Identification Management and Its Bases: Bridging Management and Marketing Perspectives Through a Focus on Affiliation Dimensions

Abstract

There has been growing interest in both management and marketing regarding how individuals become identified with organizations and how organizations attempt to manage these identifications. The authors present a framework built on explicit and implicit points of convergence in research conducted in both these disciplines. In their review of the management and marketing literatures, the authors suggest three fundamental mechanisms, or “bases,” for managing organizational identification: relational, behavioral, and symbolic. Furthermore, the authors argue that how an individual is affiliated with an organization will impact the relative influence of these identification management bases. The authors conclude by suggesting how management and marketing scholars can create a theoretical space for future interdisciplinary work. Such a change would involve moving away from “employees” versus “customers” as a prime division between the fields and moving toward a more fine-grained approach that emphasizes the unique characteristics of individual-organizational relationships.

Enabling Value Co-Creation in the Sharing Economy: The Case of Mobike

“…Social identification with groups or organizations can be established to develop or extend one's individual identity. According to marketing literature, consumers often use identification to express their extended self through the symbolic meaning embodied in the brand; and such identification is considered to inspire consumers to protect the brand, the community or the company [32,65,66]. Specifically, C-C identification in this context is reflected in the relationship between active value co-creators and Mobike, as the interview data show that prosumers are inspired by the mission (green and last-mile transport) and the actual product/service (fashionable bike and convenient usage) of Mobike, as well as the lifestyle it supports (sustainability).…”

The construction and controlling effect of a moral brand

“…Drawing on an interpretative perspective, the brand can be understood as a social construction and the result of a negotiated process involving different stakeholders (Gregory, 2007). The role of customers in shaping brand values as part of a 'dynamic dialectical relationship' (Holt, 2002), and the growing focus on prosumption (Humphreys & Grayson, 2008) whereby consumers are involved in creating brand value, reducing the traditional distinction between customer and employee in creating brand value (Cardador & Pratt, 2006) and brand meaning (Cova & Pace, 2006) attest to this; as well as the capacity by which employees can also resist or sabotage a brand (van Rekom, 1997). Brands, like identities, are seen from a functionalist (manageable), socially constructed, and post-modern perspective (as a consequence of powerrelationships), though typically not at the same time (Balmer, 2001).…”

Affiliation, Reciprocal Relationships and Peer Pressure in Knowledge Sharing in Public Universities in Malaysia

“…As a result, those with high sense of affiliation will develop a strong bond with others, such as friendship, and increase social interaction (Cardador & Pratt, 2006). A friendly climate in the organization motivates members to frequently share and communicate in the organization (Litwin & Stringer, 1968).…”