Identification and Performance Management

Abstract

Identity and identification are root constructs in organization studies. Identity provides an interpretive framework with which to evaluate the appropriateness of behavior, and as such, in organizations the construct has a fundamental relationship with employee performance. This study develops a theoretical framework linking identification to change-oriented behavior, a type of extra-role activity aimed at introducing micro-level organizational change in order to improve long-term performance and efficiency. Enhancing the performance of public organizations is a central theme of public administration theory and practice, and this study contributes to the literature by shedding light on a potentially important employee-level antecedent of organizational performance. Secondly, this study links identification and change-oriented behavior to a phenomenon that has grown increasingly prevalent in contemporary public organizations, namely, goal-oriented performance management. Over the past decades, public organizations around the world have implemented results-based reforms in order to increase accountability, efficiency, and performance. Due to the scope and complexity of these reforms, however, their full range of consequences is not yet known. This study aims to make a second contribution to the literature by linking performance management practices to both organizational identification and change-oriented behavior. Using survey data gathered from employees of central government ministries in South Korea, where a wide range of results-based reforms have been introduced, mediation analysis utilizing bootstrap resampling is used to test a number of empirical hypotheses related to the constructs outlined above. The results of the analysis suggest that organizational identification is a strong predictor of change-oriented behavior. In addition, the effect of performance management on employee intentions to engage in change-oriented behavior is shown to operate primarily through its effect on organizational identification, which underscores the importance of identification for organizational performance. Following the presentation of the results of the analysis, the theoretical and practical implications of this study are discussed.

Participation, Engagement, and Organizational Citizenship Behavior Among Public Employees

“…As a psychological response to management practices, employees who engage in their work may develop an active pro-organizational behavior such as OCB (Harrison et al, 2006; Shrotryia et al, 2022). Furthermore, engagement may enhance the perception of identification with one’s organization among public employees (Campbell, 2015; Miao et al, 2019). For instance, Saks (2006) demonstrated that employee engagement increases OCB because of their psychological ownership shaped by active participation at work.…”

We need to talk about kinship: how kinship weakens turnover intentions among academicians at private higher education institutions in Indonesia

“…In the context of this research, the structural network refers to the community, while the relational dimension is the kinship that occurs in organizations. Social capital is one way to conceptualize social relationships in the workplace, and this study develops a turnover intentions model based on social capital (Campbell, 2015). Social capital is an intangible part of an organization's assets that must be maintained and developed for competitive advantage (Andrews, 2010; Nahapiet and Goshal, 1998).…”

Relationships between Employees’ Identifications and Citizenship Behavior in Work Groups: The Role of the Regularity and Intensity of Interactions

“…Third, in 40% of the reviewed correlations, OCB was measured as a generalized construct or, in other words, as a composite measure [13,32]. In 19% of cases, the OCB types were the subjects of differentiated measurement, for example, OCB-I and OCB-O [10,33], or AOB and COB [14,34]. In other cases, specific OCB manifestations were assessed, e.g., courtesy and sportsmanship [26], helping behavior [16], civic virtue [35], voice behavior [36] and taking charge [22].…”

“…In large and even medium-sized organizations, the following structural levels can easily be recognized: (1) the organization as a whole, which can be either an independent unit (for example, a higher education institution) or a subsidiary (a branch) of a large corporation; (2) the secondary-level structural unit or division (for example, a department within a university or a specific manufacturing facility within a company); (3) a small group, i.e., a basic-level structural unit, which is usually included in a secondary-level unit (for example, a laboratory within a university department or a self-regulating small work group in a manufacturing facility). These structural units serve as identification foci, and employees accordingly develop organizational identification (organizational ID/OID) [12,13], sub-organizational identification (sub-organizational ID/SoID) [14,15], or group identification (group ID/GID) [16,17].…”