Relationship between perceived justice and identification. The mediating role of organizational images
| Pages | 176-192 |
| Published date | 07 January 2019 |
| Date | 07 January 2019 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-09-2017-0210 |
| Author | Massimo Bergami,Gabriele Morandin |
| Subject Matter | HR & organizational behaviour,Industrial/labour relations,Employment law |
Relationship between perceived
justice and identification
The mediating role of organizational images
Massimo Bergami and Gabriele Morandin
Department of Management and Bologna Business School,
University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to contribute to our understanding of the antecedents of
organizational identification. Specifically, this paper aims to integrate two perspectives developed within the
social identity domain, labeled “cognitive”and “relational,”by comparing and reconciling their relationship
organizational identification.
Design/methodology/approach –This study uses a survey method and a structured questionnaire to
collect data from people working in a call center. The hypotheses were tested on a sample of 743 employees by
using structural equation models and Hayes’(2017) bootstrapping procedure.
Findings –The results provide evidence for a mediational model in which the attractiveness of
organizational images (cognitive representations) mediates the relationship between perceived justice
(relational judgments) and organizational identification.
Research limitations/implications –The data were obtained from a single source in a cross-sectional
design, which may inflate common method variance. To address threats to validity, the authors employed
several procedures, the results of which revealed that no parameters corresponding to the hypotheses
changed in sign or significance, thus suggesting that the presence of method bias, if any, was
nonconsequential.
Practical implications –Not only does perceived justice relate to the sense of belonging to an organization,
but it also contributes to shaping the long-term cognitive representations of the company. In particular, both
HR and line managers should be aware that in this respect, the interactional dimension of justice shows the
strongest effect.
Originality/value –Building on and enlarging the scope of the extant literature, the findings contribute to
our knowledge of how relational judgments shape cognitive images about the company, influencing, in turn,
the individual–organization relationship.
Keywords Perceived justice, Organizational identification, Organizational images, Social identity
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Influential studies on organizational identification have drawn inspiration from social
identity theory (Ashforth, 2016; Ashforth and Mael, 1989; Au and Marks, 2012; Bergami and
Bagozzi, 2000; Joensson, 2008), which provides multiple ways of explaining how the
identification process occurs. In particular, identity scholars have developed two main lines
of research over the last two decades. On the one hand, we have the cognitive tradition,
which adopts a cognitive perspective and primarily considers intergroup factors (e.g. Dutton
et al., 1994; Hogg et al., 2004), while on the other hand, we have the group-value model
(Lind and Tyler, 1988) and the subsequent group engagement model (GEM) (Tyler and
Blader, 2003), which adopt a relational perspective that mainly considers intragroup factors
(Blader and Tyler, 2015). The former perspective is directly focused on explaining what
identification is, why it is important, how the process occurs and how different foci of
Employee Relations
Vol. 41 No. 1, 2019
pp. 176-192
© Emerald PublishingLimited
0142-5455
DOI 10.1108/ER-09-2017-0210
Received 6 September 2017
Revised 8 January 2018
8 March 2018
3 April 2018
Accepted 18 April 2018
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0142-5455.htm
The authors are grateful to Gian Luca Marzocchi and Sara Valentini for their insightful comments on
earlier drafts of this manuscript. Special thanks to Dennis Nickson, Editor-in-Chief, and two
anonymous reviewers for their challenging comments and thoughtful suggestions, all of which were
instrumental to the development of this paper in the review process.
176
ER
41,1
identification are integrated (Ashforth et al., 2008), while the latter perspective considers
organizational identification to be a specific mediator between justice judgments and
work-related outcomes. Although both traditions have enlarged the scope of their focus over
time, including other constructs (e.g. GEM has been extended to include economic
outcomes and extrarole behaviors, Blader and Tyler, 2009), these two research traditions
have never fully been combined, even though they study the same core construct and share
theoretical foundations.
This paper aims to compare and integrate the cognitive and relational perspectives,
providing both theoretical justification and empirical evidence. The need to reconcile them
also arises due to recent developments in the organizational literature. In fact, the
cognitive tradition is enlarging the scope of its research questions, studying relational
identity and identification (Sluss and Ashforth, 2008; Sluss et al., 2012), while the relational
tradition is increasing its attention to the cognitive mechanisms activated during
the identification process (Blader, 2007; Blader and Yu, 2017). Apart from these notable
examples, however, the body of literature developed around this issue remains sparse.
This situation seems incongruous, given that the topic is important from both a theoretical
and a managerial perspective.
On a theoretical level, the recognition of relevant intergroup and intragroup
comparisons for self-definition claims to assess which evaluation is more strongly
activated in the social identification process. However, while justice is to a certain extent
considered within the social identity approach as a basis for intragroup favoritism and
intergroup discrimination (Haslam, 2004, Chapter 11), its explicit role in the identification
formation remains in its infancy, especially with regard to our understanding of “how”
justice judgments shape and are translated into organizational identification. In addition,
defining and measuring an identification effect necessarily entail placing the latter
within a broader nomological network. This placement is a matter of not only establishing
the existence of a causal relationship between identification with a company and its
antecedents but also building a comprehensive explanation of the mechanisms activated
by the self-categorization process.
From a managerial perspective, we must establish which perspective has a greater
association with organizational identification and assess whether identification is primarily
mediated by cognitive mechanisms, relational judgments, or both. In addition, considering
the positive effects of organizational identification on work-related attitudes and behaviors
(Riketta, 2005), managers have advocated for a clearer understanding of how it can be
properly activated in increasingly uncertain work settings (Cropanzano et al., 2007).
Within the social identity framework, this study compares different models of
organizational identification within a sample composed of call center employees operating
on a global scale. The rest of this paper is organized as follows. The next section briefly
introduces social identity theory and the organizational identification concept. Then, we
present both the cognitive and relational perspectives and the hypotheses generated within
each framework. After illustrating the methods constituting the basis of our research
design, we compare four alternative models of antecedents of organizational identification,
conceptually represented in Figure 1. Given the results, we provide implications for
managerial practice and theory development.
Social identity theory and organizational identification
Social identity is defined as “that part of an individual’s self-concept which derives from his
knowledge of his membership in a social group (or groups) together with the value and
emotional significance attached to that membership”(Tajfel, 1978, p. 68). It derives from
intergroup social comparisons that seek to confirm in-group-favoring evaluative
distinctiveness (Hogg et al., 2004). As a result, a person perceives him- or herself not only
177
Mediating
role of
organizational
images
To continue reading
Request your trial