Juan A. Moriano and Fernando MoleroJuan A. Moriano and Fernando Molero

Department of Social and Organizational Psychology

Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia

(UNED)

The importance of the psychological bond between employees and organization has been underscored by many researchers (Haslam, 2004).

This bond is frequently called organizational identification organizational identification and can be defined as the “perception of oneness with or belongingness to the organization” (Ashforth & Mael, 1989, p. 34).

However, organizations are not single and indivisible entities but networks of groups that may elicit feelings of identification in themselves (van Knippenberg & van Schie, 2000).

That means that employees may become identified not only with the whole organization but also frequently with smaller units (such as divisions, departments or work-groups) closer to their everyday work life.

There is literature showing that leaders who raise follower’s leaders who raise follower’s identification with the group, increase follower’ willingness to identification with the group, increase follower’ willingness to contribute to group goals contribute to group goals (Kark, Shamir, & Chen, 2003; Shamir, Zakay, Breinin, & Popper, 1998) and that there are high high correlations between transformational leadership and correlations between transformational leadership and organizational identificationorganizational identification (Epitropaki & Martin, 2005).

The goals of this research are as follows:

1. To examine the relationship between Work-Group Work-Group Identification (WID)Identification (WID) and the identification with the identification with the Organization as a Organization as a wwhole (OID) hole (OID) .

2. To study the relationship between transformational leadershiptransformational leadership and both ways of identificationidentification.

3. To analyze the relative importance of organizational identification and leadershiporganizational identification and leadership in order to predict some important organizational outcome variables such as employees’ satisfaction employees’ satisfaction and extra-effort, and perceptions of unit and and extra-effort, and perceptions of unit and leader effectivenessleader effectiveness.

The sample consisted of 290 nurses working in fifteen different services in a public hospital in the central area of Spain (Castilla-La Mancha Autonomous Region).

The great majority (88.6%) were women and the mean age was 39 years (SD = 9.11).

The mean organizational tenure was 14.5 years (SD = 9.51)

The tenure in the service was 8.84 years (SD = 7.38)

They were working with the leader (supervisor) in question for an average of 5.77 years (SD = 5.07).

Organizational and Work-group IdentificationOrganizational and Work-group Identification

Identification was assessed on the Mael and Ashforth’s (1992) 6-item scale.

Participants answered two versions of the scale with the only change of the target of the identification:

1. The whole organization whole organization (public health system in Spain), in the case of OID

2. The specific hospital unit specific hospital unit they worked in, for WID.

Transformational leadershipTransformational leadership

The 20-item subscale of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Form 5X (Avolio & Bass, 2004).

Organizational Outcome VariablesOrganizational Outcome Variables

To assess leader effectivenessleader effectiveness, we used the 3 items of MLQ.

Perceived unit effectiveness Perceived unit effectiveness was measured by a single item included in the MLQ.

Employees’ extra-effortEmployees’ extra-effort was measured by a 3-item sub-factor also included in the MLQ (i.e., “To what extent does your leader or supervisor get you to do more than you thought you could do?”).

Employees’ satisfaction Employees’ satisfaction was assessed by 7 items extracted from the literature on job satisfaction. Through a factorial analysis we obtained two factors: “General Satisfaction” and “Work-group satisfaction”.

Questionnaires were distributed personally by a research assistant to nurses from various departments of the hospital.

Participation was voluntary and anonymous.

Table 1. Descriptives and bi-variate correlations(N = 290)

Measures Mean(SD)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. OID 3.10(.97)

.83.83

2. WID 3.68(.90)

.54*** .84.84

3. Transformational leadership

2.41(.73)

.13* .30*** .92.92

4. Leader’ effectiveness

2.37(.94)

.09 .29*** .78*** .81.81

5. Perceived unit’ effectiveness

3.58(1.07)

-.06 .28*** .23*** .18** ---

6. Employees’ extra-effort

1.98(.81)

.10 .23*** .74*** .72*** .19** .70.70

7. Employees’general satisfaction

2.75(.70)

.10 .32*** .22*** .23*** .34*** .14* .68.68

8. Employees’work-group satisfaction.

3.65(.96)

.01 .27*** .22*** .22*** .46*** .19** .35*** .80.80 *p<.05; **p < .001; *** p < .0001. Note: Score ranges from 1 to 5, with higher scores indicating higher identification, transformational leadership, etc. Coefficients alpha for each scale are given underlined on the diagonal.

(N=290)

Leader’s

Effectivene

ss

Unit

Effectivenes

s

Employees

Extra Effort

General

Satisfaction

Work-group

satisfaction

β β β ββ

Step 1: Control

variables

Sex -.03 .11 -.01 -.11 -.03

Organizational tenure -.19 .01 -.23* .07 -.12

Group-work tenure -.04 -.18 .02 -.06 -.20

Tenure with the leader .11 .19* .14 -.13 .23*

ΔR2 .02 .04 .03 .03 .04

Step 2 : Identification

OID -.15 -.26** -.04 -.04 -.22***

WID .34*** .38*** .21*** .40*** .39***

ΔR2 .09*** .12*** .04* .14*** .12***

Step 3: Leadership

Transformational

leadership

.73*** .16* .73*** .09 .16*

ΔR2 .49*** .03* .49*** .01 .02*

Total adjusted R2 .58 .15 .54 .15 .16

1. This study replicates and expands results obtained by van Knippenberg and van Schie (2000). In the same vein that these authors we found, among Spanish public health workers, that WID is higher than OID and WID is higher than OID and maintains higher correlations with all the organizational outcome maintains higher correlations with all the organizational outcome variablesvariables.

2. We found that transformational leadership is a stronger predictor of transformational leadership is a stronger predictor of leader effectiveness and employees’ extra-effort leader effectiveness and employees’ extra-effort than organizational or work-group identification.

3. On the other hand, work-group identification has stronger impact on work-group identification has stronger impact on perceived units’ effectiveness, and employees’ satisfactionperceived units’ effectiveness, and employees’ satisfaction (general and with the group) than transformational leadership.

4. We also found positive correlations between transformational leadership positive correlations between transformational leadership and work-group identification,and work-group identification, but as far as our study has a correlational character, it is not possible to determine the direction of this relationship.

1. Although in this study identification with the whole organization identification with the whole organization does not seem to be very important, we cannot forget that in order to maintain the morale and a certain unit of action within an organization, general identification with the global purpose or mission of the organization (public health system) is also needed.

For further information, please contact: For further information, please contact: jamoriano@psi.uned.es