising manager during the adjustment pro-cess" (Bauer & Green, 1998: 82). Indeed, research-ers loiow that, via mentoring and other supportivebehaviors, high-quality supervisory relationshipsinfluence job satisfaction and task accommodationduring newcomer adjustment (Bauer & Green,1994,1998; Green & Bauer, 1995). Nevertheless, thebulk of research on socialization and social identi-fication in organizations relies heavily on organiza-tion-wide structures, processes, or variables (e.g.,orientation programs, on-the-joh training, organiza-tional prestige) as the main mechanisms for theo-retically explaining and empirically predictingnewcomer attachment. As a result, research haslargely overlooked the sway that a newcomer's im-mediate supervisor has on the newcomer's nascentidentification with a new organization. In addition.

2012 Sluss, Ployhart, Gobb, and Ashforth 951

the supervisor's sway may only hold under certainconditions. Supervisors are traditionally assumedto (1) embody or personify the organization forsubordinates (e.g., Ashforth & Rogers, in press;Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986;Eisenberger et al., 2010), (2) create idiosyncraticrelationships with subordinates (e.g., Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Sluss & Ashforth, 2007), and (3) posi-tively portray their organization's goals, values,and norms as well as the attached roles (e.g.. Gash-man, Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1976; cf. Stryker &Burke, 2000). Though employing the first two as-sumptions, we challenge the third. Our secondstudy relaxes the assumption that supervisors arealways exemplary—that is, prototypical—and a"natural source for teaching appropriate organiza-tional values to subordinates" (Lord & Brown,2001: 148) as well as always "talking up" theirorganization (e.g., Jackall, 1988).

Third, an assumption in the social identitymodel of leadership (e.g., Hogg, 2001; van Knip-penberg & Hogg, 2003) is that leaders are morelikely to be endorsed and seen as effective if theyare prototypical of the group they lead (e.g., Giess-ner & van Knippenberg, 2008; Hirst, van Dick, &van Knippenberg, 2009; van Dijke & De Cremer,2008; van Knippenberg & van Knippenberg, 2005).However, theory states that these mechanisms onlywork when followers or subordinates identifystrongly with the collective —an assumption that isnot always satisfied. We contend that newcomersare in the process of identifying (or not) with theirorganization (Ashforth et al., 2008), and supervi-sors' prototypicality may "make or break" this nas-cent organizational identification (cf. Giessner &van Knippenberg, 2008; Sluss & Ashforth, 2008;van Knippenberg & van Knippenberg, 2005). Thus,we extend the social identity model of leadershipby applying it to the newcomer context in whichprototypicality plays an important role as the con-dition under which identification takes place—namely, how a new organization member movesfrom identifying with a personalized supervisoryrelationship to identifying with the more or lessdepersonalized organization.

THEORY AND HYPOTHESES

Building upon work in social psychology (e.g..Brewer & Gardner, 1996), Sluss and Ashforth (2007,2008) proposed that relational identification maygeneralize to organizational identification. Morespecifically, given that identification involves the"whole person" via affect, cognition, and behavior,it is proposed to converge across referents (in ourcase, supervisory relationship and organization)

via affective, cognitive, and behavioral mediatingmechanisms. Generalizing relational to organiza-tional identification also is somewhat condition-al—especially when the relational other (in ourcase, a newcomer's supervisor) is perceived as pro-totypical or, in other words, "a typical and exem-plary representative of the collective" (Sluss & Ash-forth, 2008: 816; Bullis & Bach, 1989). Althoughprototypicality has been operationalized or experi-mentally manipulated via a wide range of variables(e.g., demographic characteristics, personalitytraits, past work experience), we focus on behaviorsthat promote core organizational values (cf. vanKnippenberg & Hogg, 2003). In this section, wereview the conceptualization and mechanisms ofrelational and organizational identification. Next,we build on basic generalization principles fromapplied psychology to hypothesize how identifica-tion generalization occurs via affect transfer, socialinfluence, and behavioral "sensemaking"—that is,via affective, cognitive, and behavioral mecha-nisms. Then, after reporting the results of Study 1,we test the hypothesis in Study 2 that a supervi-sor's prototypicality moderates the generalizationprocess between relational identification and organ-izational identification. For an overview of ourmodel, please see Figure 1.

Relational and Organizational Identification

Organizational scholars argue that supervisoryrelationships (as well as other salient role relation-ships) are essential to how individuals definethemselves at work (Brickson, 2000; Cooper &Thatcher, 2010; Flynn, 2005; Sluss & Ashforth,2007; also see work in social psychology [e.g., Aron& Aron, 2000; Brewer & Gardner, 1996]). In short, anewcomer's immediate supervisor is an important"looking glass" into the newcomer's organization(Ashforth et al., 2007a; cf. Mead, 1934; Stryker &Burke, 2000). The newcomer's relationship withhis/or supervisor—the supervisory relationship—becomes, as such, a high-value target or referent forrelational identification—that is, "the (partial) def-inition of oneself in terms of a given relationship"(Sluss & Ashforth, 2007: 15). A newcomer is likelyto include his/her supervisory relationship in his/her self-concept to the extent that it positively ful-fills both task and psychosocial needs (cf. Aron &Aron, 2000). The attractiveness of the supervisoryrelationship to the newcomer is therefore likelyinfluenced by the perceived valence of the super-visor's role vis-à-vis the newcomer (e.g., assigningtasks, providing feedback) and by the manner inwhich the supervisor enacts the role (e.g., courte-ously, fairly, competently). The attractiveness of

952 Academy of Management foumal August

FIGURE 1Identification Convergence: Mediation and Moderation

Study 1 : Mediation

Newcomer'sRelation Identification

(with Supervisor)

Study 2: Moderation

Newcomer's OrganizationalIdentification (Baseline)

Time 0

Affect Transfer

Supervisor'sPrototypicality

Time 1

Newcomer ' s- • { Organizat ional

Identification

Time 2

the supervisory relationship and the subsequentrelational identification provides salutary benefitssuch as self-enhancement (cf. Dutton, Dukerich, &Harquail, 1994), a sense of connection and belong-ing (Baumeister & Leary, 1995), self-expansion(Aron & Aron, 2000), and self-consistency (see alsoCooper & Thatcher, 2010; Swann, 1987). As a re-sult, relational identification likely promotes posi-tive attitudes and behaviors targeted at the relation-ship such as empathy, liking, cooperation, andhelping. In addition, relational identification mayspawn positive attitudes and behaviors towardother referents that are connected with the relation-ship (as indicated by, for example, organizationalcitizenship behaviors, job satisfaction, and inten-tions to stay). Effectively, the newcomer experi-ences the connected referents "as an extension ofthe role-relationship" (Sluss & Ashforth, 2007:18)—with one key referent being the organization.

A critical determinant of newcomer adjustmentis organizational identification, generally definedas "the perception of oneness with or belonging-ness to" the organization wherein the organization

becomes a part, at least at work, of who the personis—(i.e., self-defining) (Ashforth & Mael, 1989: 21;Patchen, 1970). Organizational identification is of-ten confused with organizational commitment. Or-ganizational commitment refers to a person's posi-tive attitude toward his/her organization, whereinthe person's sense of self and organization remainseparate entities; conversely, organizational identi-fication refers to the intertwining of self with whatdefines one's organization (Ashforth et al., 2008;Pratt, 1998). As a result, organization commitmentcan be more readily transferred to other organiza-tions that promote similarly positive attitudes,whereas organizational identification is necessarilyorganization-specific, so that leaving a particularorganization prompts a visceral sense of personalloss (Ashforth, 2001). Pratt (1998) argued that iden-tification occurs via either affinity, in which a per-son recognizes similarities between self and organ-ization, or emulation, in which the person changesto become more similar to the organization. Orga-nizational identification has been argued to addressnumerous psychological motives, particularly for


self-enhancement, belonging, and uncertainty re-duction (e.g., Hogg & Terry, 2000; Pratt, 1998).

Generalizing Relational Identification toOrganizational Identification

Following Sluss and Ashforth (2008), we arguethat relational identification may spill over to or-ganizational identification via the principle of gen-eralization from applied psychology. Specifically,generalization occurs when attitudes toward twosimilar referents tend to mutually spill over (e.g..Till & Priluck, 2000). "Generalization between tworeferents relies on them resembling each other. Re-semblance does not necessarily mean that the twostimuli look, feel, or are the same. Instead, resem-blance refers to the two stimuli being tied orprimed together" (Sluss & Ashforth, 2008: 811).

Importantly, this means that, for generalizationof identifications to occur, our two referents—anewcomer's supervisory relationship and employ-ing organization—need only to be tied together insome psychologically meaningful way. Newcomersrely heavily on others for information about whatthe organization is, how it operates, and where theyfit in (Chao, 1997; Morrison, 1993). The supervisoris generally perceived as a credible and appropriate"agent" of the organization (e.g., Eisenberger et al.,1986); indeed, as noted, the supervisor may evenpersonify the organization for newcomers (e.g.,Ashforth & Rogers, in press; Eisenberger et al.,2010). Further, the supervisory relationship islikely to be psychologically connected to the organ-ization given that the organization serves as the"home" for the relationship and the supervisoryrelationship's goals support the goals of the organ-ization (Katz & Kahn, 1978). For example, the su-pervisory relationship holds the keys to projectallocation, reward distribution, and job training(e.g., Chen, Tsui, & Farh, 2002). In addition, theorganization (especially for the newcomer) is stillsomewhat abstract, consisting mainly of generalimpressions (Ashforth & Johnson, 2001). The su-pervisor—a psychologically connected agent of theorganization—should serve then as a type of win-dow into the organization's more localized context.Given these perceived links between the supervi-sory relationship and the organization, identifica-tion with the former may therefore generalize toidentification with the latter. Thus:

Hypothesis 1. A newcomer's relational iden-tification with his or her supervisor is posi-tively related to the newcomer's organiza-tional identification.

Generalizing Relational to OrganizationalIdentification: Mediating Mechanisms

How, specifically, does relational identificationgeneralize to organizational identification? Har-quail (1998) noted that identification involves the"whole person"—affect, cognition, and behavior.Ashforth's (2001) "ABC" (affect/behavior/cogni-tion) model of identification further indicates thatone can "feel," "act," or "think" one's way intoidentification (2001: 209-215). This tripartite for-mulation is consistent with Sluss and Ashforth's(2008) argument that identification generalizesacross referents through affective, behavioral, andcognitive mediators: (1) affect transfer (affect), (2)social influence (cognition), and (3) behavioral sense-making (behavior). Sluss and Ashforth proposed anadditional cognitive mechanism, anthropomor-phization (i.e., "ascribing relational qualities to thecollective" [2008: 813]). Although affect transfer,social influence, and behavioral sensemaking canoccur within a nascent supervisory relationship,anthropormorphization implies a more establishedrelationship. Because this assumption is question-able for newcomers (the focus of our studies), wehave not included anthropomorphization. In Study1, we assume that supervisory relationship and or-ganization are more or less equally interconnectedfor all newcomer-supervisor relationships. We re-lax this assumption in Study 2 and test how asupervisor's prototypicality (i.e., being an exemplarof the organization through promoting its values)moderates the association between relational andorganizational identification.

Affective mediator: Affect transfer. Affect is animportant underlying construct within newcomeradjustment (Ashforth & Saks, 2002; see also Brief,1998; Louis, 1980). A newcomer experiences boththe affective ups and downs of learning about andadjusting to a new organization as well as his or herplace in it. Similarly, the process of identificationentails a strong affective component wherein themagnitude of identification with a target is tiedfairly strongly to how one feels about that target(see Ashforth et al.'s [2008] review).

Extending findings from marketing (Kim, Allen,& Kardes, 1996) and personal relationships (Bance,1999), Sluss and Ashforth proposed that the "affectgenerated from identifying with a role relationshipmay directly and unconsciously transfer to the or-ganization and vice versa" (2008: 814). In otherwords, a newcomer's identification with his/hersupervisory relationship naturally increases thepositive affect felt toward the supervisory relation-ship (Sluss & Ashforth, 2007). And given that thesupervisory relationship and the organization are


"primed" together for the newcomer, relationalidentification should simultaneously increase pos-itive affect felt toward the organization—hence, thesomewhat unconscious transfer of affect from therelationship to the organization. Tbe positive affectfelt toward the organization tben provides a posi-tive entrée to identifying with the organization(Harquail, 1998; Harris & Cameron, 2005). In sum,the newcomer's relational identification with thesupervisor, via affect transfer, increases positiveaffect felt toward the organization which, in turn,increases the newcomer's propensity to identifywith the organization. Hence:

Hypothesis 2. Affect transfer partially medi-ates the relationship between a newcomer'srelational identification with his or her su-pervisor and the newcomer's organizationalidentification.

Cognitive mediator: Social influence. The no-tion that individuals' opinions are susceptible toand infiuenced by others' opinions pervades soci-ological, psychological, and organizational theo-ries. Indeed, Mead (1934) argued, in his theory ofsymbolic interactionism, that important relationalothers deeply influence a focal individual's self-concept. Similarly, social comparison theory(Festinger, 1954) and social information process-ing theory (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978) propose thatothers' opinions sway how individuals form theirown opinions—particularly in new situations orcontexts.

Following these theoretical threads, we arguethat a newcomer's relational identification withhis/her supervisor will open a conduit for the su-pervisor to socially influence the newcomer's opin-ions about the organization, and, as a result, thenewcomer's self-concept (and what is includedtherein). Relational identification "tends to in-crease the value of the norms, opinions, goals, andinformation stemming from the [newcomer—su-pervisor] relationship" (Sluss & Ashforth, 2008:812). Beyer and Hannah (2002) found that, even forengineers with industry experience, supervisorsare "centrally located" as organizational represen-tatives and become a key source for opinions aboutthe engineers' new organizations. In addition, anewcomer's supervisor is generally expected tocast their organization in a positive light (Jackall,1988), which should increase its perceived attractive-ness and provide a cognitive anchor within the new-comer's self-concept. Taking these arguments to-gether, we expect that a newcomer's identificationwith the supervisory relationship will tend to in-crease the intensity with which the newcomer paysattention to the supervisor's opinions about their or-

ganization (i.e., social influence) and, assvuning thatthe supervisor positively portrays the organization,this social influence will tend to increase organiza-tional identification. Thus:

Hypothesis 3. Social influence (from a new-comer's supervisor) partially mediates the re-lationship between the newcomer's relationalidentification with the supervisor and the new-comer's organizational identification.

Behavioral mediator: Behavioral sensemaking.To this point, we have focused on how newcomers"feel" (i.e., via affect transfer) or "think" (i.e., viasocial influence) their way from relational identifi-cation to organizational identification. We now fo-cus on how newcomers "behave" their way to or-ganizational identification.

A basic tenet of arguments concerning socialidentification processes is that individuals whoidentify with a target will behave in ways thatbenefit that target (cf. Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Asnoted, abundant empirical evidence demonstratesthat organizational identification tends to be posi-tively correlated with organizationally beneficialbehaviors (e.g., extra-role performance, cooperation(Riketta, 2005; Riketta & van Dick, 2005). Similarly,relational identification is argued to engender be-haviors that benefit tbe targeted role relationship—such as interpersonal helping, relational rule fol-lowing, and the like (cf. Blader & Tyler, 2009; Sluss& Ashforth, 2007). That said, the relationship be-tween identification and behavior "is complex andprobably reciprocal" (Burke & Reitzes, 1981: 83).We argue, as did Ashforth and colleagues, that "be-haviors are very important for the self- and social-construction of identification such that onemay not only think and feel one's way into identi-fication but one may act one's way into it as well"(2008: 331). In other words, the more individualsbehave like a bona fide organization members, themore likely these individuals will form self-defin-ing beliefs regarding their behavior.

"Behavioral sensemaking" ("in this case, attrib-uting behavior engendered from one identificationtarget to another" [Sluss & Ashforth, 2008: 815])may be one particular way tbat newcomers experi-ence and "act their way" to organizational identifi-cation. Behavioral sensemaking is centered on thefact that many behaviors in organizational settingsare simultaneously "aligned across" multiple tar-gets of identification—especially targets that arenested. Behaviors, for example, due to identifica-tion with the supervisor relationship (e.g., consci-entiously completing a customer work order to ful-fill the supervisor's expectations) may look quitesimilar to behaviors due to organizational identifi-

2012 Sluss, Ployhart, Cobb, and Ashforth 955

cation (e.g., conscientiously completing a customerwork order to increase organizational productivityand quicken the sales process). In many respects,the behavioral goals emanating from the newcom-er-supervisor relationship have a large overlap withbehavioral goals set by the organization. For exam-ple, both supervisor and organization would expectthe newcomer to exert effort in learning how toperform key tasks (Bauer et al., 2007).

Enacting behaviors that are thus aligned acrossmultiple targets of identification tends to trigger asensemaking process in which the need for self-consistency becomes predominant (Pratt & Rafaeli,1997, 2001; cf. Weick, 1995). In our case, the new-comer who identifies with the supervisory relation-ship and enacts a behavior that fulfills hoth thesupervisor's and organization's expectations willinfer that he or she also must identify with theorganization—because of the newcomer's need forself-consistency (Swann, 1987). To explain, indi-viduals desire consistency between who they are(i.e., identification) and what they do (i.e., behav-ioral enactment) (Kessler & Wiener, 1972; Swann,1987; cf. Swann, Griffin, Predmore, & Gaines,1987). Thus, a newcomer who identifies stronglywith the supervisory relationship will tend to he-have in a way that is aligned with the goals of thesupervisory relationship. Given that the supervi-sor-targeted behavior likely also supports the goalsof the organization, the newcomer, desiring tomaintain self-consistency, will tend to then inferorganizational identification fi:om his or her behav-ior. Hence:

Hypothesis 4. Behavioral sensemaking par-tially mediates the relationship between a new-comer's relational identification with his/hersupervisor and the newcomer's organizationalidentification.

STUDY 1: METHODS

Sample

The sample consists of 186 newcomers in 12telemarketing organizations from the U.S. We ad-ministered three temporally lagged surveys to thenewcomers as part of a larger data collection efforton the newcomer experience. None of the substan-tive variables overlapped across studies. Of the ini-tial 819 surveys sent, 481 (59%) participants re-turned a completed first survey. Of these, 296(61%) participants returned a completed secondsurvey, and 186 (63%) then returned the final sur-vey. The final sample of 186 respondents (23%) canbe described as follows: female, 56 percent; Cauca-sian, 42 percent; mean age, 29 years (s.d. = 11);

full-time, 59 percent; probationary, 65 percent; andworking at an in-bound call center, 53 percent. Thesample description is quite similar to the demo-graphic characteristics of call center employees inthe U.S. (Morrell, 2008).

Participating Organizations

The telemarketing industry is large and diversein services and products yet similar in human re-source issues such as new hire training, perfor-mance, and retention. Access to these organizationswas facilitated via two professional industry asso-ciations. An e-mail invitation was sent to each or-ganization's CEO. In response, 12 organizationsvolunteered to participate. The new employees inthese 12 organizations worked exclusively on thetelephones in call centers. Although the typicaltelemarketer's tasks are often repetitive, routinized,and without high coworker interdependence (e.g.,Taylor & Bain, 1999); Wegge, van Dick, Fisher,Wecking, and Moltzen (2006), the occupation isnonetheless very demanding at times; demands in-clude dealing with annoyed clients, processing of-ten complex information in real time, transitioninginstantly to new calls, and more. In all 12 organi-zations, the newcomers were sequestered duringformal training (for an average of five days) fromthe rest of their organization and did not performhands-on tasks. After the training, they began work-ing under an assigned supervisor. The newcomers'core task was to "be productive," whether that wasto register someone for an appointment with a pre-view weekend stay at an exclusive resort, obtain adonation for a fundraiser, solve a customer prob-lem, or sell an actual product. Production was mea-sured on daily, weekly, and monthly cycles. Assuch, the newcomers focused on these report cyclesin adjusting to and learning about the job and or-ganization. Additionally, the newcomers, aftercompleting training, interacted daily with their im-mediate supervisors for direction and feedback.

Procedure

The identification process unfolds over time, andconsequently, we designed our study to ensure thatmeasures of identification and the hypothesizedmediators were assessed at theoretically appropri-ate intervals. Surveys were administered at threepoints in time to provide the most rigorous test ofthe hypotheses (Mitchell & James, 2001): (1)two weeks following formal training (time 1 [Tl]);(2) five weeks following formal training (time 2[T2]); and (3) eight weeks following formal training(time 3 [T3]). The Tl survey included measures of


relational identification and demographic variablesas well as a baseline measure of organizationalidentification so as to best specify the predictivepower of relational identification during newcomeradjustment. The demographic information in-cluded age, gender, race/ethnicity, previous workexperience, permanent versus probationary status,full-time versus part-time status, and out-boundversus in-bound call center status. The T2 stirveyincluded measures of the mediating mechanisms(i.e., affect transfer, social influence, and behav-ioral sensemaking). The T3 survey included thedependent variable, organizational identification.The timing was purposeful. First, two weeks aftertraining allowed newcomers to provide an initialattitudinal measurement (for both their organiza-tion-newcomer and supervisor-newcomer relation-ship). Second, measuring organizational identifica-tion eight weeks after the end of training wasappropriate considering the training and task cy-cles in the telemarketing industry (Morrison, 2002;Saks & Ashforth, 1997).

We included several safeguards in our design toreduce concerns about common method bias (Pod-sakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). First,we separated the measurement of the independent,mediating, and dependent variables by a temporallag, which reduces biases (e.g., consistency motifs,illusionary correlations) that might occur in across-sectional study. Second, we grouped items inthe surveys and separated the variables to increasepsychological distance (in the same survey). Third,we promoted participant confidentiality. Partici-pants were assured that the completed surveyswere not handled or seen by any of the newcomers'direct supervisors at any time.

Attrition Analysis

Analyses were conducted to determine if attri-tion (i.e., owing either to not responding to latersurveys or termination of employment) resulted ina final sample that differed from the overall sample(i.e., nonrandom sampling bias [Goodman & Blum,1996; Lance, Vandenberg, & Self, 2000]). Goodmanand Blum (1996) suggested using individual differ-ence variables to test for inherent differences be-tween respondent groups. We compared the finalsample (i.e., those that responded at times 1, 2, and3) to two groups: (1) those that only responded attime 1 and (2) those that only responded at bothtimes 1 and 2. We compared demographic variablesand the baseline measure of organizational identi-fication for these groups and found no differences.Although we have no data with which to comparethe final sample's demographic profile with each

participating organization's demographic profile,the final sample is similar to the general populationof U.S. telemarketers (Morrell, 2008), which helpsreduce concerns with nonresponse bias.

Measures

Organizational identification. Organizationalidentification was measured via three items fromthe measure by Mael and Ashforth (1992): (1)"When I talk about this organization, I usually say'we' rather than 'they,'" (2) "This organization'ssuccesses are my successes," and (3) "When some-one praises this organization it feels like a personalcompliment." We obtained an alpha reliability of.88. Given the negative external image of the tele-marketing industry, the three other items fromMael and Ashforth were not relevant due to theirreliance on external social comparisons.

Scale development: Content and construct va-lidity. Scales for relational identification, affecttransfer, social influence, and behavioral sense-making were developed for this study. We devel-oped initial items on the basis of theory for each ofthese constructs (Hinkin, 1998). After initial itemgeneration, two subject matter experts (doctoral-level research associates in organizational behav-ior) reviewed the items for (1) alignment with thetheoretical definitions and (2) clarity. The itemswere revised and submitted to five additional sub-ject matter experts who then matched these reviseditems with one of the theoretical (i.e., operational)definitions. This matching process generates both asubstantive agreement index and substantive valid-ity coefficient (Anderson & Gerbing, 1991). We de-leted or adapted items using these indexes. Last, athird group of five (additional) subject matter ex-perts conducted a second round of the matchingprocess to ensure proper alignment of the new andadapted items with the operational definitions. Thecontent validation process produced a total of 28items for the four scales.

We then tested for construct validity via a pilotstudy with 158 nonnewcomer telemarketing em-ployees from one of the sample organizations.These individuals completed a survey that in-cluded the 28 generated items and the 3 items fororganizational identification to assure that the es-tablished organizational identification measurewas appropriate for the telemarketing sample.

We tested a five-factor model using maximumlikelihood estimation (MLE) via AMOS 18. As typ-ical in scale development, 12 of the 28 generateditems were deleted because of low reliabilities, lowloadings, and/or high cross-loadings, a processleaving 16 items. The resulting trimmed model


demonstrated good to excellent fit [y^ = 98.33 [df= 80]; p = .08; x^^df < 2]; RMSEA = .04 [Hj,:RMSEA < .05; p = .78]; NNFI = .98; CFI = .99; allalpha reliabilities > .70; factor loadings > .50).RMSEA, NNFI, and CFI have been found to be lesssensitive to sample size and, thus, are useful fitindexes when analyzing models based on smallersamples (i.e., n »= 200 [Fan, Thompson, & Wang,1999]).

Relational identification. Relational identifica-tion, affect transfer, social influence, and behav-ioral sensemaking used a scale ranging from 1,"strongly disagree," to 7, "strongly agree." Rela-tional identification (a = .85) consisted of fouritems:^ (1) "My relationship with my immediatesupervisor is an important part of who I am atwork," (2) "If someone criticized my relationshipwith my immediate supervisor, it would feel like apersonal insult," (3) "My relationship with my im-mediate supervisor is vital to the kind of person Iam at work," and (4) "My relationship with myimmediate supervisor is important to my self-imageat work."

Measures for mediating mechanisms. Affecttransfer focused on positive felt affect toward anewcomer's organization (e.g., "I am fond of myorganization"; a = .92). Social influence focused onhow much importance the newcomer gave to his/her supervisor's opinions about the organization(e.g., "What my immediate supervisor thinks aboutthe organization is very important to me"; a = .88).Behavioral sensemaking focused on behaviors thatare aligned with both the supervisor's and the or-ganization's expectations (e.g., "Making an extraeffort to understand how my organization wants meto do my job"; a = .82). The Appendix presents allStudy 1 items.

Control measures. To better estimate change inorganizational identification, we controlled for thebaseline level of organizational identification at Tl.As such, we were able to control for each individ-

^ Relational identification and leader-memher ex-change, alheit interrelated, are conceptually and empiri-Ccilly distinct. Leader-memher exchange (e.g., Graen &Uhl-Bien, 1995) concerns the perceived quality of therelationship hetween a subordinate and his or her man-ager. In contrast, relational identification concerns theextent to which a suhordinate defines him or herself interms of his or her relationship with his/her manager(Sluss & Ashforth, 2007). In a study of 187 workingprofessionals, Sluss, Gooper, Morrell, and Thompson(2008) found that leader-memher exchange and relationalidentification were positively correlated (r = ,48); never-theless, the two constructs were empirically distinct perthe results of confirmatory factor analysis.

ual's response tendency and more rigorously cap-ture relational identification's impact on organiza-tional identification at T3. We also captured aseries of demographic variables that may influencean individual's proclivity to identify with his/herorganization (Bauer et al., 2007). Beyond race/eth-nicity, gender, and age, we also measured threeemployment statuses: (1) full-time versus part-time, (2) permanent versus probationary, and (3)in-bound call center employment versus out-boundcall center employment. Full-time and permanentemployees are presumably more invested in theircompany, and "in-bound employees" have moreintrinsically motivating tasks, suggesting greaterpsychological involvement (Riketta, 2005).

Given that the number of demographic controlvariables was relatively high, we wanted to avoidunnecessarily reducing statistical power. Follow-ing Becker (2005), we conducted a regression anal-ysis predicting organizational identification (at T3).The first step included our baseline measure oforganizational identification and the second stepincluded the demographic variables. After organi-zational identification had been accounted for atTl, none of the demographic variables significantlypredicted organizational identification at T3. Thus,we included only organizational identification (atTl) as a control variable in the analyses de-scribed below.

STUDY 1: RESULTS

Descriptive statistics, reliabilities, and correla-tions among variables are presented in Table 1.Support for our simplest proposition, that rela-tional identification generalizes to organizationalidentification, is hinted at in Table 1. Notice thatthe correlation between relational identification(measured at Tl) and organizational identification(measured at T3) is stronger (r = .40) then whenorganizational identification is measured at Tl[r = .29). Even with the possible inflation of the Tlcorrelations, we still find a stronger relationshipbetween relational identification and organiza-tional identification when the latter is measured atT3. However, a more rigorous test of generalizationis provided by our use of structural equation mod-eling (AMOS 18) to test the mediation hypotheses.We were able to model (and therefore control for)measurement error as well as simultaneously testfor the mediating or indirect effects. We also em-ployed Sobel tests and bootstrapping analyses toconfirm that the indirect (or mediating) effects weresignificant (Preacher & Hayes, 2008).


TABLE 1Study 1: Descriptive Statistics, Reliability Coefficients, and Correlations"

Variable''

1. Relational identification (time 1)2. Affect transfer (time 2)3. Behavioral sensemaking (time 2)4. Social influence (time 2)5. Organizational identification (time 3)6. Sex (time 1)7. Age (time 1)8. Race/ethnicity (time 1)9. Full-time status (time 1]

10. Permanent status (time 1)11. In-bound status (time 1)12. Organizational identification (time 1)

Mean

4.895.404.525.685.010.56

29.380.420.590.350.534.13

s.d.

1.230.930.601.131.380.50

11.260.490.490.490.501.44

1

.85

.28*

.25*

.47*

.40*-.09

.09

.08

.07

.00-.02

.29*

2

.92

.45*

.42*

.52*

.03

.12

.03

.32*

.03

.27*

.36*

3

.82

.40*

.38*

.05

.29*

.06

.19*

.00

.17*

.21*

4

.88

.46*-.02

.17*

.09

.12

.00

.02

.26*

5

.88

.15*

.19*

.21*

.27*

.02

.20*

.35*

6

-.02-.05

.30*

.28*

.16*

.03

7

-.13.05

-.03.14.02*

8

.12

.02

.03

.12

9

.25*

.42*

.08

10

-.01-.03

11

-.05

"11 = 186. Alpha reliabilities are in italic on the diagonal.''For sex, 0 = "male," 1 = "female." For race/ethnicity, 0 = "Caucasian," 1 = "other."

* p < .05

Measurement Model

To confirm the operationalization of the five vari-ables (i.e., relational identification, affect transfer,social influence, behavioral sensemaking, and or-ganizational identification), we conducted a confir-matory factor analysis using AMOS 18.0. Overall,the measurement model demonstrated excellent fit(Hu & Bentler, 1999; ^ = 104.94 [df= 94], p = .21;RMSEA = .03 [HQ: RMSEA < .05, p = .97];NNFI = .99; CFI = .99). That said, the mediatingmechanisms were measured at the same time (T2)and, as such, may be more subject to commonmethod bias than the other variables. We thereforetested three alternative measurement models.

First, we tested a three-factor model in whichrelational identification and organizational identi-fication remained separate factors while the medi-ating mechanisms were combined into one factor.This model demonstrated unsatisfactory fit as wellas poorer comparative fit than the hypothesizedmodel ix^ = 608.66 [df = 101], p = .00]; RM-SEA = .17 [HQ: RMSEA < .05, p = .00]; NNFI = .69;CFI = .74). Second, given the moderately high cor-relations among affect transfer, social influence,and organizational identification, we tested an-other three-factor model in which relational iden-tification and behavioral sensemaking remainedseparate factors while affect transfer, social influ-ence, and organizational identification were com-bined into one factor. This model also demon-strated unsatisfactory fit and did not fit as well asthe hypothesized model [x^ = 668.80 [df = 101]p = .00; RMSEA = .17 [H :̂ RMSEA < .05, p = .00];NNFI = .65; CFI = .70). Finally, we tested a two-factor model in which we combined relationalidentification and organizational identification in

one "identification" factor and the mediatingmechanisms into another. The model also demon-strated unsatisfactory fit and did not fit as well asthe hypothesized model ix^ = 853.45 [df = 103],p = .00; RMSEA = .20 [H,,: RMSEA < .05, p = .00];NNFI = .54; CFI = .61). Thus, we treated our fivevariables as discriminant in all subsequent analyses.

Structural Model

We tested the direct effect between relationalidentification and organizational identification aswell as the indirect effects of affect transfer, socialinfluence, and behavioral sensemaking while con-trolling for the baseline measure of organizationalidentification. Figure 2 diagrams mediating mech-anisms. We first specified a direct effect model inwhich relational identification predicted organiza-tional identification with baseline organizationalidentification controlled for. The direct effectmodel demonstrated excellent fit with the dataix^ = 19.93 [df = 33, p = .21]; RMSEA = .02 [HQ:RMSEA < .05, p = .77]; NNFI = .99; CFI = .99).The direct effect was significant (ß = .37, p < .01)and, as such, supports Hypothesis 1, which statesthat newcomer identification with the supervisorrelationship is positively related to newcomer or-ganizational identification.

Next, we specified a partial mediation model inwhich we added the indirect effects of affect trans-fer, social influence, and behavioral sensemaking.The partial mediation model demonstrated excel-lent fit ( / = 192.07 [df = 111], p = .00; RM-SEA = .06 [HQ: RMSEA < .05; p = .08]; NNFI = .95;CFI = .96). We then compared the partial media-tion model to a mediation model in which we spec-


FIGURE 2Mediating Mechanisms for Identification Convergence"

Direct effect model = .37**

OrganizationalIdentification

BaselineOrganizationalIdentification

V = 195.64 {df= 112, p = .00); RMSEA = .06 (Ho: RMSEA < .05, p = .07); NNFI = .95; CFI = .96.* p < .01

** p < .05

ified a null direct effect between relational identi-fication and organizational identification. This fullmediation model—wherein the effect of relationalidentification on organizational identification isspecified through the indirect effects of affect trans-fer, social influence, and behavioral sensemaking—also demonstrated excellent fit and was not signif-icantly different from the partial mediation model[X^ = 195.64 [df= 112, p = .00]; RMSEA = .06 [HQ:RMSEA < .05, p = .07]; NNFI = .95; CFI = .96;A / = 3.57 [df = 1, p > .05]). As such and insupport of Hypotheses 2 through 4, we report thepath coefficients from the full mediation model,given its increased parsimony.

Hypotheses 2,3, and 4 predict that affect transfer,social influence, and behavioral sensemaking eachpartially mediates the relationship between a new-comer's relational identification and his or her or-ganizational identification. For Hypothesis 2, thepaths between relational identification and affecttransfer (.40, p < .01), as well as that between affecttransfer and organizational identification (.35,p < .01), were significant. To test whether the in-direct effect was significantly different ftom zero,we employed two tests: (1) Sobel's test and (2)bias-corrected bootstrapping (Preacher & Hayes,2008). We found that the indirect effect of affecttransfer, via Sobel's test, was statistically differentfrom zero [t = 3.39, p < .01). Although the param-eters used from our structural model for Sobel's testtook into account the covariation of tbe other me-diators, Sobel's test has an assumption of multivar-

iate normality, which is frequently violated. Ac-cordingly, we also generated, via bootstrappinganalysis, a 95% "bias-corrected" confidence inter-val for the specific indirect effect (Bollen & Stine,1992; MacKinnon, Lockwood, & Williams, 2004;Preacher & Hayes, 2008; Shrout & Bolger, 2002).This confidence interval was .04 to .22, demon-strating a statistically significant indirect effect foraffect transfer. Taken together, these findings sup-port Hypothesis 2 in that aftect transfer mediated theassociation between a newcomer's relational identifi-cation and subsequent organizational identification.

For Hypothesis 3, the paths between relationalidentification and social influence (.52, p < .01), aswell as between social influence and organizationalidentification (.31, p < .01), were significant. Wefound, via Sobel's test, the indirect effect to bestatistically different from zero (t = 3.36, p < .01),and the 95% confidence interval, via bootstrap-ping, was .10-.30. Thus, Hypothesis 3 was fullysupported.

Finally, for Hypothesis 4, the paths between rela-tional identification and behavioral sensemaking(.34, p < .01), as well as between behavioral sense-making and organizational identification (.16,p < .05), were significant. In addition, the indirecteffect was significantly difterent from zero accordingto Sobel's test (i = 2.06, p < .05), and the 95% con-fidence interval from bootstrapping analyses was .01to .12. Thus, our findings support Hypothesis 4.

As a supplemental analysis, we also contrastedthe specific indirect effects via a bootstrapping


analysis (Preacher & Hayes, 2008). We found thatnone of the paired contrasts (i.e., affect transferwith social influence; affect transfer with behav-ioral sensemaking; social influence with behavioralsensemaking) were significantly different fromzero. As such, none of the indirect effects weresignificantly different from each other in magni-tude and we concluded, at least from our data, thataffect transfer, social influence, and behavioralsensemaking are somewhat equally yoked as medi-ators of how identification generalizes acrosstargets.

STUDY 2: THE MODERATING ROLE OFPROTOTYPICALITY

In the first study, we broached the question. Howdoes relational identification generalize to organi-zational identification? The overarching purposewas to theorize and then assess the processes bywhich relational identification spills over or leadsto organizational identification. As we hypothe-sized, we found that generalization occurs via af-fective (i.e., affect transfer), cognitive (i.e., socialinfluence), and behavioral (i.e., behavioral sense-making) processes; indeed, all three mediatorsplayed fairly equal roles. Within these mediatorsand particularly within social influence, we as-sumed that a supervisor's promulgated affect, be-havior, and opinions would reflect positively uponan organization—creating a positive connection fora newcomer between relational and organizationalidentification. In the second study, we relaxed thisassumption and assessed how the supervisor's pro-totypicality might make or break the generalizationof relational identification to organizationalidentification.

As argued above, social identity theorists haverecently posited generalization across relationalidentification and organizational identification.However, not all supervisory relationships and or-ganizations are equally intertwined. Specifically,referents vary in how much they psychologicallyresemble each other. One major way a relationalother might resemble a collective—in this case, anorganization—is prototypicality. We argue that theprototypicality of a supervisor will moderate thegeneralization of relational identification to organ-izational identification. Prototypicality is the ex-tent to which, in our case, the supervisor "is per-ceived to be a typical and exemplary representativeof the collective" (Sluss & Ashforth, 2008; 816). Asnoted, prototypicality has been utilized and opera-tionalized in various ways (van Knippenberg &Hogg, 2003). One major stream of research is lead-ership categorization theory, according to which

individuals are categorized as "leaders" when theirtraits or behaviors match a perceiver's salient pro-totype of a leader (Lord, Foti, & DeVader, 1984).Although there is "substantial agreement" (Lord &Hall, 2003: 51) in the elements of such prototypes(a typical leader is often thought to be, for example,dedicated, intelligent, and charismatic [Offerman,Kennedy, & Wirtz, 1994]), prototypes vary by socialdomain (e.g., business vs. politics), hierarchicallevel, and gender, and they are shaped by the per-ceiver's experience and remain somewhat idiosyn-cratic and dynamic. Thus, both the perceiver andthe context are implicated in attributions of leader-ship to a given person. In our model, leaders werealready formally defined by their organization (inthis study, as drill sergeants), and we focused onthe extent to which these leaders were prototypicalin the sense that they extolled the organization's (inthis case, the U.S. Army's) values to their followers.

A second major stream of research is the socialidentity model of leadership (Hogg, 2001; vanKnippenberg & Hogg, 2003), mentioned earlier. Ac-cording to this model, "The ingroup prototype de-scribes and prescribes group membership appropri-ate attributes in a specific context" (vanKnippenberg & Hogg, 2003: 245; see also Haslam,Reicher, & Platow, 2011;). As such, prototypes em-body a mix of the actual and the ideal. In the socialidentity model of leadership, prototypicality is amatch between the attributes of the leader andthose of the group (van Knippenberg & van Knip-penberg, 2005). The greater the leader's perceivedprototypicality (i.e., the more that the leader is seento reflect the group), the greater his or her potentialto influence group members and the more effectivehis or her leadership tends to be.

Because the social identity model of leadershipfocuses on groups, it includes a very importantproviso: leader prototypicality is only likely tohave an impact when a group's identity is salientand the group's members identify with the group.Absent group salience, members will not be primedto think about the group or its welfare, and absentidentification, members will not be sufficiently mo-tivated to act on the group's behalf. In contrast, ourmodel focuses on the dyadic relationship betweena given subordinate and his or her leader (and itsimpact on organizational identification), and thus:(1) we focus on relational identification rather thangroup identification^ and (2) we define leader pro-

^ This model explicitly incorporates group saliencehecause of the numher of potential in-groups (and out-groups) that may he relevant in a given setting (in anorganization, for example, an individual may simultane-


totypicality as the extent to which a leader extolsthe organization's values (cf. Howell & Shamir,2005). Indeed, Lord and Brown argued that "thefinding—^that work values are organized alongidentity-related dimensions—is important for un-derstanding the integrating of individuals withinhigher-level social units" (2001: 142).

Newcomers are likely to perceived leader proto-typicality through the type and focus of the trainingprovided during their adjustment period (cf. Hart &Miller, 2005). A highly prototypical leader wül fo-cus newcomers' learning and training on tasks androutines that support their organization's valuesrather than learning and training that just "passesmuster" (i.e., focusing only on the short-term job ortask-related goals). For example, a highly prototyp-ical leader in a team-based organization (such asthe one in our study) will emphasize the values ofcooperating with fellow team members—evenwhen it is inconvenient or difficult to do so. Con-versely, a less prototypical leader may only empha-size the general notion of teamwork.

As argued, relational identification tends to gen-eralize to organizational identification. Leader pro-totypicality may further strengthen the generaliza-tion across identification referents. As a newcomerperceives his or her leader promoting organiza-tional values, the newcomer is also likely to per-ceive his or her relationships with the leader andwith the organization as more similar in meaningand purpose (cf. van Knippenberg, van Knippen-berg, De Cremer, & Hogg, 2004). The similarity orresemblance in meaning and purpose is crucial be-cause "identities with common meanings will tendto be activated together" (Burke, 2003: 203; Stryker& Burke, 2000). As such, the more the leader pro-motes organizational values, the more the supervi-sory relationship will resemble (and facilitate) thenewcomer's organizational attachment—thusstrengthening generalization of relational identifi-cation to organizational identification. Hence:

Hypothesis 5. A newcomer's perceptions of his/her supervisor's prototypicality moderate the re-lationship between the newcomer's relationalidentification with the supervisor and the new-comer's organizational identification: The rela-tionship is more positive when prototypicality ishigher (given control for baseline levels of thenewcomer's organizational identification).

ously be a member of a project team, department, lunchgroup, seniority cohort, gender category, and manage-ment cadre). In contrast, our model focuses on the over-arching organization.

STUDY 2: METHODS

Our sample consisted of 1,101 newcomers to theU.S. Army completing Basic Combat Training(BCT) at two military installations in the U.S. Weadministered surveys to newcomers at three timepoints during the nine-week BCT phase of theiroverall initial training into the U.S. Army.^ BCT iswhat Goffman (1961) would term a "total institu-tion," a situation in which similar individuals liveand work together, isolated from the outside world,for a considerable period of time. BCT provides anexcellent opportunity to test the generalizationmodel. Specifically, the socialization process expe-rienced in BCT is highly structured and similar formost newcomers. Organization-level proceduresand methods of socialization are clearly specifiedand routinely emphasized throughout the experi-ence. The only sizable variability in the socializa-tion process is the manner through which supervi-sors (here, drill sergeants) interact with thenewcomers. Although there is much interaction be-tween the drill sergeants and a unit (as a whole),there are daily, significant one-on-one interactionsbetween the drill sergeants and newcomersthroughout BCT. As such, newcomers experience apersonalized role relationship with the drill ser-geants, suggesting the possibility of relational iden-tification. Contrary to stereotypical characteriza-tions, drill sergeants vary greatly in their leadershipstyle, which may range from supportive and en-couraging to highly demanding to hybrid (e.g.,Klein, Salter, Riccio, & Sullivan, 2006). Therefore,BCT is in many ways a naturally occurring experi-ment in which the socialization "manipulation"unfolds over time and most of the variability isfocused witbin supervisory relationships. Ofcourse, a potential limitation is that this environ-ment is more tightly controlled than typical organ-izational environments. We discuss potential is-sues with generalizability in the Discussionsection.

Timing

We administered the time 1 survey within thefirst week of soldiers arriving at their BCT loca-tions. During this period of three to five days, des-ignated as "Reception," newcomers are given addi-tional medical tests, are issued uniforms and otherbasic equipment, and complete final administrative"in-processing" before entering BCT. They do notmeet or work with their training drill sergeants

^ Note that the U.S. Army expanded BCT to ten weeksfollowing the completion of data collection.


during this time. The first (Tl) survey collecteddata for demographic control variables (see below).In addition, we collected data on the newcomer'sorganizational identification with the U.S. Army asa baseline temporally lagged control. The time 2(T2) survey was administered four to five weeksafter BCT began. At this point, newcomers hadworked with their drill sergeants, three per unit orplatoon, for approximately three to four weeks.Given the nature of the BCT environment, this pro-vided enough time to establish a personalized rolerelationship (Hinde, 1997). The T2 survey focusedon both the newcomers' identification with thedrill sergeant relationship as well as how mucheach newcomer perceived the drill sergeants (as aunit) to be promoting prototypical values. Follow-ing recommendations by Saks and Ashforth (1997),we administered the T3 survey approximatelynine weeks after BCT began—that is, immediatelybefore graduation from BCT. The time 3 surveyfocused on the dependent variable—the newcom-ers' identification with the U.S. Army.

Sample Description

The Tl survey was completed by 1,863 individ-uals. Of these, 1,611 (87%) completed the T2 sur-vey. From these 1,611, 1,270 (79%) completed theT3 survey. After accounting for both missing dataand individuals that responded to the T2 or T3surveys but not the Tl survey, we had a final sam-ple size of 1,101 (a 59 percent final response rate).For all subsequent analyses, we focus on this finalsample. Note that a small portion [n = 104) partic-ipated in an augmented introductory training and,as such, the time periods between surveys weresomewhat longer. Because the results are identicalwith or without these individuals, we retainedthem in our final sample.

Seventy-nine percent of the participants weremale. The mean age was 22 years (s.d. = 4.5).Sixty percent were in the active or "regular" U.S.Army, whereas 40 percent were in either the U.S.Army Reserve or National Guard. Race/ethnic datawere not collected per U.S. Army policy. Followinggraduation, the majority of these newcomers enterinto a more focused phase of training in their mil-itary occupational specialty. There are three broadclassifications: (1) Combat Arms (e.g.. Infantry); (2)Combat Support (e.g.. Transportation); and (3)Combat Service Support (e.g.. Finance). Of the1,101 respondents, 66 percent were in Combat Ser-vice Support, 21 percent in Combat Arms, and theremaining 13 percent in Combat Support. To con-firm that attrition did not systemically bias ourresults, we conducted an attrition analysis (Good-

man & Blum, 1996). We compared respondents(i.e., those who responded to all three surveys) tononrespondents (i.e., did not respond to the sec-ond, third, or both surveys) and found no signifi-cant differences on the variables captured in the Tlsurvey (i.e., gender, age, classification [e.g.. CombatArms], regular army status, baseline organizationalidentification). Thus, we do not suspect the pres-ence of nonrandom sampling bias due to attrition.With respect to nonresponse bias, recruits in oursample were the same age (22 years old) as thetypical U.S. Army recruit. Nevertheless, our samplehad fewer males (69%) than the typical U.S. Armyrecruiting cohort [77%) (U.S. Army, 2011b).

Measures

As in Study 1 and following Podsakoff and col-leagues (2003), we included several safeguards inour design to reduce concerns about commonmethod bias: (1) we separated the measurement ofthe independent and dependent variables by a tem-poral lag of approximately one month; (2) we de-signed the items within the surveys to increasepsychological distance; and (3) we promoted par-ticipant confidentiality. Note that only the researchteam was present during data collection.

Belational identification (time 2 survey). Wemeasured identification with supervisory relation-ship by adapting the four-item scale developed inthe first study. The response scale ranged from 1("strongly disagree") to 5 ("strongly agree"). Theitems include "My work relationship with my DrillSergeants is important to how I see myself." "Mywork relationship with my Drill Sergeants is animportant part of who I am at work," "If someonecriticized my work relationship with my Drill Ser-geants, it would be a personal insult," and "Mywork relationship with my Drill Sergeants reflectsthe kind of person I am" [a = .90). Note that weadapted the first and fourth items for clarity.

Prototypicality of supervisor (time 2 survey).Existing measures of perceived prototypicality donot assess the extent to which the referent promotescore values of the collective, and they confoundin-group with organization (cf. van Knippenberg &van Knippenberg, 2005). Thus, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 15 drill sergeants (aspart of an earlier data collection effort) to develop ameasure of prototypicality in a way that specifi-cally addressed how a supervisor promotes valuesindicative of the organization (i.e., U.S. Army) (seesimilar procedures in Shamir, Zakay, Brainin, andPopper [1998]).

We asked drill sergeants (as supervisors) howthey promoted core organizational values during


their interactions with newcomers. The drill ser-geants focused their responses on the values ofcooperation, loyalty, and working together as fel-low soldiers. These team-oriented values alignedwell with and encompassed the published U.S.Army values of loyalty, duty, respect, selfless ser-vice, honor, integrity, and personal courage (U.S.Army, 2011a). The interviews suggested variousitems that reflected the ways that drill sergeantspromote these values. One should note that thesevalues were perceived as prototypical U.S. Armyvalues and not as unit-specific values during BCT.Before data collection and via one-on-one inter-views, we tested these items for face and contentvalidity with nine newcomers who were in theirlast two weeks of training (i.e., subject matter ex-perts) and, therefore, were not part of our sample.We asked them to indicate which items best repre-sented U.S. Army values. Four items were selectedon the basis of these interviews.

The response scale ranged from 1 ("never") to 5("always"). The newcomers were asked "How oftendo your Drill Sergeants do the following?" Theitems were "push us to help our platoon members,""tell us not to let the platoon down," "encourage usto be loyal," and "encourage us to use soldier lead-ers to solve our problems" [a = .85). Given that ourmeasure of prototypicality was designed to capturethe extent to which newcomers perceived the drillsergeants to be promoting organization-wide (i.e.,U.S. Army) values, we asked two face-valid items("My Drill Sergeants teach us about Army valuesand history;" "My Drill Sergeants link the Armyvalues to our training") as a validity check. Thebivariate correlation between the prototypicalitymeasure and this two-item face-valid measure wasquite high (r = .84), giving us more confidence inhow we operationalized prototypicality.

As an anonymous reviewer pointed out, thesebehaviors could be cast as "generally effectiveleader behaviors [with] substantial conceptualoverlap with transformational leadership." Whatmakes this a measure of prototypicality is that theItems were explicitly derived from the core U.S.Army values instilled during basic training (ac-cording to the drill sergeants): cooperation, loyalty,and working together. If the Army had insteadlauded other values, such as innovation and cre-ativity, or self-reliance and initiative, then ouritems would have been very different—and yetsuch items, too, could be said to represent effectiveleader behaviors in certain settings. In short, leaderprototypicality is always context-specific.

Organizational identification (time 1 and time3 surveys). We used five of the six items from Maeland Ashforth's (1992) organizational identification

scale. The item "I am very interested in what othersthink of my organization [U.S. Army]" was judgedto be not applicable given that newcomers are se-questered from the outside world during BCT. Perprior research, we simply changed the referentfrom "organization" to "Army." Sample items are"When I talk about the Army, I usually say "we"rather than "they"" and "When someone praisesthe Army, it feels like a personal compliment"(a = .85).

Control variables. Our potential control vari-ables included gender, age. Regular Army status(vs. Reserve/National Guard), and classification.Gender and age are common demographic controlvariables (see Study 1), but whether a newcomerwill serve full-time or part-time (i.e.. Regular Armyor other status) as well as the newcomer's broadoccupational classification (i.e.. Combat Arms,Combat Support, Combat Service Support) mayalso have potential covariance with organizationalidentification (cf. Mael & Ashforth, 1992; Riketta,2005). That said, nonsignificant control variablesunnecessarily reduce statistical power (Becker,2005). As such, we regressed our dependent vari-able, organizational identification, on all potentialcontrol variables. Only Combat Arms classificationwas a significant predictor and was therefore re-tained as a control in subsequent analyses—in ad-dition to the baseline measure of organizationalidentification.

Discriminant validity. Given the relatednessamong our variables of interest (i.e., relational iden-tification [T2], prototypicality [T2], and organiza-tional identification [T3]), we tested for discrimi-nant validity via confirmatory factor analysis. Wehypothesized a three-factor model and, usingAMOS 18.0, found that this model demonstratedexcellent fit with all items loading significantly ontheir a priori factors [x^ = 219.87 [df = 62];CFI = .98; TLI = .97; RMSEA = .05 [HQ: RM-SEA < .05, p = .59]). We then compared the hy-pothesized three-factor model to two alternativemodels. First, we compared our hypothesizedmodel to a two-factor model wherein relationalidentification and prototypicality were combinedinto one factor and organizational identificationremained separate. Second, we compared the hy-pothesized model to a one-factor omnibus model.Both alternative models resulted in a less than sat-isfactory fit and did not fit as well as the hypothe-sized model (two-factor: x^ = 1,267.72 [df = 64];CFI = .83; TLI = .79; RMSEA = .13 [HQ: RM-SEA < .05, p = .00]; one-factor: x^ = 3,546.04 [df= 65]; CFI = .50; TLI = .40; RMSEA = .22 [H ,̂:RMSEA < .05, p = .00]).


STUDY 2: RESULTS

The descriptive statistics, alpha reliabilities, andcorrelations are presented in Table 2. To test ourmoderation hypothesis. Hypothesis 5, we con-ducted moderated multiple regression analysis (Co-hen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003). We standardizedthe independent variables (i.e., relational identifi-cation, prototypicality). We then regressed organi-zational identification on the predictors in threesteps: (1) control variables (i.e.. Combat Arms clas-sification, baseline organizational identification);(2) independent variables (i.e., relational identifi-cation, prototypicality); and (3) the interaction vari-able (i.e., relational identification X prototypical-ity). If the change in R^ is significant for step 3, thenone can conclude the moderation is significant.

Hypothesis 5 predicts that supervisor prototypi-cality moderates the relationship between rela-tional identification and organizational identifica-tion in such a way that, under conditions of higherperceived prototypicality, the relationship will bestronger (i.e., more positive). The interaction termsignificantly predicted additional variance in or-ganizational identification (ß = .16, p < .01), indi-cating initial support for Hypothesis 5 (see Table 3).To confirm that the form of the interaction sup-ported the hypothesis, we plotted the interaction asper Cohen et al. (2003). The general pattern of theinteraction supports our hypothesis (see Figure 3,below). We also computed the significance of thesimple slopes (Preacher, Curran, & Bauer, 2006).We found that the slope for the relationship be-tween relational identification and organizationalidentification, in the high prototypicality condi-tion, is significantly positive [ß = .22, t - 6.88,p < .01) whereas the slope in the low prototypical-ity condition is not significantly different from zero

[ß = .02, Í = 0.61, p > .05). As such, we found fullsupport for Hypothesis 5. Note, however, that in-stead of just strengthening the relationship, higherprototypicality (in the findings here) is necessaryfor the relationship to reach significance. Finally,given that the subordinate data were nested withinsupervisors, we conducted hierarchal linear mod-eling and found nearly identical results. Specifi-cally, the unstandardized regression coefficient forthe interaction term was nearly identical to theunstandardized coefficient from a random-coeffi-cients model that took into account nested data(i.e., HLM: .098 vs. .099)—as was the statisticalsignificance. Thus, the implications and conclu-sions are identical. We argue that moderated regres-sion is theoretically appropriate given that rela-tional identification remains at the individual levelof analysis (Sluss & Ashforth, 2007).

GENERAL DISCUSSION

Prior extensions to social identity and leadershiptheories suggest that an individual's supervisorplays an integral role in that person's sense of aworkplace self—especially when he or she is newto their organization (see also Ashforth et al., 2008;Lord & Brown, 2001; Sluss & Ashforth, 2008). Nev-ertheless, the bulk of research has examined howorganizational practices and properties influencenewcomer organizational identification, virtuallyignoring supervisor impact on organizational iden-tification. In addition, research on identifying withmultiple referents often implies mutually exclusive(or competitive) relationships. Our two studies ad-dressed these issues by showing the processes andconditional nature of how identification with the su-pervisory relationship—^relational identification—

TABLE 2Study 2: Descriptive Statistics, Reliability Coefficients, and Correlations"

Variable""

1. Relational identification (time 2)2. Prototypicality (time 2)3. Organizational identification (time 3)4. Age (time 1)5. Sex (time 1)6. Combat Arms (time 1)7. Combat Support (time 1)8. Service Support (time 1)9. Army status (time 1)

10. Organizational identification (time 1)

Mean

3.314.094.03

21.740.210.210.130.660.603.79

S.d.

1.070.990.744.470.410.400.320.480.490.70

1

.90

.64*

.21*-.03

.16*

.08*-.02-.01

.10*

.20*

2

.85

.08*-.06

.20*

.07*-.06-.01

.14*

.10*

3

.85-.01-.02

.09*-.05-.02-.01

.51*

4

-.01-.05-.05

.03-.07*

.01

5

-.23*-.07*

.27*-.03-.03

6

-.18*-.68*

.03

.12*

7

-.49*.12*

-.11*

8

-.14*-.02

9

-.04

10

.77

"^ n = 1101. Alpha reliabilities are italic on the diagonal.^ For sex, 0 = "male," 1 = "female." For Combat Arms, Combat Support, and Service Support, 0 = "no," 1 = "yes." For army status,

0 = "Reserve or National Guard," 1 = "Regular Army."* p < .05


TABLE 3Moderating Effects of Prototypicality and Relational Identification on Organizational Identification"

Independent Variables

ControlsCombat arms (time I)*"Organizational identification (time 1)

Main effectsRelational identification (time 2)Supervisor prototypicality (time 2)

Moderating effectRelational identification X supervisor prototypicality

R^

AF

Step 1

0.030,50*

0,25

194,39*

Organizational Identification (Time 3)

Step 2

0,030,48*

0,16*-0.06

0,270.02

24,82*

Step 3

0,030,45*

0,16*0,04

0,16*0,290,02

23,96*

"il = 1,101,

'' 0 = "no," 1 = "yes,"* p < ,05

generalizes to [vs. separates from) organizationalidentification. We found complementary results intwo studies spanning different contexts, organiza-tions, and temporal spacings in research design.

First, our studies provide a more specified an-swer to calls for more fruitful integration of per-sonal relationship research and organizational sci-ence (Dutton & Ragins, 2007; Ferris, Liden,Munyon, Summers, Basik, & Buckley, 2009; Hinde,1997; Pratt, 2000). The bulk of relationship-focusedresearch in organizations has focused on an instru-mental, exchange-based, and, by extension, deper-sonalized notion of relationships (cf. Dutton & Ra-gins, 2007). In contrast, our findings suggest thatorganizationally bound role relationships are alsobuilt upon motives of identity and transformation,rather than just exchange and transaction, and have

a significant place in organizational research. Manyorganizational behavior models rightly recognizeboth individual (e.g., personality, demographic,ability) and organization (e.g., climate, structure,team processes) yet relegate relationships to thebackground or treat them as just a minirepresenta-tion of an organization. In the words of Dutton andRagins, "This perspective not only ignores the sig-nificance of workplace relationships but also takesa needlessly segmented view of people in the work-place; that although relationships are central to em-ployees' lives they are somehow able to turn off thisneed once they enter the workplace" (2007: 5). Ourstudies do not take this segmented view and indeeddemonstrate how a personalized relationship can in-spire and influence an organizational attachment viaaffective, cognitive, and hehavioral conduits—in-

FIGURE 3Moderating Effect of Prototypicality and Relational Identification on Organizational Identification

2.5

OrganizationalIdentification 2

1.5 -

-Lowprototypicality

•Highprototypicality

Low RelationalIdentification

High RelationalIdentification


deed, an organizational attachment that is tradition-ally assumed to be impersonal rather than personal.

Second, our findings from a multiorganizationalsample of "teleservices" newcomers suggest thatgeneralizing identification involves the "wholeperson" (Harquail, 1998)—namely, affective (i.e.,affect transfer), cognitive (i.e., social influence),and behavioral aspects (i.e., behavioral sensemak-ing). As Harquail aptly questioned, "We have lim-ited our exploration into organizational identifica-tion to this one [cognitive, individually oriented]perspective—what about interactionist perspec-tives on identity, or relational models of the selfand self-identity that depend not just on the indi-vidual but also on others?" (1998: 231). Our studiesbring empirical evidence to bear and extend previ-ous theoretical advancements in showing how thesymbolic interactionist perspective (Mead, 1934),via relational identification and its mediatingmechanisms, influences the social (in our case, or-ganizational) identification process (Tajfel &Turner, 1986). Third, our findings from a large sam-ple of U.S. Army newcomers suggest that relationalidentification generalizes to organizational identi-fication when a supervisor promotes organiza-tionally held values—in other words, when the su-pervisor is perceived to be prototypical of his/herorganization. In sum, the two studies indicate thatidentification as well as newcomer adjustment pro-cesses are more relationally focused than previousresearch would suggest (cf. Dutton & Ragins, 2007).Our findings provide important evidence (andguidance) on how multiple identifications are co-operative rather than competitive.

Theoretical Implications

We found that affect transfer and social influ-ence, as affective and cognitive mediating mecha-nisms, equally influenced the generalization pro-cess. Affect transfer is a spillover of felt affect fromsupervisory relationship to organization, whereassocial influence is the process by which a supervi-sor's presumably positive opinions of his/her or-ganization shape a newcomer's overall opinion ofthe organization. Using bootstrapping analyses, wefound that the indirect effects were not signifi-cantly different from each other. There has been along debate among applied psychology and man-agement researchers concerning the strength of af-fect and cognition (for an excellent review, seeBrief [1998]). Brief concluded that affect and cog-nition are so intertwined that decoupling the pro-cesses is quite untenable. Our findings seem to un-derline Briefs supposition that affect (i.e., affecttransfer) and cognition (i.e., social influence) act more

as equal partners than battiing enemies—at leastwithin the identification generalization process.

The equal yoking of affect, cognition, and behav-ior within the identification process seems to em-phasize and explicate how organizational identifi-cation is perhaps more personalized than is oftensupposed. Social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner,1986) and self-categorization theory (Hogg & Terry,2000) arguments are that organizational member-ship (i.e., self-categorization) alone provides enoughcognitive and affective fodder for identification witha collective (what Rousseau [1998] posited and la-beled as "situated identification"). Although situatedidentification is no doubt valid, modern organiza-tions seem to strive for employees (and newcomers)to identify on a deeper and more integrated levelthan simply categorizing themselves as organiza-tion members—not only saying "we" but experi-encing the "we" as well (cf. Ashforth et al., 2008).In this regard, the depersonalization hypothesis ofsocial identity theory falls short. However, ourfindings on generalizing relational identification toorganizational identification via affect transfer, so-cial influence, and behavioral sensemaking provideinsight into how newcomers' "employment cantake on the significance of a personal relationship"(Rousseau, 1998: 222), thus complementing andputting a more personalized face on identity andidentification in organizational settings. Perhapsthe emphases in social identity theory and self-categorization theory on bloodless cognitive cate-gorizations and depersonalized attachments havehelped blind scholars to the important role thatpersonalized relationships play in helping individ-uals come to understand, care about, and ulti-mately identify deeply with organizations and thecollectives within them. Similarly, the two studiesprovide a more systematic and empirical way tointegrate social identity theory and role identitytheory (cf. Burke & Stets, 2009; Stryker & Burke,2000). Organizational identification is squarely un-der the purview of social identity theory (Tajfel &Ttirner, 1986) whereas relational identification, al-though informed by social identity theory, is underthe auspices of role identity theory from both astructural-functional and symbolic interactionistperspective (Sluss & Ashforth, 2007; Sluss, vanDick, & Thompson, 2010). Our findings suggest thatthe personalization inherent in generalizing rela-tional identification to organizational identifica-tion may help integrate and reconcile social iden-tity theory and role identity theory, which in thepast have been treated as largely independent (Ash-forth et al., 2008; Hogg, Terry, & White, 1995).

Our findings concerning affect, cognition, andbehavior from Study 1 also provide insight into the


newcomer adjustment literature. First, regarding af-fect transfer, our findings speak directly to the pau-city of research in the socialization literature re-

! garding how emotion and mood play a role withinthe process (Ashforth & Saks, 2002; cf. Weiss &Cropanzano, 1996). Although we found that affecttransfer occurs between supervisory relationshipand organization, it seems reasonable that affectmay also spill over between, for example, a new-comer's cohort and the newcomer's more seniorcoworkers, as these two referents are primed to-gether through both classroom and on-the-job train-

I ing. Second, social influence may become a cogni-tive conduit for learning about and adjusting to thenewcomer's task, group, role, and organization(e.g., Ashforth & Rogers, in press; Smith, Plowman,& Duchon, 2010). Indeed, social influence and itspositive leanings may also facilitate the newcom-er's engaging in positive framing (Ashford & Black,1996), thereby increasing adjustment to the task,role, group, and organization. Third, behavioralsensemaking—attributing behavior directed towardone target as implicitly directed to other relatedtargets—provides the newcomer a way to "try on"the organization for size and become retroactivelyattached to the new job, people, and organization asa whole. Research has established that identifica-tion with a given target motivates individuals toengage in behaviors that benefit targets (e.g., extra-role behaviors [Riketta, 2005]). Although not dis-agreeing with this overall finding, our study seemsto support a reciprocal relationship in that behaviortoward one target appears able to influence identi-fication with related targets. In short, "'I act,' there-fore 'I am"' (cf. Burke & Reitzes, 1981). A newcomerto Hewlett-Packard may not initially see them-selves as an "HPer," yet after consistently acting the"HP way" (Packard, 1995), the newcomer may startto define him- or herself as one (cf. Bem, 1972).

The finding that newcomers "behave their way"to organizational identification (Ashforth, 2001)leads us to the major finding of the second study:relational identification does indeed generalize toorganizational identification, but more so when asupervisor is perceived to support and representorganizational values—that is, is perceived to beprototypical. As such, we extend the social identitymodel of leadership (Hogg, 2001; van Knippenberg& Hogg, 2003) in that we relax the assumption thatfollowers must identify strongly with the collective(in our case, the sampled organization) for proto-typicality to hold sway in the leader-follower rela-tionship. We instead demonstrate that prototypi-cality is part of the identification generalizationprocess rather than an outcropping of it. In addi-tion, the social identity model assumption is that

these mechanisms work via depersonalization—that is, that leaders are seen as somewhat facelessyet exemplary representatives of the collective. In-stead, our findings show that the social identitymodel of leadership also applies when a relation-ship is personalized, via relational identification.

Exploring prototypicality within the identifica-tion generalization process also challenged a com-mon assumption that all supervisors generally por-tray their organization as positive and aresupportive of organizational values (as is assumedin social influence). Indeed, whereas social influ-ence was assumed to convey pro-organizationalcontent, prototypicality actually captures the con-tent and variability with which supervisors portrayorganizationally esteemed values. In other words,although managers may be expected to be prototyp-ical, prototypicality does vary and significantly in-fluences the intensity with which a supervisor-sub-ordinate relationship becomes psychologicallyintertwined with the organization in which the su-pervisor and subordinate work. Indeed, the factthat lower supervisor prototypicality nullified gen-eralization versus causing a negative moderatingrelationship is important. It seems logical that,given the proximity of the supervisory relationshipto newcomers, higher relational identification andlower prototypicality would actually interact totranslate into lower organizational identification(following, in a sense, an augmented version ofbalance theory [Heider, 1958]). However, we foundthat lower prototypicality instead negated the con-nection between supervisory relationship and new-comer bonding with organization. As such, proto-typicality makes the relational self "more or less"situationally relevant for the collective self (cf.Ashforth & Johnson, 2001). Note that being nonpro-totypical is not equal to being antitypical—whereina supervisor actively contradicts an organization'svalues. We speculate that although some supervi-sors may desire to be antitypical, in practice, insti-tutionalized role expectations prevail (Jackall,1988), and they will instead just abstain from en-dorsing organizational values—that is, enact lowsupervisor prototypicality (Meyerson's [2001]"tempered radicals" may be comparable).

Future Directions

The findings taken together inspire several im-portant future directions for research on identifica-tion within organizational settings and, more gen-erally, on how organizing occurs. First, althoughthe supervisory relationship is quite important,other salient role relationships may also be fruitfulcandidates for study, such as those with senior


peers/coworkers, clients, and the like. For example,software development organizations implement"paired programming" wherein two programmersshare one computer while writing code together.This highly interactive context would seem to elicita situation that is ripe not only for how attachmentat the interpersonal level influences attachmentwith the collective, but also for how role-based andperson-based expectations meld as these pairs or-ganize and work together, which inherently influ-ences important outputs for their organization. Inshort, the situation may be such that relationalidentification generalizes to organizational identi-fication—although a relationship and an organiza-tion may not be so tightly intertwined. Indeed,coworker relationships may involve, at times, moreantitypical goals and values (e.g., CoUinson, 1992),creating situations for both mutually cooperatingand competing goals and values.

In a related fashion, some relationships may not bestructurally nested in a particular collective, yet cer-tain conditions may still psychologically connect therelationship and the collective (e.g., task interdepen-dence [Sluss & Ashforth, 2008]). Similarly, the con-nectedness between additional role relationshipsand/or collectives may transcend structural boimdar-ies to influence identification and other forms of at-tachment (e.g., commitment, satisfacfion, fit) with"nonconnected" (and assiimed to be competing) ref-erents. For example, mentorship may result in a deepand personalized relationship in which the lines areblurred between organization and career in such away that the mentor-protégé relationship may influ-ence attitudes and behaviors within the protege'soverall career. Indeed, the relationship and subse-quent attitudes may endure long after relational in-cumbents no longer share organizational member-ship. In the end, it may be that the extent to which therelational and the collective are nested becomes amatter of perception rather than (structural) reality.

Second, future research should more fully expli-cate how identifications generalize and even con-verge (see Sluss & Ashforth., 2008). Testing the medi-afing mechanisms and moderafing conditionsimultaneously may better specify how the indirecteffects function in the generalization process. Re-search should also attempt to replicate and test addi-tional mediating mechanisms, such as anthropomor-phization (wherein relational partners ascribe"relational qualities to the collective" as a whole[Sluss & Ashforth, 2008: 813; Waytz, Epley, & Ca-cioppo, 2010]), that were implicitly assumed constantin our studies. Future research might attempt to notonly validate the relatively equal importance of affect,cognition, and behavior in identification, but alsoexplore the temporal ordering or primacy of these

mediating mechanisms (Harquail, 1998). Further, fu-ture research might explore the relationships amongthe mediating mechanisms and the motives associ-ated with identification, including self-enhancement,belonging, and uncertainty reduction.

Third, relational identification was treated as anexogenous variable in our studies, raising the ques-tion of what variables may foster such identificationin the first place. We noted that, from the perspectiveof a newcomer, both the perceived valence of thesupervisor's role vis-à-vis the newcomer and themanner in which the supervisor enacts the role influ-ence the attractiveness of their relationship as a basisfor identification. Thus, future research might ad-dress possible distal antecedents, such as organiza-fional culture (e.g., a "clan" culture's emphasis onparticipation and development [Cameron, Quinn, De-graff, & Thakor, 2006]) and structure (e.g., a hierarchi-cal, "command-and-control" structure may discour-age a subordinate's identification with his/hersupervisory relationship), and proximal antecedentssuch as leader-member exchange (Martin, Epitropaki,Thomas, & Topakas, 2010), transformational leader-ship (Walumbwa & Hartnell, 2011), and perceivedsupervisor support (Eisenberger, Stinglhamber, Van-denberghe, Sucharski, & Rhoades, 2002). hi addition,as Sluss and Ashforth (2008) pointed out, just asrelational identification spills over to organizationalidentification, organizational identification may alsoinfluence relational identification—albeit via differ-ent mediating mechanisms. We suggest comparingand contrasfing these reciprocal processes.

Finally, it may be fruitful to apply the generaliza-tion principle (wherein attitudes toward two con-nected entities tend to spill over) to other organiza-tional behavior constructs. For example, it seems thatperceptions of exchange with a relational other mayconverge with perceptions of exchange with an or-ganization and vice versa (see research on perceivedorganizaüonal support [Shanock & Eisenberger,2006]). The same likely aJso holds for investigatingperceptions of fit across referents (see Kristof-Brownand Jansen's [2007] review). Organizational sciencehas seen a proliferation of attachment-related con-structs such as identification, fit, commitment, psy-chological ownership, and job embeddedness, withthe bulk of associated tbeory forwarding a mix ofindividual differences and organizational context an-tecedents while ignoring the "tribal" or relationalcontext (Ashforth & Rogers, in press). The generaliza-tion principle may therefore provide significant in-sight touching on these different constructs and foci.For instance, perhaps positive aftect generated ñ'omfeeling psychological ownership of one's job mayspill over to a stronger sense of normative commit-


ment to one's job: "I feel ownership of my job; thus Ifeel socially obligated to perform" (cf. Cohen, 2003).

Managerial Implications

There are several implications for management.First, managers of newcomers and other employeesneed to pay attention to not only the opinionsshared but also the mood and emotion engenderedin their relationships with their subordinates. Asthe support of affect transfer demonstrates, affect isa major conduit through which attitudes about oneentity transfer to another. Accordingly, managersshould focus on creating an environment in whichpositive feelings are engendered so that a positivetransfer can take place. As noted, most newcomerswant a "caring boss" (and by extension a "caringorganization"). It seems that managers could helpnewcomers implement positive framing (Ashford &Black, 1996) so as to see challenges as opportuni-ties. We suggest that an environment in which per-sonal work goals and positive framing are encour-aged and supported should facilitate the positivefeelings. Second, organizations should be verycareful in selecting which managers or supervisorswill train newcomers. Many organizations developsocialization programs that only emphasize suchfactors as company policies, benefits, and similartransactive forms of knowledge. Our findings sug-gest that organizations should also think carefullyabout who conducts socialization and how they doso—indeed, something that Van Maanen andSchein (1979) suggested over 30 years ago. Third, itseems wise for organizations to also provide train-ing to help managers understand which values aremost prototypical and how to promote these values.Finally, given the impact that relational identifica-tion has on organizational identification, "on-boarding programs" would do well to facilitate pro-organizational interpersonal relationships. Forexample, an organization's mentoring programmight actively involve multiple mentors—who areprototypical of the organization's values.

Limitations

Several limitations of our studies should benoted. First, all the variables were collected fromtbe same source, individual newcomers. That said,we: (1) separated (temporally) the collection of ourpredictor, mediator (when applicable), and crite-rion and (2) performed tests for discriminant valid-ity to reduce concern regarding common methodbias (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Second, the generaliz-ability of our findings can be questioned. However,we argue that our samples may have resulted in a

more conservative test of the tbeory. For instance,given the tenuous nature of telemarketing jobs (e.g.,low professional status, bigh turnover), a newcomer'srelationships with his/her manager and organizationmay not be highly important. In short, the employeemay focus on the task at hand and the transactionalnature of the job—being on the phone, making sales,and then moving on. Regardless, we found that theidentification processes were significant. In addition,our second study focused on newcomers to the U.S.Army—considered a "total institution" (Goffman,1961). Newcomers in a total institution may experi-ence socialization very differently than those in otherorganizations (Ashforth et al., 2007a). Nevertheless,many large organizations, such as Cisco Systems,Google, Yahoo, IBM, Starbucks, IDEO, and Microsoft,are known for their sfrong socialization processes andsomewhat overpowering (albeit not "total institu-tion") approach. For example, senior Cisco Systemsemployees tell newcomers, "Resistance is futile. Youwill be assimilated" (in reference to the Borg of theTV series, "Star Trek—The Next Generation"[Paulson, 2001]). Third, given that prototypicality isnecessarily context-specific, our measure of proto-typicality is purposefully narrow and oriented to theU.S. Army. In addition, our measure may only becapturing what is prototypical during the initial (andcritical) training phase for soldiers—and not what isprototypical later on in an Army career. As such, ourmeasure was not intended to be widely generalizable,although it may be adaptable to contexts in whichteamwork is paramount. Given prototypicality's im-portance in the generalization process, we recom-mend future research strive to uncover behaviors thatare contextually rich and distinct for the particularorganization. Scholars may find better predictivepower matching prototypicality specifically to con-text (cf. van Knippenberg & van Knippenberg, 2005).

Conclusion

Our studies tested a recent theoretical advance inresearch on multiple identifications and newcomeradjustment: identification generalization. Wefound that, in the newcomer context, relationalidentification does converge with organizationalidentification (in Study 1) through affective, cogni-tive, and behavioral mechanisms—yet (in Study 2),only when a newcomer perceives the relationalother as prototypical of the organization. We there-fore provide evidence and guidance on the pro-cesses and conditions by which an individual'ssupervisor plays an integral role in identificationgeneralization. We also provide evidence that mul-tiple identifications may be more bolistic and com-plementary than previously assumed.


REFERENCES

Anderson, J. G., & Gerhing, D. W, 1991. Predicting theperformance of measures in a confirmatory factor anal-ysis with a pretest assessment of their suhstantive val-idates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76: 732-740.

Aron, A., & Aron, E. 2000. Self-expansion motivation andincluding other in the self. In W. Ickes & S. Duck(Eds.), The social psychology of personal relation-ships: 109-128. New York: Wiley.

Ashford, S. J., & Black, }. S. 1996. Proactivity duringorganizational entry: The role of desire for control.Journal of Applied Psychology, 81: 199-214.

Ashforth, B. E. 2001. Role transitions in organizationallife: An identity-based perspective. Mahwah, NJ:Erlhaum.

Ashforth, B. E., Harrison, S. H., & Gorley, K. G. 2008.Identification in organizations: An examination offour fundamental questions. Journal of Manage-ment, 34: 325-374.

Ashforth, B. E., & Johnson, S. A. 2001. Which hat towear?. The relative salience of multiple identities inorganizational contexts. In M. A. Hogg & D. J. Terry(Eds.), Social identity processes in organizationalcontexts: 31-48. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.

Ashforth, B, E,, & Mael, F, 1989, Social identity theoryand the organization. Academy of Management Re-view, 14: 20-39.

Ashforth, B. E., & Rogers, K. M.. 2012. Is the employee-organization relationship misspecified? The central-ity of trihes in experiencing the organization. InL. M. Shore, J. A.-M. Shapiro, & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.),The employee-organization relationship: Applica-tions for the 21st century: 23-53. Philadelphia: Psy-chology Press.

Ashforth, B. E., & Saks, A. M. 1996. Socialization tactics:Longitudinal effects on newcomer adjustment.Academy of Management Journal, 39: 149-178.

Ashforth, B. E,, & Saks, A. M. 2002. Feeling your way:Emotion and organizational entry. In R. G. Lord, R. J.Klimoski, & R, Kanfer (Eds.), Emotions in the work-place: Understanding the structure and role ofemotions in organizational behavior: 331-369. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ashforth, B. E., Sluss, D. M., & Harrison, S. H. 2007a.Socialization in organizational contexts. In G. P.Hodgkinson & J. K. Ford (Eds.), International re-view of industrial and organizational psychology,22: 1-70. Ghichester, U.K.: Wiley.

Ashforth, B. E., Sluss, D. M., & Saks, A. M. 2007b. So-cialization tactics, proactive hehavior, and new-comer learning: Integrating socialization models.Journal of Vocational Behavior, 70: 447-462.

Atzori, M., Lombardi, L., Fraccaroli, F., Battistelli, A., &Zanihoni, S. 2008. Organizational socialization of

women in the Italian Army: LeEiming processes andproactive tactics. Journal of Workplace Learning,20: 327-347.

Bance, R. 1999. Automatic evaluation of self and signif-icant other: Affective priming in close relationships.Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 16:803-821.

Bartels, J., Pruyn, A., de Jong, M., & Joustra, I. 2007.Multiple organizational identification levels and theimpact of perceived external prestige and communi-cation climate. Journal of Organizational Behavior,28: 173-190.

Bauer, T. N., Bodner, T., Erdogan, B., Truxillo, D. M., &Tucker, J. S. 2007. Newcomer adjustment during or-ganizational socialization: A meta-analytic review ofantecedents, outcomes, and methods. Journal of Ap-plied Psychology, 92: 707-721.

Bauer, T. N., & Green, S. G. 1994. The effect of newcomerinvolvement in work-related activities: A longitudi-nal study of socialization. Journal of Applied Psy-chology, 79: 211-223,

Bauer, T. N., & Green, S. G. 1998. Testing the combinedeffects of newcomer information seeking and man-ager behavior on socialization. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 83: 72-83.

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. 1995. The need tohelong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as afundamental human motivation. Psychological Bul-letin, 117: 497-529.

Becker, T. E. 2005. Potential problems in the statisticalcontrol of variables in organizational research: Aqualitative analysis with recommendations. Organi-zational Research Methods, 8: 274-289.

Bem, D. J. 1972. Self-perception theory. In L. Berkowitz(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology,6: 1-62. New York: Academic Press.

Beyer, J. M., & Hannah, D. R. 2002. Building on the past:Enacting established personal identities in a newwork setting. Organization Science, 13: 636-652.

Blader, S. L., & Tyler, T. R. 2009. Testing and extendingthe group engagement model: Linkages hetween so-cial identity, procedural justice, economic out-comes, and extrarole behavior. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 94: 445-464.

Bollen, K. A., & Stine, R. A. 1992. Bootstrapping good-ness-of-fit measures in structural equation models.Sociological Methods »Research, 21: 205-229.

Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. 1996. Who is this "we"?Levels of collective identity and self-representations.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71:83-93.

Brickson, S. 2000. The impact of identity orientation onindividual and organizational outcomes in demo-


graphically di verse settings. Academy of Manage-ment Review, 25: 82-101.

Brief, A. P. 1998. Attitudes in and around organiza-tions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bullis, C, & Bach, B. W. 1989. Socialization turningpoints: An examination of change in organizationalidentification. Western Journal of Speech Commu-nication, 53: 273-293.

Burke, P. J. 2003. Relationships among multiple identi-ties. In P. J. Burke, T. J. Owens, R. T. Serpe, & P. A.Thoits (Eds.), Advances in identity theory and re-search: 195-214. New York: Kluwer Academic/Ple-num.

Btirke, P. J., & Reitzes, D. C. 1981. The link betweenidentity and role performance. Social PsychologyQuarterly, 44: 83-92.

Burke, P. J., & Stets, J. E. 2009. Identity theory. Oxford,U.K: Oxford University Press.

Cameron, K. S., Quinn, R. E.. Degraff, J., & Thakor, A. V.2006. Competing values leadership: Creatingvalue in organizations. Cheltenham, U.K.: Elgar.

Cashman, J., Dansereau, F., Graen, G. B., & Haga, W. J.1976. Organizational understnicture and leadership:A longitudinal investigation of the managerial role-making process. Organizational Behavior and Hu-man Performance, 15: 278-296.

Chao, G. T. 1997. Unstructured training and develop-ment: The role of organizational socialization. InJ. K. Ford, S. W. J. Kozlowski, K. Kraiger, E. Salas, &M. S. Teachout (Eds.), Improving training effective-ness in work organizations: 129-151. Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.

Chen, Z. X., Tsui, A. S., & Farh, J. L. 2002. Loyalty tosupervisor vs. organizational commitment: Relation-ships to employee performance in China. Journal ofOccupational and Organizational Psychology, 75:339-356.

Cohen, A. 2003. Multiple commitments in the work-place: An integrative approach. Mahwah, NJ: Erl-baum.

Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. 2003.Applied multiple regression/correlation analysisfor the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.

Collinson, D. L. 1992. Managing the shopfioor: Subjec-tivity, masculinity and workplace culture. Berlin:de Gruyter.

Cooper, D., & Thatcher, S. M. B. 2010. Identification inorganizations: The role of self-concept orientationsand identification motives. Academy of Manage-ment Review, 35: 516-538.

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 onthe cooperative behaviors of physicians. Adminis-trative Science Quarterly, 47: 507-533.

Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, G. V. 1994.Organizational images and member identification.Administrative Science Quarterly, 39: 239-263.

Dutton, J. E., & Ragins, B. R. (Eds.). 2007. Exploring posi-tive relationships at work: Building a theoreticaland research foundation. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa,D. 1986. Perceived organizational support. Journalof Applied Psychology, 71: 500-507.

Eisenberger, R., Karagonlar, G., Stinglhamber, F., Neves,P., Becker, T. E., Gonzalez-Morales, M. G., & Steiger-Mueller, M. 2010. Leader-member exchange and af-fective organizational commitment: The contribu-tion of supervisor's organizational embodiment.Journal of Applied Psychology, 95: 1085-1103.

Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, G.,Sucharsld, I. L., & Rhoades, L. 2002. Perceived su-pervisory support: Gontributions to perceived organ-izational support and employee retention. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 87: 565-573.

Fan, X., Thompson, B., & Wang, L. 1999. Effects of sam-ple size, estimation methods, and model specifica-tion on structural equation modeling fit indexes.Structural Equation Modeling, 6: 56-83.

Ferris, G. R., Liden, R. C, Munyon, T. P., Summers, J. K.,Basik, K. J., & Buckley, M. R. 2009. Relationships atwork: Toward a multidimensional conceptualizationof dyadic work relationships. Journal of Manage-ment, 35: 1379-1403.

Festinger, L. 1954. A theory of social comparison pro-cesses. Human Relations, 7: 117-140.

Flynn, F. J. 2005. Identity orientations and forms of socialexchange in organizations. Academy of Manage-ment Review, 30: 737-750.

Gersick, G. J. G., Bartunek, J. M., & Dutton, J. E. 2000.Learning from academia: The importance of relation-ships in professional life. Academy of ManagementJournal, 43: 1026-1044.

Giessner, S. R., & van Knippenberg, D. 2008. "License tofail": Goal definition, leader group prototypicality,and perceptions of leadership effectiveness afterleader failure. Organizational Behavior and Hu-man Decision Processes, 105: 14-35.

Goffman, E. 1961. Asylums: Essays on the social situa-tion of mental patients and other inmates. GardenCity, NY: Doubleday.

Goodman, J. S., & Blum, T. C. 1996. Assessing the non-random sampling effects of subject attrition in lon-gitudinal research. Journal of Management, 22:627-652.


Graen, G, B,, & Uhl-Bien, M. 1995. Relationship-hasedapproach to leadership: Development of leader-memher exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain per-spective, Leadersbip Quarterly, 6: 219-247.

Green, S. G., & Bauer, T, N. 1995. Supervisory mentoringhy advisers: Relationships with doctoral student po-tential, productivity, and commitment. PersonnelPsycbology, 48: 537-561,

Harquail, G. V. 1998. Organizational identification andthe "whole persou": Integrating affect, hehavior, andcognition. In D, A, Whetten & P. C, Godfrey (Eds.),Identity in organizations: Building tbeory tbrougbconversations: 223-231, Thousand Oaks, GA: Sage.

Harris, G, E., & Gameron, ). E. 2005, Multiple dimensionsof organizational identification and commitment aspredictors of turnover intentions and psychologicalwell-heing. Canadian Journal of Bebavioural Sci-ence, 37: 159-169,

Hart, Z, P., & Miller, V, D. 2005, Gontext and message contentdming organizational socialization: A research note. Hu-man Communication Research, 31: 295-309.

Haslam, S. A., Reicher, S. D,, & Platow, M, ). 2011. Thenew psycbology of leadersbip: Identity, influence,and power. New York: Psychology Press.

Heider, F, 1958. Tbe psycbology of interpersonal rela-tions. New York: Wiley,

Hekmau, D. R., Bigley, G. A., Steensma, H. K., & Here-ford, J. F. 2009. Gomhined effects of organizationaland professional identification on the reciprocity dy-namic for professional employees. Academy ofManagement Journal, 52: 506-526,

Hekman, D, R,, Steensma, H, K., Bigley, G, A,, & Here-ford, ), F. 2009. Effects of organizational and profes-sional identification on the relationship hetween ad-ministrators' social influence and professionalemployees' adoption of new work hehavior. Journalof Applied Psycbology, 94: 1325-1335.

Hinde, R. A. 1997. Relationsbips: A dialectical perspec-tive. Hove, U.K.: Psychology Press.

Hinkin, T, R, 1998, A hrief tutorial on the development ofmeasures for use in survey questionnaires. Organi-zational Researcb Metbods, 1: 104-121.

Hirst, G., van Dick, R,, & van Knippenherg, D. 2009. Asocial identity perspective on leadership and em-ployee creativity. Journal of Organizational Bebav-ior, 30: 963-982.

Hogg, M. A. 2001. A social identity theory of leadership.Personality and Social Psycbology Review, 5:184-200.

Hogg, M. A, 2006. Social identity theory. In P. J. Burke(Ed.), Contemporary social psycbological tbeories:111-136. Palo Alto, GA: Stanford University Press.

Hogg, M. A., Martin, R., Epitropaki, O., Mankad, A.,Svensson, A., & Weeden, K. 2005. Effective leader-ship in salient groups: Revisiting leader-memher ex-change theory from the perspective of the socialidentity theory of leadership. Personality and So-cial Psycbology Bulletin, 31: 991-1004.

Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D, ). 2000. Social identity andself-categorization processes in organizational con-texts. Academy of Management Review, 25: 121-140.

Hogg, M. A., Terry, D. J., & White, K. M. 1995. A tale oftwo theories: A critical comparison of identity the-ory with social identity theory. Social PsycbologyQuarterly, 58: 255-269.

Howell, ),, & Shamir, B. 2005. The role of followers in thecharismatic leadership process: Relationships andtheir consequences. Academy of Management Re-view, 30: 96-112.

Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M, 1999, Gutoff criteria for fitindexes in covariauce structure analysis: Gonven-tional criteria versus new alternatives. StructuralEquation Modeling, 6: 1-55.

)ackall, R. 1988. Moral mazes: Tbe world of corporatemanagers. New York: Oxford University Press.

Johnson, M. D., Morgeson, F, P,, Ilgen, D. R., Meyer, G. J.,& Lloyd, J, W, 2006. Multiple professional identities:Examining differences in identification across work-related targets. Journal of Applied Psycbology, 91:498-506.

Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D., & Wanherg, G. R. 2003. Un-wrapping the organizational entry process: Disentan-gling multiple antecedents and their pathways toadjustment. Journal of Applied Psycbology, 88:779-794,

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L, 1978. Tbe social psycbology oforganizations (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.

Kessler, J. J., & Wiener, Y. 1972. Self-consistency andinequity dissonance as factors in undercompensa-tion. Organizational Bebavior and Human Deci-sion Processes, 8: 456-466.

Kim, J., Allen, G. T., & Kardes, F. R, 1996, An investiga-tion of the mediational mechanisms underlying atti-tudinal conditioning. Journal of Marketing Re-searcb, 33: 318-328.

Klein, G,, Salter, M., Riccio, G,, & Sullivan, R, 2006.Enbancing warrior etbos in soldier troining: Tbeteamwork development course (ARI research prod-uct 2006-12). Arlington, VA: Army Research Insti-tute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Kristof-Brown, A. L,, & Jansen, K. J. 2007, Issues of person-organization fit. In G, Ostroff & T, A. Judge (Eds,),Perspectives on organizational fit: 123-153. NewYork: Erlhaum.

Lance, G, E., Vandenherg, R. J., & Self, R. M. 2000. Latent


growth models of individual cheinge: The case ofnewcomer adjustment. Organizational Behaviorand Human Decision Processes, 83: 107-140.

Lord, R. G., & Brown, D. J. 2001. Leadership, values, andsubordinate self-concepts. Leadership Quarterly,12: 133-152.

Lord, R. G., Foti, R. J., & DeVader, C. L. 1984. A test ofleadership categorization theory: Internal structure,information processing, and leadership perceptions.Organizational Behavior and Human Perfor-mance, 34: 343-378.

Lord, R., & Hall, R. 2003. Identity, leadership categoriza-tion, and leadership schema. In D. van Knippenherg& M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Leadership and power: Iden-tity processes in groups and organizations: 48-64.London: Sage.

Louis, M. R. 1980. Surprise and sense making: Whatnewcomers experience in entering unfamiliar organ-izational settings. Administrative Science Quar-terly, 25: 226-251.

MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. 2004.Confidence limits for the indirect effect. Multivari-ate Behavioral Research, 39: 99-128.

Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. 1992. Alumni and their almamater: A partial test of the reformulated model oforganizational identification. Journal of Organiza-tional Behavior, 13: 103-123.

Major, D. A., Kozlowski, S. W. J., Chao, G. T., & Gardner,P. D. 1995. A longitudinal investigation of newcomerexpectations, early socialization outcomes, and themoderating effects of role development factors. Jour-nal of Applied Psychology, 80: 418-431.

Martin, R., Epitropaki, O., Thomas, G., & Topakas, A.2010. A review of leader-memher exchange research:Future prospects and directions. In G. P. Hodgkinson& J. K. Ford (Eds.), International review of indus-trial and organizational psychology, 25: 35-88.Chichester, U.K.: Wiley.

Mead, G. H. 1934. Mind, self, and society. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.

Meyerson, D. E. 2001. Tempered radicals: How peopleuse difference to inspire change at work. Boston:Harvard Business School Press.

Mitchell, T. R., & James, L. R. 2001. Building better the-ory: Time and specification of when things happen.Academy of Management Review, 26: 530-547.

Morrell, S. 2008. The US contact center operationalreview report. Indianapolis: American TeleservicesAssociation.

Morrison, E. W. 1993. Newcomer information seeking:Exploring types, modes, sources, and outcomes.Academy of Management Journal, 36: 557-589.

Morrison, E. W. 2002. Newcomer's relationships: The

role of social network ties during socialization.Academy of Management Journal, 45: 1149-1160.

Offerman, L. R., Kennedy, J. K, Jr., & Wirtz, P. W. 1994.Implicit leadership theories: Content, structure, andgeneralizahility. Leadership Quarterly, 5: 43-58.

Packard, D. 1995. The HP way: How Bill Hewlett and Ibuilt our company. New York: HarperCollins.

Patchen, M. 1970. Participation, achievement, and in-volvement on the job. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall.

Paulson, E. 2001. Inside Cisco: The real story of sus-tained M&A growth. New York: Wiley.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsa-koff, N. P. 2003. Common method biases in behav-ioral research: A critical review of the literature andrecommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psy-chology, 88: 879-903.

Pratt, M. G. 1998. To be or not to be?. Central questions inorganizational identification. In D. A. Whetten &P. C. Godfrey (Eds.), Identity in organizations:Building theory through conversations: 171-207.Thouscind Oaks, CA: Sage.

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., & Rafaeli, A. 1997. Organizational dress as asymhol of multilayered social identities. Academyof Management Journal, 40: 862-898.

Pratt, M. G., & RafaeH, A. 2001. Symbols as a language oforganizational relationships. In B. M. Staw & R. I.Sutton (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior,vol. 23: 93-152. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Preacher, K. J., Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. 2006. Compu-tational tools for probing interaction effects in mul-tiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and la-tent curve analysis. Journal of Educational andBehavioral Statistics, 31: 437-448.

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. 2008. Asymptotic andresampling strategies for assessing and comparingindirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behav-ior Research Methods, 40: 879-891.

Riketta, M. 2005. Organizational identification: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66: 358-384.

Riketta, M., & van Dick, R. 2005. Foci of attachment inorganizations: A meta-analytic comparison of thestrength and correlates of workgroup versus orgeini-zational identification and commitment. Journal ofVocational Behavior, 67: 490-510.

Rousseau, D. M. 1998. Why workers still identify withorganizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior,19: 217-233.

974 Academy of Management fournal August

Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. 1997. Organizational so-cialization: Making sense of the past and present as aprologue for the future. Journal of Vocational Be-havior, 51: 234-279.

Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. 1978. A social informationprocessing approach to job attitudes and task design.Administrative Science Quarterly, 23: 224-253.

Shamir, B., Zakay, E., Brainin, E., & Popper, M. 1998.Gorrelates of charismatic leader behavior in militaryunits: Subordinates' attitudes, unit characteristics,and superiors' appraisals of leader performance.Academy of Management Journal, 41: 387-409.

Shanock, L. R., & Eisenberger, R. 2006. When supervisorsfeel supported: Relationships with subordinates'perceived supervisor support, perceived organiza-tional support, and performance. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 91: 689-695.

Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. 2002. Mediation in experimen-tal and nonexperimental studies: New proceduresand recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7:422-445.

Sias, P. M. 2009. Organizing relationships: Traditionaland emerging perspectives on workplace relation-ships. Los Angeles: Sage.

Sluss, D. M., & Ashforth, B. E. 2007. Relational identityand identification: Defining ourselves through workrelationships. Academy of Management Review,32: 9-32.

Sluss, D. M., & Ashforth, B. E. 2008. How relational andorganizational identification converge: Processesand conditions. Organization Science, 19: 807-823.

Sluss, D. M., Gooper, D., Morrell, D. L., & Thompson,B. S. 2008. Coming into focus: Exploring work re-lationships through exchange and identity lenses.Paper presented at the 15th meeting of the EuropeanAssociation of Experimental Social Psychology,Opatija, Groatia.

Sluss, D. M., van Dick, R., & Thompson, B. S. 2010. Roletheory in organizations: A relational perspective. InZedeck, S. (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organ-izational psychology, vol. 1: Building and helpingthe organization: 505-534. Washington, DG: Amer-ican Psychological Association.

Smith, A. D., Plowman, D. A., & Duchon, D. 2010. Every-day sensegiving: A closer look at successful plantmanagers. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,46: 220-244.

Stryker, S., & Burke, P. J. 2000. The past, present, andfuture of an identity theory. Social PsychologyQuarterly, 63: 284-297.

Swann, W. B., Jr.. 1987. Identity negotiation: Where tworoads meet. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology, 53: 1038-1051.

Swann, W. B., Jr., Griffin, J. J., Predmore, S. G., & Gaines,

B. 1987. The cognitive-affective crossfire: When self-consistency confronts self-enhancement. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 52: 881-889.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. G. 1986. The social identity theoryof intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin(Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (2nd ed.):7-24. Ghicago: Nelson-Hall.

Taylor, P., & Bain, P. 1999. "An assembly line in thehead": Work and employee relations in the call cen-ter. Industrial Relations Journal, 30: 101-117.

Till, B. D., & Priluck, R. L. 2000. Stimulus generalization inclassical conditioning: An initial investigation and ex-tension. Psychology and Marketing, 17: 55-72.

U.S. Army. 2011a. Living the Army values. http://www.goarmy.com/soldier-life/being-a-soldier/living-the-army-values.html, accessed March 17.

U.S. Army. 2011b. Support Army recruiting. http://www.2k.army.mil/index.htm. Accessed September 22.

van Dick, R. 2004. My job is my castle: Identification inorganizational contexts. In G. L. Gooper & I. T. Rob-ertson (Eds.), International review of industrialand organizational psychology, vol. 19: 171-203.Ghichester, U.K.: Wiley.

van Dijke, M., & De Gremer, D. 2008. How leader proto-typicality affects followers' status: The role of proce-dural fairness. European Journal of Work and Or-ganizational Psychology, 17: 226-250.

van Knippenberg, B., & van Knippenberg, D. 2005.Leader self-sacrifice and leadership effectiveness:The moderating role of leader prototypicality. Jour-nal of Applied Psychology, 90: 25-37.

van Knippenberg, D., & Hogg, M. A. 2003. A social iden-tity model of leadership effectiveness in organiza-tions. In B. M. Staw & R. I. Sutton (Eds.), Research inorganizational behavior, vol. 25: 243-295. Green-wich, GT: JAI Press.

van Knippenberg, D., van Knippenberg, B., De Gremer,D., & Hogg, M. A. 2004. Leadership, self, and iden-tity: A review and research agenda. LeadershipQuarterly, 15: 825-856.

Van Maanen, J., & Schein, E. H. 1979. Toward a theory oforganizational socialization. In B. M. Staw (Ed.), Re-search in organizational behavior, vol. 1: 209-264.Greenwich, GT: JAI Press.

Walumbwa, F. O., & Haitnell, G. A. 2011. Understandingtransformational leadership-employee performancelinks: The role of relational identification and self-efficacy. Journal of Occupational and Organiza-tional Psychology, 84: 153-172.

Waytz, A., Epley, N., & Gacioppo, J. T. 2010. Social cog-nition unbound: Insights into anthropomorphismand dehumanization. Current Directions in Psycho-logical Science, 19: 58-62.


Wegge, J., van Dick, R., Fisher, G. K,, Wecking, G„ &Moltzen, K. 2006. Work motivation, organizationalidentification, and well-heing in call centre work.Work & Stress, 20: 60-83.

Weick, K. E. 1995. Sensemaking in organizations.Thousand Oaks, GA: Sage.

Weiss, H. M., & Gropanzano, R. 1996. Affective events theory:A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and con-sequences of affective experiences at work. In B. M. Staw& L. L, Gummings (Eds.), Research in organizationalbehavior, 18: 1-74. Greenwich, GT: JAI Press.

APPENDIX

Final Items for Mediating Mechanisms in Study 1"

Social InfluenceI pay close attention to my immediate supervisor's opinions

about the organization.My immediate supervisor's opinions about the organization

are very important to me.What my immediate supervisor thinks about the organization

is very important to me.

Affect TransferHow much do you like your organization? (1 = "not at all," 3

= "neither like nor dislike," 5 = "very much")I feel good about my organization,I am fond of my organization.

Behavioral SensemakingObeying what my immediate supervisor says even when no

one is watching.Making an extra effort to understand how my organization

wants me to do my job.Performing tasks that my organization expects of me,

" Except for the indicated item, all items used a seven-pointagreement scale.

-ÄÄ-

David M. Sluss ([email protected]) is an assis-tant professor of organizational hehavior in the SchellerGollege of Business, Georgia Institute of Technology. Hereceived his Ph.D. from Arizona State University. Hisresearch explores the dynamic processes of how individ-uals cooperate, relate, and thrive at work via attachmentsto work relationships, teams, organizations, andoccupations.

Robert E. Ployhart ([email protected]) is the Bankof America Professor of Business Administration in theDarla Moore School of Business, University of SouthGarolina. He received his Ph.D. from Michigan State Uni-versity. His primary interests include human capital,staffing, recruitment, and advanced statistical methods.

M. Glenn Cobb ([email protected]) is a re-search psychologist and team leader for the U.S. ArmyResearch Institute assigned to Fort Benning, GA. He re-ceived his Ph.D. in industrial/organizational psychologyfrom The Pennsylvania State University, His primaryresearch interests are training effectiveness, leadership,teams, and newcomer socialization.

Blake E. Ashforth ([email protected]) is the HoraceSteele Arizona Heritage Ghair in the W. P. Garey Schoolof Business, Arizona State University. He received hisPh.D. from the University of Toronto, His research con-cerns the ongoing dance hetween individuals and organ-izations, including identity and identification, socializa-tion and newcomer work adjustment, and the linksamong individual-, group-, and organization-levelphenomena.

Copyright of Academy of Management Journal is the property of Academy of Management and its content may

not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written

permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Generalizing Newcomers' Relational and Organizational Identifications: Processes and Prototypicality

Documents

Transcript of Generalizing Newcomers' Relational and Organizational Identifications: Processes and Prototypicality