Terms of Engagement Why Do People Invest Themselves in Work

Toward Phenomenology of Groups and Group Membership
Terms of engagement: Why do people invest themselves in work?

Tom R. Tyler, Steven L. Blader
Article information:
To cite this document: Tom R. Tyler, Steven L. Blader. "Terms of engagement: Why do people invest themselves in work?"
In Toward Phenomenology of Groups and Group Membership. Published online: 2002; 115-140.
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1534-0856(02)04006-9
Downloaded on: 21 October 2014, At: 02:30 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 68 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 154 times since NaN*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
H. Watson, (1958),"Matrix Methods for Framework Analysis: The Analysis of Pin#Jointed, Redundant Frameworks by Matrix
Methods Using an Electronic Computer", Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology, Vol. 30 Iss 12 pp. 362-366
Bertram Klein, (1958),"Effects of Local Loadings on Pressurized Circular Cylindrical Shells: An Analysis of Stresses and
Downloaded by NAJRAN UNIVERSITY At 02:30 21 October 2014 (PT)
Deflexions for Four Types of Loading", Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology, Vol. 30 Iss 12 pp. 356-361
Naomi Ellemers, Floor Rink, (2005),"Identity in Work Groups: The Beneficial and Detrimental Consequences of Multiple
Identities and Group Norms for Collaboration and Group Performance", Advances in Group Processes, Vol. 22 pp. 1-41
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 539746 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

4186 Ch05 14/3/02 1:22 pm Page 115
1
2
3
4
5
TERMS OF ENGAGEMENT:
6
7
WHY DO PEOPLE INVEST
8
9 THEMSELVES IN WORK?
10111
11
12
13 Tom R. Tyler and Steven L. Blader
14
15
16
17 ABSTRACT
18
19
A comparison of two motivations for engaging in work organizations
20111
21 suggests that people are motivated by both the resources they receive from
22 their organizations and by the role that the organization plays in creating
23 and sustaining a favorable view of one’s status. Status issues are espe-
24 cially central as motivators of voluntary behavior within the organization.
25
26 INTRODUCTION
27
28 Organizational psychologists recognize that organizations benefit when
29 employees actively engage in their jobs, performing their required in-role tasks
30111 carefully and conscientiously, and engaging in voluntary, but not required, activ-
31
ities to help their work organization (see Moorman, 1991; Tyler & Blader,
32
33 2000). Our concern is with the motivations that lead employees to engage in
34 such behaviors.
35 Two images dominate social psychological thinking about why people are
36 motivated to act on behalf of the organizations to which they belong. One image
37 emphasizes people’s instrumental, resource-based, concerns in workplace
38 settings – i.e. the person’s desire to gain rewards from their work and their
39 concern to avoid sanctions from workplace authorities. This image of the person
40111
Toward Phenomenology of Groups and Group Membership, Volume 4, pages 115–140.
Copyright © 2002 by Elsevier Science Ltd.
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
ISBN: 0-7623-0862-1
115
4186 Ch05 14/3/02 1:22 pm Page 116
116 TOM R. TYLER AND STEVEN L. BLADER
1 flows from a social exchange model (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959), which has been
2 elaborated in the investment model (Rusbult & Van Lange, 1996).
3 The second image focuses on people’s use of groups to define and maintain
4 a positive view of themselves. This image of the person flows from social iden-
5 tity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Recently, a wide variety of organizational
6
theorists have emphasized the role of identity maintenance in guiding people’s
7
8 actions in work groups (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Dutton & Dukerich, 1991;
9 Dutton, Dukerich & Harquail, 1994). Their argument is that an important
10111 function that organizations perform is to help people to maintain a positive
11 view of themselves. Underlying this argument is the suggestion that people will
12 work to maintain those organizations that are important to their sense of self.
13 If, for example, being a professor at New York University is central to my
14 feelings of being a valuable person, then I will work to create and maintain
15 that organization.
16
17 INSTRUMENTAL MODELS
18
19
20111 The underlying assumptions of the instrumental or resource-based model are
21 described by social exchange theory. Social exchange theory links people’s
22 reactions to organizations to the resources that they receive, or expect to receive,
23 from them (Homans, 1961; Kelley & Thibaut, 1978; Thibaut & Kelley, 1959).
24 There are two key assumptions of the model. First, that group membership and
25 participation is rooted in the exchange of resources. This approach emphasizes
26 material resources, although some social exchange theorists have recognized a
27 broader group of potentially important resources (e.g. Foa & Foa, 1994). Second,
28 the model assumes that people are motivated to maximize their personal resource
29 gain when interacting with others.
30111
Within economics, this model is referred to as the theory of rational choice.
31
32 While this theory was originally developed to explain economic choices in
33 market settings, it has been widely applied to the study of law, political science,
34 and management. Within these various contexts the fundamental underlying
35 assumption of rational choice theory, as was the case with social exchange
36 theory, is that people seek to maximize personal gain. Further, rational choice
37 models are typically oriented toward material gains and losses. Although a
38 review of the wide-ranging literature on rational choice is beyond the scope of
39 this monograph, it has been highly influential in a wide variety of areas of the
40111 social sciences.
Gain/loss arguments have also been used by a variety of social psychologists
as possible explanations for the motivations underlying people’s willingness to
help others in groups. The willingness to help others has been linked to the
4186 Ch05 14/3/02 1:22 pm Page 117
Terms of Engagment 117
1 perceived benefits and costs of helping (Latane & Darley, 1970; Piliavin,
2 Piliavin & Rodin, 1975), while cooperation within groups has been linked to
3 estimates of the likelihood that others will reciprocate such cooperative behavior
4 (Komorita & Parks, 1994; Rousseau, 1995; Tyler & Kramer, 1996; Williamson,
5 1993). Expectancy theory similarly links work motivation to expected payoffs
6 (Vroom, 1964), as does goal setting theory (Locke & Latham, 1990).
7
An example of the application of these assumptions to cooperation in groups
8
9 is also found in the psychological literature on leadership. Cooperation with
10111 leaders reflects engagement within groups, since leaders typically represent
11 groups and articulate group rules. The literature on motivations for following
12 leaders argues that leader-follower relations depend on the exchange of rewards.

13 According to this perspective, if leaders make good decisions that lead to success
14 and to the gain of resources for group members, followers respond by obeying
15 the directives of their leaders (Levine & Moreland, 1995). For example, some
16 studies of leaders emphasize the importance of their task competence (Hollander,
17 1980; Ridgeway, 1981), suggesting that people will follow those leaders that
18 they feel can solve group problems in a way that will lead to personal gain for
19
group members.
20111
21 Similarly, transactional theories of leadership suggest that leader-follower
22 relations depend on resources received from leaders in the past or expected
23 from them in the future (Bardach & Eccles, 1989; Dasgupta, 1988; Komorita,
24 Chan & Park, 1993; Komorita, Parks & Hulbert, 1992; Wayne & Ferris, 1990;
25 Williamson, 1993). One example of such a theory of leadership is vertical dyad
26 linkage theory (Dansereau, Graen & Haga, 1975), a theory that explores the
27 nature of the exchange relationships between organization members and their
28 leaders (Chemers, 1983, 1987). Such exchanges vary in the nature of the
29 resources viewed as being exchanged, although theories typically focus upon
30111 material rewards and costs.
31
Of course, expected gain and loss judgments in organizational settings are not
32
33 only made about the immediate situation. People have long-term relationships
34 with groups and they make long-term judgments about the expected costs and
35 benefits of group membership. In the context of ongoing groups, these more
36 long-term judgments of expected rewards/costs guide people’s behavior within
37 their group. In making such long-term judgments about what types of behavior
38 will be rewarding people evaluate the overall quality of the outcomes they are
39 receiving from the group, across situations, relative to their available alternatives,
40111 as well as judging the degree to which they have already invested resources in
the group.
An example of the application of long-term resource-based approaches to the
study of behavior in groups is provided by the investment model (Rusbult &
117
4186 Ch05 14/3/02 1:22 pm Page 118
1 Van Lange, 1996), which studies the factors shaping people’s decisions to leave
2 or remain within groups (their “loyalty” to the group). The investment model
3 predicts that the key factor shaping personal decisions about whether to exit a
4 group is how dependent an individual feels they are on the group for obtaining
5 personally valued resources. Dependence judgments involve considerations of
6
one’s immediate and expected long-term reward level, the quality of one’s alter-
7
8 natives, and the amount that one has invested in a group.
9 Studies based upon the investment model suggest that greater dependence on
10111 a group or relationship leads to heightened loyalty, with people less willing to
11 leave groups that provide them with higher levels of desired resources and/or
12 in which they have already invested greater resources. These studies support
13 the argument that one way to understand people’s behavior in groups is through
14 an instrumental perspective. They emphasize the value of linking such an instru-
15 mental approach to overall and long-term assessments of resources obtained
16 from the group, as well as to the immediate gains or risks found within any
17 particular situation.
18
19
20111 IDENTITY CONCERNS
21
22 The second image about the motives underlying engagement in groups develops
23 from social identity theory. It argues that people are motivated to act on behalf
24 of groups because those groups allow people to create and sustain a favorable
25 social identity. The key argument is that people draw part of their sense of self
26 and self-worth from the groups to which they belong. As a consequence, they
27 are motivated to act in ways that create and maintain successful groups. Such
28 groups define their members in positive ways.
29 Using social identity theory as our theoretical orientations (Tajfel & Turner,
30111
1979), we argue that an important function of social groups is to provide people
31
32 with a framework within which they can construct a social identity. That social
33 identity is the portion of the person’s image of themselves that develops out
34 of the groups to which they belong. The first part of this process involves social
35 categorization, the adopting of the categories that define one’s group and using
36 them to construct one’s self-image. If, for example, a person defines their social
37 identity through membership in a sports team, they may focus on dimensions
38 of self-definition that involve stamina and speed.
39 The person’s choice of dimensions on which to define themselves develops
40111 from those dimensions central to the group’s self-definition. A person’s place-
ment of themselves on salient dimensions is linked to the placement of the
group on the same dimensions. A person on the U.S. women’s soccer team,
which recently won the world cup, for example, might: (1) define herself in
4186 Ch05 14/3/02 1:22 pm Page 119
1 terms of athletic ability, and (2) view her athletic ability as high. This use of
2 group characteristics to identify salient dimensions of the self is the focus of
3 social categorization theory (Hogg & Abrams, 1988).
4 People not only use their group to identify salient dimensions of self-
5 definition. In addition, the process of creating a social identity also links people’s
6 feelings about themselves to the status of the groups to which they belong. That
7
is, the status of the salient dimensions taken on from the group defines personal
8
9 feelings of self-esteem and self-worth. So, the members of the American
10111 women’s soccer team should have high self-esteem, since their group is a
11 successful, high status group.
12 Because group status reflects on the person, people want their groups to be
13 successful and to have high status, since that high status reflects favorably on
14 them. They also want to feel that they are valued members of the groups to
15 which they belong, which similarly reflects favorably on their own identity.
16 The argument we want to make here is linked to the second of the two issues
17 outlined above. This is not the use of group categories to define self-categories.
18 Rather, it is the influence of the group’s status on the person’s positive or
19
negative evaluations of their “selves.” In other words, we are not concerned
20111
21 about the way that people use the salient or prototypical dimensions of their
22 groups to define the salient dimensions of themselves (i.e. with the cognitive
23 processes of social categorization). Instead, we focus on the degree to which
24 people are influenced by the valence of the organizations to which they belong
25 when they are forming their feelings of self-esteem or self-worth, i.e. with the
26 motivational processes involved in creating and maintaining a favorable view
27 of one’s self.
28 In describing the use of groups to define self-worth we argue that people feel
29 positively toward, accept obligations from, and work on behalf of the groups to
30111 which they belong because they want to maintain their favorable identities, and
31
through those favorable identities their positive feelings of self-esteem
32
33 and self-worth. They want their groups to do well, because their own feelings of
34 high self-worth are linked to being valued members of groups with high status.
35 The group’s success is their own success and people want to engage behaviorally
36 in groups to assure that group success.
37 The roots of this identity-based argument lie in the suggestion that people’s
38 views of themselves are linked to their views about the status of the groups to
39 which they belong. People do not simply idiosyncratically develop their feel-
40111 ings about themselves (i.e. do not simply base their sense of self on their
personal identity). To at least some extent their feelings are linked to the status
of the groups to which they belong (social identity). If a person belongs to a
high status group, for example, if they teach at Harvard, or work at Microsoft,
119
4186 Ch05 14/3/02 1:22 pm Page 120
1 this group status supports a positive view of the self. In addition, if a person
2 feels respected and valued by others in their group and consequently feels that
3 they have status in their group, this again leads to a positive view of the self.
4 To some extent the influence of group-linked status on people is shaped by
5 factors that a person cannot control. A person may want to teach at Harvard,
6
but not be offered a job, or they may be a member of a group that is stigma-
7
8 tized by society, and be unable to change that group’s status (Steele, 1988,
9 1997). Similarly, a person may want to be respected by other group members,
10111 but not be able to act in ways that win the respect of others. But, when people
11 can control their status, people work to do so by influencing the status of the
12 groups to which they belong.

13 Research confirms the key argument of social identity theory: that organiza-
14 tional membership affects feelings about the self. The members of high status
15 organizations show more satisfaction and identification with their organizational
16 membership than do members of low status organizations because of the
17 positive identity implications that their organizational membership affords them
18
(Ellemers, 1993). So, people’s feelings about themselves are shaped by their
19
20111 organizational memberships.
21 Research has also shown that the members of low status organizations will
22 strive to create more positive social identity information for use in self-
23 definition by trying to improve the status of their organization (Ellemers, 1993).
24 For instance, the members of low status organizations may take collective action
25 in order to improve the status of their organization. A variety of psychological
26 and objective approaches to changing status can be imagined and are
27 considered in the literatures on social justice (Tyler, Boeckmann, Smith & Huo,
28 1997) and on system justification (Jost & Burgess, 2000).
29 The tendency on the part of low status members of organizations to seek ways
30111
to improve their status by improving the status of their organization has been
31
32 shown to be moderated by group permeability, the stability of the organization’s
33 status, and the perceived legitimacy of the organization’s status differential
34 (Ellemers, 1993; Lalonde & Silverman, 1994; Kelly & Kelly, 1994). Thus, when
35 society assigns low status to an organization, members of that organization may
36 strive to improve the status of their organization. They are especially likely to do
37 so when they think that organizational status is unstable (i.e. can be changed),
38 when they think that there is no legitimacy to their low status, and when
39 organizational permeability is low (i.e. they cannot leave the organization as
40111 individuals). This supports our argument that people will act in ways that are
designed to enhance the status of the organizations to which they belong. Of
course, they may also leave the organization, if organizational membership is
permeable, and seek to join another organization that has higher status.
4186 Ch05 14/3/02 1:22 pm Page 121
1 The members of work organizations can improve the status of their

2 organizations through individual cooperative behavior. By engaging in such
3 cooperative behavior they make their organization more effective and successful.
4 It is individual cooperative behaviors that, aggregated over time and people,
5 enhance the status of work organizations. In other words, the status of many
6 organizations is not fixed, and engaging in cooperative behavior provides people
7
with an avenue for changing the status of their organization and thereby
8
9 improving their own self-concept.
10111 People can also increase their own status within the organizations to which
11 they belong by acting in ways that are valued by others in their organization.
12 The willingness to engage in extra-role behaviors that aid one’s organization

13 is one example of such behavior and, in fact, engaging in such behavior is
14 linked to being viewed by others as an important and valuable member of the
15 organization (Daubenmier, Smith & Tyler, 1997; Tyler, Degoey & Smith, 1966).
16 Excelling in one’s cooperative behaviors, “doing one’s job well” or “going
17 beyond what is required”, can also lead to improvements in one’s organiza-
18 tional status. These within-organization status evaluations are also important to
19
developing and maintaining a positive self-concept, so people can gain in their
20111
21 feelings of personal self-worth even when they cannot raise the status of
22 their organization by raising their value within that organization.
23 As these arguments suggest, the link between working on behalf of the orga-
24 nization and enhancing one’s own self-esteem and feelings of personal well
25 being is a direct one. By cooperating with the organization, the person is also
26 facilitating the creation and maintenance of their own favorable social identity.
27 Of course, this argument is based upon the premise that organizational status
28 and/or status in the organization is malleable. In the context of the type of orga-
29 nization we are considering, work organizations, the status of the organization
30111 is clearly changeable, as is the person’s status in the organization.
31
The idea that engaging in cooperative behaviors may have positive conse-
32
33 quences for one’s self concept has already been expressed by some researchers
34 investigating helping and altruism. Although their studies are not directed at
35 investigating the effects of helping on organizational status, researchers have
36 shown that helping has positive implications on other aspects of the self-
37 concept. For instance, helping has been shown to improve the helper’s mood
38 and self-evaluations (e.g. Williamson & Clark, 1989; Harris, 1977). Further,
39 research has shown that the effects of helping as an altruistic act are more
40111 positive for the self than is helping that is compensated (Batson, Coke,
Jasnoski & Hanson, 1978), an interesting complement to our discussion on
instrumental motives and cooperative behavior. This research supports our
notion that a link exists between cooperative (helping) behavior and the
121
4186 Ch05 14/3/02 1:22 pm Page 122
1 self-concept, though it has not examined helping behavior in relation to

2 organizational situations.
3 As this review makes clear, two bodies of psychological theory present
4 models describing what people want from the organizations to which they
5 belong. Our goal is to compare the importance of the elements of each model
6
within the context of people’s behavior in work organizations.
7
8
9 MEASURING STATUS: PRIDE, RESPECT,
10111 IDENTIFICATION
11
12 We argue that three aspects of organizational status are important in shaping

13 cooperation with organizations (Smith & Tyler, 1997; Tyler, Degoey & Smith,
14 1996; Tyler & Smith, 1999). The first involves evaluations of the status of one’s
15 organization (“pride” in organizational membership). We suggest that member-
16 ship in a high status organization leads people to cooperate. In addition to being
17 influenced by their assessments of the status of their organizations, people are
18
also influenced by their assessment of their own status within those organiza-
19
20111 tions (the “respect” they feel from others; also called “social reputation,” Emler
21 & Hopkins, 1990). Due to its emphasis on interorganization relations, social
22 identity theory has paid less attention to issues of respect.
23 We contrast the role of status to the influence of people’s judgments about
24 the level of resources that they receive from organizations – resources in the
25 form of immediate and expected future salary, benefits, and opportunities for
26 advancement. Of course, resources might communicate status. In this case, the
27 two models outlined would merge. To test this possibility in the analyses
28 reported here, regression analysis was used and we examined the beta weights
29 for the elements of each model. Those indices reflect the independent influence
30111
of each term, so joint influences are removed from the analysis. Hence, the
31
32 results shown reflect the influence of status judgments independent of their joint
33 association with judgments of resource favorability. If, in fact, the two judg-
34 ments are the same, no significant independent influences will be found for
35 either type of judgment.
36
37 PRIOR RESEARCH
38
39 Several recent studies of organizational change suggest that status concerns play
40111 an important role in shaping the way that employees react to the threat and/or
the reality of organizational change (Anastasio, Bachman, Gaertner & Dovidio,
1997; Breakwell, 1983; Haunschild et al., 1994; van Knippenberg, van
Knippenberg, Monden & de Lima, 1998; Terry & Callan, 1998; Terry, Callan
4186 Ch05 14/3/02 1:22 pm Page 123
1 & Sortori, 1996). These studies suggest that people’s reactions to organizational
2 change are shaped to an important degree by their assessments of the identity
3 implications of the changes they experience.
4 Several of our own prior field studies also suggest that status judgments have
5 an important role in shaping behavioral reactions toward organizations. Tyler
6 and Degoey (1995) examined the effect of status judgments on cooperative
7
behaviors within a political community. They did so using citizen evaluations
8
9 of local government authorities. They tested the influence of citizen’s assess-
10111 ments of: (1) the status of their community, and (2) their status in their
11 community on their willingness to cooperate with community authorities by
12 following rules governing the use of community resources. The situation studied
13 was a water shortage in the city of San Francisco. Due to shortages in water
14 people were asked to cooperate with the Public Utilities Commission, the agency
15 that creates rules to regulate the use of water. Their results suggest that actions
16 to help the organization by voluntarily following behavioral guidelines were
17 independently influenced by status judgments about pride and respect, as well
18 as by gain/loss evaluations.
19
A second community survey (Boeckmann & Tyler, 1997a) that involved
20111
21 interviews with residents in San Francisco Bay area communities similarly found
22 that: (1) people’s willingness to voluntarily join neighborhood organizations,
23 and (2) their rule following behavior were influenced by their judgments about
24 status in the community (respect). Resource effects on cooperation were not
25 examined.
26 Smith and Tyler (1997) replicated the finding that status judgments shaped
27 cooperative behaviors using two samples of university students. In the first study
28 undergraduate students were asked questions about an organization that is
29 “important to how you think of yourself ” as a person. Students selected a
30111 variety of organizations, including organizations based upon shared interests
31
(“chess club”), organizations based upon ethnicity, and organizations based upon
32
33 religion. Students were asked to indicate their assessments of the status of their
34 organization (pride) and to evaluate their status within that organization
35 (respect). They were also asked to indicate the degree to which they followed
36 the rules of their organization and the degree to which they voluntarily helped
37 the organization. The results suggest that both types of cooperative behavior
38 were shaped by status judgments.
39 Study two replicated the approach of study one, but utilized a setting that
40111 was very hierarchical in nature – university sororities. Members of five
sororities were asked about the status of their sorority (pride), as well as their
status within that sorority (respect). They were also asked about the extent to
which they followed sorority rules, as well as the extent to which they engaged
123
4186 Ch05 14/3/02 1:22 pm Page 124
1 in voluntary actions to help their sorority. As in study one, status judgments

2 were found to significantly influence both rule following and helping the
3 organization.
4 Daubenmier, Smith and Tyler (1997) replicated the Smith and Tyler approach,
5 but utilized a strongly nonhierarchical setting. They interviewed undergraduates
6
living in university cooperative housing units that were highly egalitarian both
7
8 within and across cooperatives. They used responses to a questionnaire to
9 examine the naturally occurring influence of status judgments upon organization-
10111 oriented behavior. Their analysis found that these status judgments significantly
11 influenced both rule following and helping the organization.
12 In each of the five studies reviewed cooperative behavior was affected by

13 people’s status evaluations. Those studied were influenced by either the status
14 they associate with their organization (pride), their assessment of their
15 status within that organization (respect), or by both indices of status.
16 We can also examine the role of these factors in two recent studies of
17 employee evaluations of their work organizations (Tyler, 1999). In both studies
18
employees completed questionnaires that explored their evaluations of their
19
20111 work organization, their attitudes and values about that organization, and
21 their self-reported behavior at work. The judgments made were general
22 judgments about the general character of the organization, not judgments about
23 any particular work experience.
24 The analysis in these two studies of employees (Tyler, 1999) examined the
25 degree to which employees engaged in cooperative behavior, but did not
26 distinguish between voluntary and required cooperative behavior. These studies
27 found that status judgments shaped both organization-related values and coop-
28 erative behavior. Additionally, there was a significant link between values and
29 cooperative behaviors.
30111
The results of these analyses show that judgments about organization status
31
32 (pride) and about status within the organization (respect) shape people’s
33 cooperative behaviors. Consider the reported usefulness analyses, which
34 indicate the degree to which each type of variable explained unique variance
35 not explained by the other variables considered. These analyses indicated that,
36 on average, status judgments explained 19% of the variance in behavior beyond
37 what could be explained by judgments about the nature and quantity of the
38 resources that people received from their work organization, while outcome
39 judgments explained less than 1% of the variance in cooperative behavior
40111 beyond what could be explained by status judgments.
The findings of both of these studies confirm in a work setting that
cooperative actions to help the organization are generally shaped by status
assessments, in addition to the influence of evaluations of the quality of the
4186 Ch05 14/3/02 1:22 pm Page 125
1 resources people receive or expect to receive. Those who make more favorable
2 status judgments about their organization cooperate more in their work-related
3 behavior. These findings also suggest that, to some extent, people are more
4 likely to act on behalf of organizations that provide them with desired resources.
5 However, these resource-based influences are small in magnitude when
6 compared to the influence of status-based judgments of pride and respect.
7
8
9 THE MOTIVATION FOR
10111 BEHAVIORAL ENGAGEMENT
11
12 We will compare these two models of motivation here by examining the ability
13 of each type of motivation to explain two key organizational behaviors: doing
14 one’s assigned job (in-role behavior) and making discretionary contributions to
15 the workplace (extra-role behavior).
16 We will make this comparison using a sample of 404 employees recruited
17 from various work organizations. The nature of these organizations was delib-
18 erately varied so as to produce a sample that differed widely in terms of both
19
their material benefits from their work and their level of attachment to their
20111
21 work organization. Hence, we think that this sample is ideal for comparing
22 the two models outlined. In the study employees were asked to complete a
23 questionnaire about their workplace attitudes and behaviors. All questionnaires
24 were anonymous and, depending upon how they were recruited, some of the
25 respondents were paid $10 for completing the questionnaire. The complete
26 questionnaire is reproduced in Tyler and Blader (2000). The items used to
27 measure the various concepts are shown in the Appendix.
28
29 JUDGMENTS ABOUT THE WORKPLACE
30111
31
The first issue is the level of behavioral engagement in work that is found
32
33 within this study. As noted above, we distinguished between two types of behav-
34 ioral engagement, in-role and extra-role behavior. These two behaviors are
35 related (r = 0.48), with those people who engage in one form of the behavior
36 also engaging in the other. So, people who do their jobs well are also more
37 likely to indicate that they engage in voluntary cooperative behaviors not
38 required by those jobs.
39 What shapes the degree to which people engage in cooperative behaviors in
40111 their work organization? Our analysis compares the influence of instrumental
and identity-based judgments. Two types of instrumental judgment are assessed:
people’s assessments of the overall level of resources they receive from the
organization and people’s status judgments.
125
4186 Ch05 14/3/02 1:22 pm Page 126
1 PRIDE
2
3 Three aspects of pride are measured. The first is the direct measurement of
4 pride, i.e. the subjective estimate that people make of their organization’s
5
status (“pure pride)”. Such an approach flows directly from the social
6
7 identity model. When Tajfel and Turner (1979) discuss people’s desire to feel
8 good about themselves by positively differentiating their organization from
9 other organizations, they focus on the feelings people have about the stature
10111 of the organizations to which they belong (also see Dutton, Dukerich &
11 Harquail, 1994; Dutton & Duderich, 1991). In experimental research this
12 feeling about the organization is reflected in the behavior of giving more

13 points or money to one’s own organization and/or rating it more favorably
14 than other organizations. In this analysis we directly measure people’s
15 feelings about their organization. These assessments are not comparative.
16 Instead, people are asked to rate the status of their organization. We refer to
17 this assessment as reflecting “pure” pride.
18
The second and third ways of operationalizing pride are drawn from the
19
20111 ideas of identification and internalization – two forms of psychological
21 connection to organizations. O’Reilly and Chatman (1986) use these constructs
22 to measure people’s connection to organizations. Identification refers to a
23 feeling of emotional attachment to an organization. The identification
24 argument is that people are motivated to help people and organizations because
25 they have emotional bonds with those people and organizations. It is the
26 emotional linkage to others that creates the desire to promote their welfare.
27 Hence, we would expect people to have loyalty toward those with whom they
28 have created strong social bonds, such as members of their family or people
29 with whom they share a common ethnic heritage.
30111 Internalization reflects the belief that the organization shares one’s personal
31
values (feelings about what is appropriate, desirable, and ethical). This type of
32
33 connection to an organization is cognitive. It comes from a judgment that the
34 organization has the same goals and objectives about where it is going or how
35 to operate that are reflected in a person’s own moral and ethical values and
36 standards.
37 Traditionally, voluntary cooperation has been viewed as developing from both
38 identification and internalization (Kelman, 1958, 1961; Kelman & Hamilton,
39 1989; O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986). O’Reilly and Chatman (1986) provide
40111 indices for measuring these two ideas, and, in this analysis, we have included
items from the scales they used to assess identification and internalization. We
use these scales to reflect two additional aspects of pride beyond the pure pride
of being in a high status organization. However, all three forms of pride are
4186 Ch05 14/3/02 1:22 pm Page 127
1 similar in that they reflect a noninstrumental connection to an organization that

2 is distinct from receiving high levels of resources.
3
4 RESPECT
5
6 The respect items reflect the view that people within the organization
7
respect the person’s work. The items reflecting respect are unique, since
8
9 there is no similarity between our concept of respect and the earlier ideas
10111 of pride, identification and internalization. Further, respect for the work
11 that one does is distinct from a person’s views about whether or not others
12 respect them as a person, an issue that we will not discuss (see Tyler &
13 Blader, 2000).
14
15 IDENTIFICATION
16
17 A core argument of social identity theory is that people create their sense of
18 self and evaluate their self-worth by combining two types of status information:
19
personal identity and social identity. Personal identity involves idiosyncratic
20111
21 aspects of the self, i.e. self-knowledge derived from a person’s unique
22 attributes and not from their organizational membership (e.g. their idiosyncratic
23 tasks, special talents, etc.). Social identity involves the organizations to which
24 one belongs. Social identity, therefore, involves the individual’s knowledge that
25 he [or she] belongs to certain organizations together with some emotional and
26 value significance to him [or her] of organizational membership (Tajfel, 1981).
27 It involves the part of a person’s sense of “who they are” that is associated
28 with internalized organizational membership (Haslam, 2001).
29 Identification with the organization reflects the degree to which people define
30111 themselves in terms of membership in an organization. We think of it as
31
reflecting the degree of psychological engagement in the organization – i.e. the
32
33 degree to which the organization defines the self – and we will use the two
34 terms (psychological engagement and identification) interchangeably. It should
35 be distinguished from the idea of identification as emotional attachment to one’s
36 organization – which we have already discussed. We refer to that idea as pride
37 via identification. Here our concern is with identification with the organization
38 in the sense of a merger of the self and the organization. In other words,
39 psychological engagement can be conceived of as the cognitive merging of self
40111 and organization. It is not evaluative or affective in nature, which distinguishes
it from pride via identification as well as the more general pride and respect
constructs discussed earlier. Rather, it is primarily a cognitive construct that is
related to the extent to which an individual defines themselves in terms of
127
4186 Ch05 14/3/02 1:22 pm Page 128
1 organizational membership, regardless of the affective value or label of the

2 organization to the individual.
3 Theoretically, then, identification with an organization can be high even if
4 people do not feel high levels of pride or respect, since identification is non-
5 evaluative. However, according to social identity theory, people want to
6
maintain a favorable self-identity. Since identity theories emphasize that people
7
8 typically maintain a balance between personal and social identity (Brewer,
9 1991), we would expect that they would require at least some positive elements
10111 of their social identity in order to sustain a positive self-image. The motivation
11 to maintain a favorable self-identity in conjunction with the findings that social
12 identity is a necessary component of that self-identity, suggests that people will

13 be driven to have positive social identities. That is, in seeking organizations
14 with which to psychologically engage, people will likely seek those that provide
15 them with a sense of high status (Tyler & Smith, 1999), via the mechanisms
16 of pride and respect. Thus, we expect that perceptions of high status will be
17 associated with high levels of identification, as people work to develop and
18
maintain a positive sense of themselves by identifying with organizations in
19
20111 which they feel pride and in which they feel that they are respected.
21 It is important to understand the distinctions, and similarities, between
22 psychological engagement and behavioral engagement. Behavioral engagement
23 refers to cooperative behaviors. When people behaviorally engage in their
24 organizations, they become involved in the organization and act cooperatively
25 with that organization. In other words, they express their connection with the
26 organization through the behaviors they engage in.
27 Psychological engagement, on the other hand, is the cognitive analog of
28 engagement. It is when people cognitively connect with the organization, i.e.
29 when they refer to the organization in self-referent terms, such as ‘we’ and ‘us’.
30111
Both types of engagement represent ways in which people connect with, and relate
31
32 to, their organization. The distinction, of course, is the difference in how each type
33 of engagement manifests itself. Psychological engagement is how people
34 involved conceive of themselves in relation to the organization; behavioral
35 engagement is how they behave in relation to the organization. Psychological
36 engagement, furthermore, has implications for the structure and content of
37 people’s identities.
38 Others interested in people’s connection to organizations have also
39 articulated this concept of psychological engagement or identification. Ashforth
40111 and Mael (1989) associated the idea of social identification with the degree to
which people define themselves in terms of a work organization to which they
belong. They distinguished this idea from the idea of commitment to an
organization, as we have done in this analysis. Their studies have further
4186 Ch05 14/3/02 1:22 pm Page 129
1 demonstrated empirically that identification is not the same thing as commit-

2 ment (Mael & Ashforth, 1992; Mael & Tetrick, 1992).
3 There is a large literature showing that identification has important impli-
4 cations for interorganization relations, but we will not review that literature
5 since interorganization situations are not the focus of our concern here.
6 Instead, we will focus on the influence of organizational identification on atti-
7
tudes, values, and cooperative behaviors in intraorganizational settings.
8
9 Several studies suggest that there will be such an influence. Mael and Ashforth
10111 (1992) demonstrated that organizational identification is especially likely to
11 encourage people to contribute money to their former colleges (discretionary
12 prosocial behavior). Similarly, Abrams, Ando and Hinkle (1998) show that
13 identification leads people to be less likely to quit and leave their work
14 organizations.
15
16 ANALYSIS
17
18 Our first concern is to examine the relationship among the various constructs
19
outlined. That relationship is shown in Table 1. The results shown in Table 1
20111
21 indicate that the two clusters are related (mean r = 0.28 using summary pride
22 as the pride index). Hence, the two images of what motivates engagement are
23 not completely separate. Those who receive higher levels of resources also feel
24 that their status, and that of their organization is higher.
25 What shapes behavioral engagement in work organizations? We compare the
26 two models in Table 2. That table uses regression analysis to examine the
27 influence of judgments reflecting the instrumental and identification/status
28 models upon behavioral engagement in work organizations.
29 The results shown in Table 2 indicate that both types of behavioral engage-
30111 ment in work organizations – i.e. in-role and extra-role behavior – are primarily
31
shaped by people’s status judgments. Such judgments uniquely explain 13% of
32
33 the variance in in-role behavior and 23% of the variance in extra-role behavior.
34 In contrast, instrumental judgments uniquely explain around 1% of the
35 variance in these behaviors.
36 One possibility that cannot be addressed in this regression analysis is that
37 instrumental judgments indirectly influence behavior by influencing identifica-
38 tion. To test this possibility we used causal modeling. Such modeling also allows
39 us to test the argument that pride and respect (indices of status) influence
40111 identification. As we noted, identification is somewhat different than pride and
respect. Pride refers to organization status; respect to status in the organization.
Identification indexes the degree to which people merge their sense of self with
the organizations to which they belong. We might imagine that this merger is
129
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
39
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
40111
30111
20111
10111
130
Table 1. Relationship Among Constructs.

4186 Ch05 14/3/02 1:22 pm Page 130
Mean (s.d.) Reward Total Resp. Total Pure Pride Pride Ident. In-role Extra-
Reward pride pride ident. intern. role
Rewards for doing job 4.09(1.43) 0.12 0.13

Total Rewards 3.45(0.95) 0.44 0.28 0.28
Respect-work 2.28(0.77) 0.23 0.34 0.46 0.50
Total pride 2.91(0.77) 0.21 0.48 0.53 0.30 0.41
Pure pride 2.41(0.97) 0.19 0.47 0.47 0.90 0.27 0.37
Pride-identification 3.55(1.16) 0.23 0.50 0.46 0.90 0.74 0.29 0.37
Pride-internalization 2,76(1.13) 0.14 0.31 0.49 0.89 0.71 0.68 0.25 0.37
Identification 2.94(0.94) 0.27 0.43 0.62 0.67 0.60 0.59 0.62 0.35 0.54
Note: Entries are the Pearson correlation coefficients.

TOM R. TYLER AND STEVEN L. BLADER
4186 Ch05 14/3/02 1:22 pm Page 131
1 Table 2.
2
3 In-role Extra-role
4 behavior behavior
5 Beta weights
6 Instumental
7 Rewards for doing job 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.05
8 Total Rewards 0.13* 0.12* 0.05 0.04
9 Status judgments
10111 Respect work 0.38*** 0.38*** 0.26*** 0.27***
11 Total pride 0.00 – 0.03 –
Pure pride – 0.02 – 0.02

12
Pride-identification – 0.07 – 0.03
13
Pride-internalization – 0.05 – 0.01
14 Identification 0.05 0.06 0.36*** 0.36***
15 Adjusted R-sq.
16 Unique instrumental effect 0% 1% 0% 0%
17 Unique identification effect 13% 13% 23% 23%
18 Total 22% 22% 33% 32%
19
20111 * p < 0.05 *** p < 0.001.
21
22 greater if status is higher, making identification a consequence of pride and
23 respect. This is also represented in our model.
24 The results of our model are shown in Fig. 1. The results support the
25 argument that resource judgments do shape identity. There are significant, but
26 small, paths from resource level to respect, identification, and pride. In other
27 words, to some degree people do calibrate their identification by the level of
28 the resources they are receiving from the organization.
29 The results also suggest the value of thinking of identification as resulting
30111 from pride and respect. The model suggests that both pride and respect
31
influence extra-role behavior indirectly, by encouraging identification. Those
32
33 employees who identify with their work organization do engage in extra
34 behaviors to advance their organization. Those employees who feel proud of
35 and respected by their work organization are more likely to identify with that
36 organization. In addition, those employees who feel respected are more likely
37 to engage in their jobs (in-role behavior) and do extra things around their work
38 setting (extra-role behavior).
39
40111 THE ORIGIN OF STATUS JUDGMENTS
We can also ask where status judgments and identification come from. To do
so, we compare the influence of two issues: the justice of the workplace and
131
4186 Ch05 14/3/02 1:22 pm Page 132
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10111
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20111
21
22 Fig. 1. Overall Causal Model.
23
24
25 the quality of employee outcomes (outcomes are favorable, outcomes are fair).
26 In other words, do people engage in organizations because they think that
27 organizational rules are fair or because they think that those rules: (1) produce
28 fair outcomes, and/or (2) produce outcomes that favor them.
29 Regression analysis was used (Table 3) to examine the antecedents of
30111
status judgments (a summary measure of respect, pride, identification). The
31
32 results indicate that the summary measure of status concerns is most directly
33 linked to judgments about the fairness of the workplace (beta = 0.42, p <.001).
34 It is also linked, less strongly, to the favorability and fairness of people’s
35 outcomes (beta = 0.24, p <.001).
36 These findings can be added to the model shown in Fig. 1. In addition to
37 allowing for a more complex model of causal flow, this model also allows
38 pride, respect and identification to be treated distinctly, with identification
39 flowing from pride and respect.
40111 The new model, shown in Fig. 2, supports the suggestion of the regression
analyses that process based judgments are important in shaping status
judgments. Those employees who evaluate the procedures of their work
organization to be fairer have higher pride in their organization and feel more
4186 Ch05 14/3/02 1:22 pm Page 133
1 Table 3.
2
3 Instrumental Identification
4 judgements (pride, respect,
(rewards for; identification)
5
doing job;
6 total rewards)
7
8 Instrumental
9 evaluation of decisions/
10111 rules (outcome favourability;
11 outcome fairness) 0.38*** 0.24***
12
Process evaluation of
13
Decisions/rules
14 (procedural justice;
15 quality of decision-making;
16 quality of treatment) 0.04 0.42***
17
18 Adj. R-sq 16% 39%
19
20111 * p < 0.001.
21
22
23 respected by that organization. Further, these influences are clearly independent
24 of the influences of outcome judgments.
25 In addition, it is clear that outcome judgments influence status. Judgments
26 of the favorability and fairness of the decisions made by organizational rules
27 and authorities shape pride and respect. In other words, people are prouder of
28 their organization and feel more respected by it when they feel that organiza-
29 tional rules and decisions favor them. Further, people identify more strongly
30111
with organizations that have rules and make decisions favorable to them. Hence,
31
32 ultimately, a model of cooperation must consider both issues of procedure and
33 of outcome to understand behavior within organizations.
34
35 SUMMARY
36
37 We began by asking what motivates employees to engage themselves in
38 their work organizations. One widely articulated model of motivation links
39 employee effort to the incentives and sanctions existing within the work
40111 organization. This model suggests that the task of organizational authorities is
to clearly specify jobs and to provide clear incentive structures for performing
those jobs. This model is found to shape job-related behavior, in particular
performing specified or “in-role” behavior.
133
4186 Ch05 14/3/02 1:22 pm Page 134
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10111
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20111
21
22
23 Fig. 2. Overall Causal Model.
24
25 The instrumental view is contrasted to a model suggesting that people are
26 motivated to maintain the status of their organization by working on its behalf
27 when their identities and personal status are intertwined with that of the
28 organization. If people’s self-worth and self-esteem depend upon organization-
29 linked status judgments, then people will work to preserve organization-linked
30111
status, either by keeping the status of the organization high and/or by keeping
31
32 their status in their organization high.
33 This study suggests that identity issues motivate behavior in work organizations.
34 In particular, identity concerns have a key role in shaping the degree to which
35 employees involve themselves in “extra-role”, i.e. voluntary, behaviors. Hence, if
36 jobs involve voluntary activity, managers need to be sensitive to issues of status
37 and identification in the workplace.
38 The broader theme of this volume is phenomenology and sense-making in
39 organizations. The theme reflects the recognition that people within organizations
40111 engage in active efforts to understand or “make sense” of their environments.
Through understanding this subjective construal of organizational environ-
ments we can understand the subjective factors that shape people’s behavior
within organizations. But, which subjective factors should be of concern? The
4186 Ch05 14/3/02 1:22 pm Page 135
1 goal of this paper is to identify the subjective elements that shape behavior. We
2 do so by comparing two images of what matters to people in work organizations:
3 an instrumental image and an image built on identity motives.
4 By comparing these two motivational images we hope to identify the
5 motivations underlying processes of sensemaking. By so doing, we highlight
6 the focus of such efforts, the aspects of the organization and its culture that
7
people focus on when they seek to create meaning. It is, after all, quite a
8
9 different image of sense making processes to view them as being about eval-
10111 uating the resources one is receiving and as about one’s status in the
11 organization. How can we decide which image matters? Here we argue that
12 we should focus on those elements of sense making that are linked to impor-
13 tant organization behaviors.
14
15 REFERENCES
16
17 Abrams, D., Ando, K., & Hinkle, S. (1998). Psychological attachment to the group: Cross-cultural
18 differences in organizational identification and subjective norms as predictors of workers’
19 turnover intentions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 1027–1039.
20111 Anastasio, P., Bachman, B., Gaertner, S., & Dovidio, J. (1997). Categorization, recategorization, and
21 common ingroup identity. In: R. Spears, P. J. Oakes, N. Ellemers & S. A. Haslam (Eds), The
22 Social Psychology of Stereotyping and Group Life (pp. 236–256). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Ashforth, B., & Meal, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of
23
Management Review, 14, 20–39.
24 Bardach, J. L., & Eccles, R. G. (1989). Price, authority, and trust: From ideal types to plural forms.
25 Annual Review of Sociology, 15, 97–118.
26 Batson, C. D., Coke, J. S., Janoski, M. L., & Hanson, M. (1978). Buying kindness: Effect of an
27 extrinsic incentive for helping on perceived altruism. Personality and Social Psychology
28 Bulletin, 4, 86–91.
29 Boeckmann, R. J., & Tyler, T. R. (1997a). The antecedents and consequences of civic engagement.
30111 Unpublished manuscript. Adelaide: Flinders University.
31 Breakwell, G. M. (1983). Threatened Identities. Chichester, England: Wiley.
32 Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 475–482.
33
Chemers, M. (1983). Leadership theory and research. In: P. B. Paulus (Ed.), Basic Group Processes
34 (pp. 9–39). N.Y.: Springer-Verlag.
35 Chemers, M. (1987). Leadership processes: Intrapersonal, interpersonal, and societal influences. In:
36 C. Hendrick (Ed.), Review of Personality and Social Psychology (Vol. 8, pp. 252–277).
37 Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
38 Dansereau, F., Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership
39 within formal organizations – A longitudinal investigation of the role making process.
40111 Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 46–78.
Dasgupta, P. (1988). Trust as a commodity. In: D. Gambetta (Ed.), Trust: Making and Breaking
Cooperative Relations (pp. 73–93). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Daubenmier, J. J., Smith, H. J., & Tyler, T. R. (1997). Group status, self-esteem, and group-oriented
behavior. Unpublished manuscript. University of California, Berkeley.
135
4186 Ch05 14/3/02 1:22 pm Page 136
1 Duchon, D., Green, S., & Taber, T. D.(1986). Vertical dyad linkage: A longitudinal assessment of
2 antecedents, measures, and consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 56–60.
3 Dutton, J. E., & Dukerich, J. M. (1991). Keeping an eye on the mirror: Image and identity in orga-
nizational adaptation. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 517–554.
4
Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V. (1994). Organizational images and member iden-
5 tification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 239–263.
6 Ellemers, N. (1993). The influence of socio-structural variables on identity management strategies.
7 In: W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds), European Review of Social Psychology (Vol. 4).
8 London: Wiley.
9 Emler, N., & Hopkins, N. (1990). Reputation, social identity and the self. In: D. Abrams &
10111 M. A. Hogg (Eds), Social Identity Theory. N.Y.: Springer-Verlag.
11 Foa, U. G., & Foa, E. B. (1974). Societal Structures of the Mind. Springfield, IL: Charles Thomas.
12 Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Anastasio, P. A., Bachman, B. A., & Rust, M. C. (1993). The
13 common in-group identity model. European Review of Social Psychology, 4, 1–26.
Harris, M. B. (1977). Effects of altruism on mood. Journal of Social Psychology, 102, 197–208.
14
Haslam, S. A. (2001). Psychology in Organizations; The Social Identity Approach. London: Sage.
15 Haunschild, P. R., Moreland, R. L., & Murrell, A. J. (1994). Sources of resistance to mergers
16 between groups. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 1150–1178.
17 Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1988). Social Identifications. N.Y.: Routledge.
18 Hollander, E. P. (1980). Leadership and social exchange processes. In: K. Gergen, M. S. Greenberg
19 & R. H. Willis (Eds), Social Exchange. N.Y.: Plenum.
20111 Hollander, E. P., & Julian, J. W. (1978). Studies in leader legitimacy, influence, and innovation.
21 In: L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Group Processes. N.Y.: Academic.
22 Homans. G. (1961). Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms. N.Y.: Harcourt, Brace, World.
23 Jost, J. T., & Burgess, D. (2000). Attitudinal ambivalence and the conflict between group and
system justification motives in low status groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
24
26, 293–305.
25 Kelly, C. & Kelly, J. (1994). Who gets involved in collective action? Social psychological
26 determinants of individual participation in trade unions. Human Relations, 47, 63–88.
27 Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. (1978). The Social Psychology of Groups. N.Y.: Wiley.
28 Kelman, H. C. (1958). Compliance, identification, and internalization: Three processes of attitude
29 change. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2, 51–60.
30111 Kelman, H. C. (1961). Processes of opinion change. Public Opinion Quarterly, 25, 57–78.
31 Komorita, S. S., Chan, D. K. S., & Park, C. D. (1993). The effects of reward structure and
32 reciprocity in social dilemmas. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 29, 252–267.
33 Komorita, S. S., & Parks, C. D. (1994). Social Dilemmas. Madison, Wisconsin: Brown and
Benchmark.
34
Komorita, S. S., Parks, C. D., & Hulbert, L. G. (1992). Reciprocity and the induction of cooper-
35 ation in social dilemmas. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 607–617.
36 Lalonde, R. N., & Silverman, R. A. (1994). Behavioral preferences in response to social injustice:
37 The effects of group permeability and social identity salience. Journal of Personality and
38 Social Psychology, 66, 78–85.
39 Latane, B., & Darley, J. M. (1970). The Unresponsive Bystander: Why Doesn’t He Help? N.Y.:
40111 Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (1995). Group processes. In: A. Tesser (Ed.), Advanced Social
Psychology. N.Y.: McGraw-Hill.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A Theory of Goal Setting and Performance. Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
4186 Ch05 14/3/02 1:22 pm Page 137
1 Mael, F. A., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater. Journal of Organizational
2 Behavior, 13, 103–123.
3 Mael, F. A., & Ashforth, B. E. (1995). Loyal from day one. Personnel Psychology, 48, 309–333.
Mael, F. A., & Tetrick, L. E. (1992). Identifying organizational identifications. Educational and
4
Psychological Measurement, 52, 813–824.
5 Moorman, R. H. (1991). The relationship between organizational justice and organizational citi-
6 zenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? Journal of
7 Applied Psychology, 76, 845–855.
8 O’Reilly, C. A., & Chatman, J. A. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attach-
9 ment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior.
10111 Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 492–499.
11 Piliavin, I. M., Piliavin, J. A., & Rodin, J. (1975). Cost, diffusion, and the stigmatized victim.
12 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 429–438.

13 Ridgeway, C. L. (1981). Nonconformity, competence, and influence in groups: A test of two theo-
ries. American Sociological Review, 46, 333–347.
14
Rousseau, D. M. (1995). Psychological Contracts in Organizations: Understanding Written and
15 Unwritten Agreements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
16 Rusbult, C. E., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (1996). Interdependence processes. In: E. T. Higgins and
17 A. W. Kruglanski (Eds), Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles. N.Y.: Guilford.
18 Smith, H. J., & Tyler, T. R. (1997). Choosing the right pond. Journal of Experimental Social
19 Psychology, 33, 146–170.
20111 Steele, C. M. (1988). The psychology of self-affirmation: Sustaining the integrity of the self.
21 Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 21, 261–302.
22 Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance.
23 American Psychologist, 52, 613–629.
Tajfel, H. (1981). Human Groups and Social Categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
24
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In: W. G. Austin &
25 S. Worchel (Eds), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Monterey, CA:
26 Brooks/Cole.
27 Terry, D. J., & Callan, V. J. (1998). Ingroup bias in response to an organizational merger. Group
28 dynamics: Theory, Research, Practices, 2, 67–81.
29 Terry, D. J., Callan, V. J., & Sortori, G. (1996). Employee adjustment to an organizational merger.
30111 Stress Medicine, 12, 105–122.
31 Thibaut, J., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The Social Psychology of Groups. N.Y.: Wiley.
32 Tyler, T. R. (1999). Why people cooperate with organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior,
33 21, 201–246.
Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2000). Cooperation in Groups. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
34
Tyler, T. R., & Degoey, P. (1995). Collective restraint in a social dilemma situation: The
35 influence of procedural justice and community identification on the empowerment and
36 legitimacy of authority. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 482–497.
37 Tyler, T. R., Degoey, P., & Smith, H. J. (1996). Understanding why the justice of group
38 procedures matters. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 913–930.
39 Tyler, T. R., & Kramer, R. (1996). Whither trust? In: R. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds), Trust in
40111 Organizations (pp. 1–15). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tyler, T. R., & Smith, H. J. (1997). Social justice and social movements. In: D. Gilbert, S. Fiske &
G. Lindzey (Eds), Handbook of Social Psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 595–629).
Van Knippenberg, D., van Knippenberg, B., Monden, L., & de Lima, F. (1998). A social categorization
perspective on mergers and acquisitions. Unpublished manuscript: University of Amsterdam.
137
4186 Ch05 14/3/02 1:22 pm Page 138
1 Vecchio, R. P., & Gobdel, B. C. (1984). The vertical dyad linkage model of leadership.
2 Organizational Behavior, 34, 5–20.
3 Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and Motivation. N.Y.: Wiley.
Wayne, S. J., & Ferris, G. R. (1990). Influence tactics, affect, and exchange quality in supervisor-
4
subordinate interactions: A laboratory experiment and field study. Journal of Applied
5 Psychology, 75, 487–499.
6 Williamson, O. J. (1993). Calculativeness, trust, and economic organization. Journal of Law and
7 Economics, 34, 453–500.
8 Williamson, G. M., & Clark, M. S. (1989). Providing help and desired relationship type as deter-
9 minants of changes in mood and self-evaluations. Journal of Personality and Social
10111 Psychology, 56, 722–734.
11
12
13 APPENDIX
14
15 Total resources received from the group
16 “Overall, I receive excellent pay and benefits where I work”: If I wish to, I
17 think I can have a secure job with my current work organization well into the
18 future”; “I am satisfied with my pay”; “It would be very difficult for me to find
19
another job with the pay and benefits of my current job”; “I have good oppor-
20111
21 tunities for promotion where I work”; “My future opportunities for pay increases
22 are not very favorable (reverse).”
23
24 Incentives for performance
25 “If you do your job well, how much does that improve your pay and benefits”;
26 “If you do your job poorly, how much does that hurt you pay and benefits
27 (reverse).”
28
29 Pure pride
30111 “I feel proud to be working where I am”; “I talk up where I work to my friends
31
as a good place to work for”; “I am embarrassed to tell others where I work
32
33 (reverse).”
34
35 Pride – identification
36 “I would recommend to a close friend that they work where I do”; “I feel that
37 my work setting inspires me to do the very best job I can”; “I cannot think of
38 another setting in which I would rather work.”
39
40111 Pride – internalization
I agree with what my organization stands for”; “I find that my values and the
values where I work are very similar”; and “I disagree with many of the things
that my organization stands for.”
4186 Ch05 14/3/02 1:22 pm Page 139
1 Respect for work

2 To what extent do others in your work setting: “respect the work you do”;
3 “respect your ideas”; “value what you contribute at work”; “value you as
4 member of your work group”; “think it would be difficult to replace you?”;
5 “Disapprove of how you do your job (reverse) “; “Do not appreciate your contri-
6 butions to the job (reverse).”
7
8
9 Identification
10111 “My work is important to the way I think of myself as a person”; “When
11 someone praises the accomplishments of my work organization, if feels like a
12 personal compliment to me”; “When I talk about where I work I usually say
13 “we” rather than “they”; “I feel a sense that I personally belong where I work”;
14 “I feel that the problems of my organization are my own “personal” problems;
15 “When someone from outside criticizes my organization, if feels like a personal
16 insult”; “I feel like a valued member of my work organization; “When some-
17 thing goes wrong in my work setting, I feel a personal responsibility to fix it”;
18 “The organization in which I work says a lot about who I am as a person”; “I
19
do not feel like an important part of my work setting (reverse).”
20111
21
22 In-role behavior
23 How often do you: “Fulfill the responsibilities specified in your job descrip-
24 tion”; “Perform the tasks that are expected as part of your job”; “Meet the
25 performance expectations of your supervisor”; “Adequately complete your
26 required work projects”; “Exert your full effort when getting your job done.”
27
28 Extra-role behavior
29 How often do you: “Volunteer to do things that are not required in order to
30111 help your organization”; “Volunteer to help to orient new employees”; “Make
31
innovative suggestions to help improve your work setting”; “Volunteer to help
32
33 others when they have heave workloads”; “Help your supervisor, even when
34 not asked to do so”; “Put an extra effort into doing your job well, beyond what
35 is normally expected of you”; “Lend a helping hand to others at work”; “Do
36 work that is not the best you could do because you are angry at your employer
37 (reverse)”; “Consider bringing issues at work to the attention of outside agen-
38 cies like the courts (reverse)”; and “Try to find ways to hinder or undermine
39 your work supervisor (reverse).”
40111
Procedural justice
“Overall, how often do you feel your organization makes decisions in fair
ways?”; “How fairly does your work supervisor make decisions?”; “Overall,
139
4186 Ch05 14/3/02 1:22 pm Page 140
1 how often do you feel your supervisor makes decisions in fair ways?”; and
2 “Organizational authorities where I work try very hard to be fair to their
3 employees.”
4
5 Quality of decision-making
6
“Decisions are made based upon facts, not personal biases and opinions”; “The
7
8 rules and procedures are equally fair to everyone”; “How often are the rules
9 and procedures applied consistently across people and situations?”; “My super-
10111 visor’s decisions are made based on facts, not their personal biases and
11 opinions”; “My supervisor’s decisions are equally fair to everyone”; “Are your
12 supervisor’s decisions consistent across people and situations?”; and “How fair
13 are the rules and procedures for decision making used in your organization?”
14
15 Quality of treatment
16 “My rights are respected when decisions are made”; “I am treated with dignity
17 by my work organization”; “Does the organization follow through on decisions
18
and promises it makes?”; “I am usually given an honest explanation for deci-
19
20111 sions made”; “My needs are taken into account when decisions are being made”;
21 “My views are considered when decisions are being made”; “My supervisor
22 respects my rights”; “My supervisor treats me with dignity”; “Does you super-
23 visor follow through on the decisions and promises he/she makes?”; “My
24 supervisor usually gives me an honest explanation for the decisions he/she
25 makes”; “My supervisor takes my needs into account when making decisions”;
26 “My supervisor considers my views when decisions are being made”; and “How
27 fairly does your supervisor treat you when he/she is making decisions.”
28
29 Distributive justice
30111
“In general, how fair are the outcomes that you receive from your work
31
32 organization?”; “Do you think that the pay and benefits you receive are more
33 than you deserve, less than you deserve, or are about fair?”; “In general, how
34 fair are the outcomes that you receive from your work supervisor?”; and “Do
35 you think that the outcomes you receive from your supervisor are more than
36 you deserve, less than you deserve, or are about fair?”
37
38 Outcome favorability
39 “How often do the rules and procedures lead to decisions and outcomes favor-
40111 able to you?”; “How much do the decisions that your organization makes benefit
you?”; “How often does your supervisor make decisions that are favorable to
you?”; and “How much do the decisions that your supervisor makes benefit
you?”
This article has been cited by:
1. Manuela Barreto, Naomi Ellemers, Wieke Scholten, Heather Smith. 2010. To be or

not to be: The impact of implicit versus explicit inappropriate social categorizations
on the self. British Journal of Social Psychology 49:1, 43-67. [CrossRef]

Terms of Engagement Why Do People Invest Themselves in Work

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Terms of Engagement Why Do People Invest Themselves in Work

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Toward Phenomenology of Groups and Group Membership

Terms of engagement: Why do people invest themselves in work?

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

116 TOM R. TYLER AND STEVEN L. BLADER

Terms of Engagment 117

12 leaders argues that leader-follower relations depend on the exchange of rewards.

118 TOM R. TYLER AND STEVEN L. BLADER

Terms of Engagment 119

120 TOM R. TYLER AND STEVEN L. BLADER

12 groups to which they belong.

Terms of Engagment 121

1 The members of work organizations can improve the status of their

12 The willingness to engage in extra-role behaviors that aid one’s organization

122 TOM R. TYLER AND STEVEN L. BLADER

1 self-concept, though it has not examined helping behavior in relation to

12 We argue that three aspects of organizational status are important in shaping

Terms of Engagment 123

124 TOM R. TYLER AND STEVEN L. BLADER

1 in voluntary actions to help their sorority. As in study one, status judgments

12 In each of the five studies reviewed cooperative behavior was affected by

Terms of Engagment 125

126 TOM R. TYLER AND STEVEN L. BLADER

12 feeling about the organization is reflected in the behavior of giving more

Terms of Engagment 127

1 similar in that they reflect a noninstrumental connection to an organization that

128 TOM R. TYLER AND STEVEN L. BLADER

1 organizational membership, regardless of the affective value or label of the

12 identity is a necessary component of that self-identity, suggests that people will

Terms of Engagment 129

1 demonstrated empirically that identification is not the same thing as commit-

Table 1. Relationship Among Constructs.

Rewards for doing job 4.09(1.43) 0.12 0.13

Note: Entries are the Pearson correlation coefficients.

Terms of Engagment 131

Pure pride – 0.02 – 0.02

132 TOM R. TYLER AND STEVEN L. BLADER

Terms of Engagment 133

134 TOM R. TYLER AND STEVEN L. BLADER

Terms of Engagment 135

136 TOM R. TYLER AND STEVEN L. BLADER

Terms of Engagment 137

12 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 429–438.

138 TOM R. TYLER AND STEVEN L. BLADER

Terms of Engagment 139

1 Respect for work

140 TOM R. TYLER AND STEVEN L. BLADER

1. Manuela Barreto, Naomi Ellemers, Wieke Scholten, Heather Smith. 2010. To be or

You might also like