Multidimensionality of Identification: Exploring the Local and Global Experiences of Organizational Members Across Eastern and Western Contexts

Belonging In Other Words: Examining Organizational Fit, Identification and Embeddedness Within a Cultural Context

“…Nor were "Hispanic" employees of banks more likely to stay at an "Hispanic" firm than they were at one run by "Caucasians" (Malliol et al, 2007). Additionally, in examining the relationship between local versus global organizational identity, Ju and Shoham (2017) found that Chinese employees used the different dimensions of their identification to enhance each other in comparison to Americans, which tended to enhance one to the cost of the other. Finally, in examining school children in both…”

“…In both cases, coworkers are acting as the intermediary through which these day-to-day cognitive and affective processes occur, providing the indirect and direct protocols, norms and behaviors of the organization. Ju and Shoham (2017) found that while this 'local' identity can support the broader organizational identity of collectivists, it can hinder the broader organizational identity of individualists. However, this may be a feature of using coworkers as the basis of determining feelings of belonging at work, not a bug.…”

“…Unfortunately, most existing organizational identification, organizational fit and organizational embeddedness measures were both designed and validated in primarily UCEA countries and, as such, may neither cover the full content of that connection as experienced by individuals from non-UCEA countries, nor show similar predictive power of organizational outcomes (Maertz et al, 2003). An increasing amount of research is bearing this out, centered mainly across the differences inherent to the individualist/collectivist dynamic (Aktaş, 2014;Baeza, Wang & Wang, 2019;Ju & Shoham, 2017;Mallol, Holtom & Lee, 2007;Ramesh & Gelfand, 2010). (Aron, Aron & Smollan, 1992) To examine these relationships, this research will utilize the Inclusion of Other in the Self scale (IOS; Aron, Aron & Smollan, 1992 as adapted by Thau, Aquino and Poortvliet, 2007).…”

“…Attachment is therefore a result of both individual action and institutional structures that is a product of the moment in time within which it exists (Scott, Corman & Cheney, 1998). By highlighting the importance of social structure/context, the SMI further suggests that national culture can inform and influence group members' levels of identification not only at the global (organizational) level but also at the local (workgroup/work unit) level (Ju & Shoham, 2017). Ju and Shoham (2017) found that while individuals from individualistic cultures reported higher levels of local (workgroup/work unit) identification and that this hindered their organizational identification, individuals from a collectivistic culture reported higher levels of organizational identification with no deleterious effects on local identification.…”

“…By highlighting the importance of social structure/context, the SMI further suggests that national culture can inform and influence group members' levels of identification not only at the global (organizational) level but also at the local (workgroup/work unit) level (Ju & Shoham, 2017). Ju and Shoham (2017) found that while individuals from individualistic cultures reported higher levels of local (workgroup/work unit) identification and that this hindered their organizational identification, individuals from a collectivistic culture reported higher levels of organizational identification with no deleterious effects on local identification. In seeming contradiction to these findings, when looking at turnover intentions between Japanese and British organizations, Abrams, Ando and Hinkle (1998) found no difference in organizational identification's predictive power.…”