THE EFFECTS OF ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTIFICATION 1059 Table4 Meta-Analytic Correlations ()Between Study Variables Variable tion. 99与 nal commi me 3711 g912 Cooper-Hakim Publication Bias Analysis (B- Following the standard pr ult we valuated potential publication bias.which typically when the publicly available literature is not representati attitude on general behavior(B =24.p<001).Ove the following three ways.First,we analyzed our data using pub and general behavior in organizations. Moderation of National Culture on publication status (1)=70.ns):the average correlation ion reported in unpu ati s as a de variable,and the results are repor ed in 04 pe size and the organizational identificatior s on the strength of the relations bet th were relation between s nple size and organizati llectivistic cultures than in individualistic cultures.Othe ror (=-05,ms)was significant.These results indicate that the the precision of the studi latifictio in Cr i Model ydf CFI TLI RMSEA SRMR AIC Note.Harmonic mean N=7.001
Figure 4 presents the standardized path estimates for the supported model (Model 2). Organizational identification was positively and significantly related to both general attitude ( .74, p .001) and general behavior ( .53, p .001). Its effect on general behavior was even stronger than the effect of general attitude on general behavior ( .24, p .001). Overall, the results show that the attitude–behavior model fit the data better when organizational identification was specified as an independent construct—not as a component of general attitude—and organizational identification was a strong predictor of both general attitude and general behavior in organizations. Moderation of National Culture To test how national culture moderates the effects of organizational identification on attitudes/behaviors, we ran a WLS regression model by using organizational identification– outcome correlations as a dependent variable, and the results are reported in Table 6. As shown in Table 6, among the three cultural dimensions, the individualism dimension had significantly negative effects on the strength of the relations between organizational identification and outcomes (.20, p .05), meaning that the organizational identification– outcome relations were stronger in collectivistic cultures than in individualistic cultures. Other dimensions such as long-term-orientation (i.e., time-orientation; .11, ns) and uncertainty-avoidance ( .09, ns) did not have significant effects on the strength of the relations between organizational identification and outcomes. Publication Bias Analysis Following the standard practice for reporting meta-analysis results, we evaluated potential publication bias, which typically occurs when the publicly available literature is not representative of all studies on the relation of interest (Rothstein, Sutton, & Borenstein, 2005). Specifically, we tested for publication bias in the following three ways. First, we analyzed our data using publication status (academic journal articles vs. unpublished manuscripts and dissertations) as a moderator of the relations between organizational identification and its outcomes. As reported in the last panel of Table 3, the test results show that the relations between organizational identification and outcomes did not depend on publication status (QB(1) .70, ns); the average correlation reported in academic journal articles ˆ .41) was not significantly different from the average correlation reported in unpublished manuscripts and dissertations ˆ .35). Second, we tested the statistical significance of the correlation between the sample size and the organizational identification– outcome correlation to investigate whether the correlation of each study is related to its sampling error. The results show that neither the correlation between sample size and organizational identification– outcome correlation (r .05, ns) nor the correlation between organizational identification– outcome correlation and its standard error (r .05, ns) was significant. These results indicate that the correlation sizes were not related to the precision of the studies’ measurements. Third, we examined the magnitude and the direcTable 5 MASEM Results: Positioning of Organizational Identification in General Attitude–Behavior Relations Model 2 df CFI TLI RMSEA SRMR AIC Model 1: Organizational identification as a component of general attitude 647.42 8 .95 .90 .11 .04 673.42 Model 2: Organizational identification as a basis for general attitude and behavior 344.21 7 .97 .94 .08 .03 372.21 Note. Harmonic mean N 7,001. Table 4 Meta-Analytic Correlations ˆ) Between Study Variables Variable 1 2 3 4 5 1. Organizational identification 2. Job involvement .50a k studies 6 N total observations 3,939 3. Job satisfaction .45a .35b k studies 37 462 N total observations 11,216 133,062 4. Affective organizational commitment .64a .50b .60d k studies 12 22 112 N total observations 2,929 6,100 39,187 5. In-role performance .27a .18b .23c .22f k studies 41 85 312 14 N total observations 13,870 21,618 54,471 3,741 6. Extra-role performance .42a .30c .24e .29f .23d k studies 53 10 22 14 24 N total observations 14,459 3,612 7,100 3,711 9,912 Note. The letter superscripts in the table indicate the sources of the meta-analytic correlations as follows: a Our meta-analysis. b Cooper-Hakim & Viswesvaran (2005). c Newman et al. (2010). d Harrison et al. (2006). e LePine et al. (2002). f Colquitt et al. (2007). This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. THE EFFECTS OF ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTIFICATION 1059
1060 LEE.PARK.AND KOO tion of publication bias using meta-regresson analysis(Stanley tion they belong to.In this vein.organizational identification tudes and behaviors are developed.Using from ely to be present Discussion idceniyrelevantconstnmctOurresultsclhrifedh eheoretica Being a member of and working for an organization consti niwi and (b)organizational identification.in the nexus of attitude Table 6 Cultural dimension and revealed that the -8 [se(v)] nm-orenttion 10 088 lhainahnsanAaiatat [se(v) 76 We expected organizational identification to significantly onaiidenicaorovidesoapoSibteOndeadia [se(v)l iors favorable to organizations ty of z (.e m score indicates low collectivisn extra-role performance
tion of publication bias using meta-regression analysis (Stanley, 2008). Specifically, we conducted a weighted regression, weighted by the inverse of the standard error, by regressing the correlation of each study on its standard error. The result was not significant (2.80, ns), which indicates that publication bias is unlikely to be present. Discussion Being a member of and working for an organization constitute a substantial part of one’s life, and individuals often construct their self-concepts from the identity of the organization they belong to. In this vein, organizational identification has often been regarded as a “root construct” (Albert et al., 2000, p. 13) which provides a basis on which individual attitudes and behaviors are developed. Using 149 correlations from 114 studies on organizational identification, we aimed to provide meta-analytic evidence that reveals the unique value of this identity-relevant construct. Our results clarified the theoretical positioning of organizational identification that underlies work attitudes and behaviors in two ways; we demonstrated that (a) organizational identification was significantly associated with all the key attitudinal/behavioral constructs in organizations, and (b) organizational identification, in the nexus of attitude– behavior relations in organizations, has unique effects on behaviors, above and beyond the effects that attitudes have on them. Furthermore, we explored how these effects of organizational identification on attitudes/behaviors are moderated by national culture—an important higher-level social context wherein the organization is embedded—and revealed that the individualism/collectivism cultural dimension substantially moderates the organizational identification effects. Below, we discuss each finding and its implications from both theoretical and practical standpoints. Organizational Identification as an Antecedent of Work Outcomes We expected organizational identification to significantly influence the key organizational constructs because organizational identification provides a positive subtext for individuals developing attitudes and behaviors favorable to organizations. Consistent with our expectation, the results of our meta-analysis reveal that organizational identification is positively and significantly correlated with attitudinal outcomes—job involvement, job satisfaction, and affective organizational commitment—and behavioral outcomes—in-role performance and extra-role performance. Table 6 Meta-Regression Analysis Results: The Effects of National Culture on the Organizational Identification–Outcome Relations Cultural dimension z p Intercept .00 8.99 .00 Individualisma .20 2.50 .01 R2 .04 .01 v [se(v)] .04 [.00] Intercept .00 9.40 .00 Long-term-orientation .11 1.33 .18 R2 .01 .18 v [se(v)] .04 [.00] Intercept .00 5.76 .00 Uncertainty-avoidance .09 1.12 .26 R2 .01 .26 v [se(v)] .04 [.00] Note. k 146. k includes all attitudinal and behavioral outcomes. Analyses were conducted using a weighted least square regression model. standardized regression coefficient; z critical ratio test for the regression coefficient; p two-tailed probability of z (i.e., p-value); v maximum likelihood random effects variance component; se(v) standard error of estimated variance component. a High individualism score indicates low collectivism. Figure 4. Final results of the positioning of organizational identification in attitude–behavior relations. Harmonic mean N 7,001. Standardized coefficients are presented. p .001. This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 1060 LEE, PARK, AND KOO