The literature on identification in organizations is surprisingly diverse and large. This article reviews the literature in terms of four fundamental questions. First, under “What is identification?,” it outlines a continuum from narrow to broad formulations and differentiates situated identification from deep identification and organizational identification from organizational commitment. Second, in answer to “Why does identification matter?,” it discusses individual and organizational outcomes as well as several links to mainstream organizational behavior topics. Third, regarding “How does identification occur?,” it describes a process model that involves cycles of sensebreaking and sensegiving, enacting identity and sensemaking, and constructing identity narratives. Finally, under “One or many?,” it discusses team, workgroup, and subunit; relational; occupational and career identifications; and how multiple identifications may conflict, converge, and combine.

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

No abstract

No abstract