We explore the meaning and significance of relational identity and relational identification, predicated on the role-relationship between two individuals. We argue that relational identity integrates person-and role-based identities and thereby the individual, interpersonal, and collective levels of self; contrast relational identity and relational identification with social identity and social identification; contend that relational identity and relational identification are each arranged in a cognitive hierarchy ranging from generalized to particularized schemas; and contrast relational identification with relational disidentification and ambivalent relational identification. Identity is at its core psychosocial: self and other; inner and outer; being and doing; expression of self for, with, against, or despite; but certainly in response to others. It is both those for whom one works and the work of loving (Josselson, 1994: 82).

A shforth and Kreiner (1999) documented how workers in so-called "dirty work" occupations were able to overcome threats to their social identities by engaging in the cognitive tactics of ideology manipulation and social weighting. This paper expands Ashforth and Kreiner's work in three ways. First, we move beyond an exclusive focus on intense dirty work occupations by mapping the broader landscape of stigmatized work. Second, we examine how system justification theory and social identity theory-typically cast as competing mechanisms by which individuals and groups perceive their places in a social structure-can complement each other to tell a more complete story of how individuals and groups deal with stigmatized identities. Third, we consider how stigmatized workers experience identification, disidentification, and ambivalence as a result of conflicting occupational and societal influences.

No abstract

The survival of an organization depends partly on its ongoing ability to integrate new members into the fold while simultaneously allowing if not encouraging organizational change. Organizational socialization is the process by which individuals become part of an organization's pattern of activities (Anderson, Riddle & Martin, 1999). This broad definition accommodates the impact of both the organization on the individual and the individual on the organization (the latter is often referred to as individualization or personalization), and-given that socialization is continuous-recognizes that individuals may be organizational newcomers or veterans.Why does socialization matter? First, because work contexts are complex, dynamic, designed for multiple purposes, and, for the newcomer, more or less novel, their meaning is inherently equivocal. As various perspectives (e.g., social learning theory, Bandura, 1977; social information processing theory, Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978; social comparison theory;Festinger, 1954) maintain, individuals socially construct meaning, giving particular weight to the views of credible people-in this case, veteran insiders. For example, Salzinger (1991) studied two cooperatives that specialized in domestic worker placement. In one, management regarded domestic work as stopgap work and provided no training. In the other, management regarded domestic work as a profession, provided training, and held supportive meetings where workers discussed their