No abstract

No abstract

An extensive body of research on organizational identification has developed over the last 25 years. This work has typically taken the view that organizational identification is good for individuals and organizations. However, the underlying social identity processes of organizational identification do not suggest that only positive outcomes should be expected. We review the work addressing organizational identification's dark side. Our review suggests that organizational identification can lead to unethical behaviors, resistance to organizational change, lower performance, interpersonal conflict, negative emotions, and reduced well-being. Conditions facilitating these undesirable outcomes include situation factors (e.g., identity threats, work characteristics) and person factors (e.g., morality, other identifications). By providing a counterpoint to the generally positive approach to organizational identification, we attempt to move the literature toward a more balanced view.

Theory and research on affect in organizations has mostly approached emotions from a valence perspective, suggesting that positive emotions lead to positive outcomes and negative emotions to negative outcomes for organizations. We propose that cognition resulting from emotional experiences at work cannot be assumed based on emotion valence alone. Instead, building on appraisal theory and social identity theory, we propose that individual responses to discrete emotions in organizations are shaped by, and thus depend on, work-related identifications. We elaborate on this proposition specifically with respect to turnover intentions, theorizing how three discrete emotions-anger, guilt, and pride-differentially affect turnover intentions, depending on two work-related identifications: organizational and occupational. A longitudinal study involving 135 pilot instructors reporting emotions, work-related identifications, and turnover intentions over the course of one year provides general support for our proposition. Our theory and findings advance emotion and identity theories by explaining how the effects of emotions are dependent on the psychological context in which they are experienced.

This paper investigates the impact of job control and work-related loneliness on employee work behaviors and well-being during the massive and abrupt move to remote work amid the COVID-19 pandemic. We draw on job-demands control and social baseline theory to link employee perceived job control and work-related loneliness to emotional exhaustion and work-life balance and posit direct and indirect effects on employee minor counterproductive work behaviors, depression, and insomnia. Using a two-wave data collection with a sample of U.S. working adults to test our predictions, we find that high job control was beneficially related to emotional exhaustion and work-life balance, while high work-related loneliness showed detrimental relationships with our variables of interest. Moreover, we find that the beneficial impact of high perceived job control was conditional on individual segmentation preferences such that the effects were stronger when segmentation preference was low. Our research extends the literature on remote work, job control, and workplace loneliness. It also provides insights for human resource professionals to manage widespread remote work that is likely to persist long after the COVID-19 pandemic.