APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL REVIEW, 2000, 49 (3), 357±371

Work Motivation and Performance: A Social

Identity Perspective
Daan van Knippenberg
University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands

La motivation au travail et les performances ont eÂte analyseÂes dans la per-

spective de la theÂorie de l'identite sociale et de celle de l'auto-cateÂgorisation.
Centrale aÁ cette analyse se trouve la relation entre l'identification organisa-
tionnelle et la motivation d'exercer un effort pour le compte de la collectiviteÂ.
Une analyse theÂorique et une revue d' eÂtudes empiriques relatives aux relations
entre cette identification organisationnelle et la motivation et les performances
conduisent aÁ la conclusion: l'identification est lieÂe positivement aÁ la motivation
au travail, avec les performances dans la reÂalisation des taÃches et dans le
contexte, pour autant a) que l'identite sociale soit saillante et que b) les
performances eÂleveÂes soient percËues comme eÂtant dans l'inteÂreÃt du groupe ou
de l'organisation.

Work motivation and performance were analysed from the perspective of

social identity theory and self-categorisation theory. Central in this analysis
is the relation of organisational identification with the motivation to exert
effort on behalf of the collective. A theoretical analysis as well as a review
of empirical studies of the relationship of organisational identification with
motivation and performance leads to the conclusion that identification is
positively related to work motivation, task performance, and contextual
performance to the extent that (a) social identity is salient, and (b) high
performance is perceived to be in the group's or organisation's interest.

INTRODUCTION
The study of work motivation and performance forms one of the key issues
in research in organisational behaviour. Although a variety of motivations
may affect performance, and performance may be contingent on a multitude
of other factors, one of the more important factors affecting performance
________________

* Address for correspondence: Daan van Knippenberg, University of Amsterdam, Work &
Organizational Psychology, Roetersstraat 15, 1018 WB Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Email:
ao_vanKnippenberg@macmail.psy.uva.nl
I wish to thank Alexander Haslam, Moshe Krausz, Barbara van Knippenberg, Robert
Wood, and an anonymous reviewer for their comments on previous drafts of this paper.

# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2000. Published by Blackwell Publishers,

108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
358 VAN KNIPPENBERG

arguably is the motivation to perform well on the job. The present study
focuses on work motivation, and analyses it from the perspective of social
identity theory (Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Tajfel, 1978; Tajfel & Turner, 1986)
and self-categorisation theory, which is an elaboration and extension of social
identity theory (Turner, 1985; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell,
1987). In the following, the theoretical backgrounds to the social identity
approach (i.e. including both social identity theory and self-categorisation
theory) to motivation and performance are presented, the proposition that
organisational identification affects work motivation and performance is
derived from this approach, and empirical evidence in support of this
proposition is discussed.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUNDS
The social identity approach outlines how membership in social groups affects
the self-concept. Central to the approach is the proposition that through
social identification, the perception of oneness with or belongingness to a
group (see Mael & Ashforth, 1992), individuals define themselves in terms of
their group membership and ascribe characteristics that are typical of the
group to the self. The concept of social identity, ``that part of an individual's
self-concept which derives from his knowledge of his membership of a group
(or groups) together with the value and the emotional significance attached
to the membership'' (Tajfel, 1978, p. 63), reflects this internalisation of
group membership as part of ``who you are'' (Ashforth & Mael, 1989;
Haslam, in press). Identification leads individuals to perceive themselves
in terms of the characteristics they share with other members of their
ingroupsÐtheir shared social identityÐrather than in terms of the
idiosyncratic characteristics that differentiate them from other indivi-
dualsÐtheir personal identity (Turner et al., 1987). Identification thus blurs
the distinction between self and group, and turns the group, psychologically,
into a part of the self (Smith & Henry, 1996). This ``social'' or ``collective''
self lies at the heart of the perceptual, attitudinal, and behavioural effects of
group membership. The more one conceives of oneself in terms of one's
membership in a group (i.e. the more one identifies with the group), the
more likely one is to act in accordance with the group's beliefs, norms, and
values, and generally to act in ``group-typical'' ways (Ashforth & Mael,
1989; Dutton, Dukerich, & Harquail, 1994; Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Turner
et al., 1987).
Even though identification with a group may lead individuals to act in
group-typical ways, this does not mean that individuals who identify with a
group always act in accordance with the social identity based in that group
membership. The influence of identification is contingent on social identity
being salient or cognitively activated. That is, even if an individual identifies

# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2000.

 IDENTIFICATION, MOTIVATION, AND PERFORMANCE 359

with a group, that does not mean the individual is always highly aware
of this group membership, and group membership only affects attitudes
and behaviour to the extent that the individual is ``made aware'' of the
membership in the group. Although identification itself may contribute to
social identity salience (Haslam, in press), contextual factors affect salience
as well. Roughly speaking, any ``event'' that speaks to a group membership
(i.e. rather than to the individual qua individual) may make the social
identity based in that group membership salient. The prospect of a merger
may, for instance, render organisational identity salient (van Knippenberg,
van Knippenberg, Monden, & de Lima, 1999), conflict or competition
between work groups may render work group identity salient (Kramer,
1991), and the addition of individuals from another ethnicity to a previously
ethnicly homogenous work group may focus on ethnic identity. Identity
salience may endure for longer periods of time or may change in a matter of
moments, for instance when departmental identity is salient in an inter-
departmental meeting, and a telephone call from home immediately after the
meeting focuses on family identity (for a more elaborate discussion of the
salience of social identities in organisations, see e.g. Haslam, in this issue;
Hogg & Terry, 2000; Kramer, 1991).
As the group seems to be where organisational behaviour primarily takes
place, and organisations themselves may, from a social psychological per-
spective, be viewed as social groups, the relevance of the social identity
approach to the study of organisational behaviour is readily apparent.
Social identity theory has, more or less from its conception, been applied to
the study of organisational behaviour (e.g. Brown, 1978), but the study of
social identity processes in organisations has only gained momentum in
recent years. The social identity approach has been applied in several areas
of organisational behaviour research, such as intergroup relations within the
organisation (Brown, Condor, Mathews, Wade, & Williams, 1986; Kramer,
1991), mergers and acquisitions (Terry & Callan, 1998; van Knippenberg et al.,
1999), group cohesiveness (Hogg, 1993; Hogg, Cooper-Shaw, & Holzworth,
1993), organisational demography (Ely, 1994; Tsui, Egan, & O'Reilly, 1992),
leadership (Haslam, McGarty, Brown, Eggins, Morrison, & Reynolds, 1998;
Hogg, Hains, & Mason, 1998), promotion decisions (Fajak & Haslam,
1998), and turnover (Mael & Ashforth, 1995). Most relevant to the present
discussion, the social identity approach also has clear implications for work
motivation and performance.

IDENTIFICATION, MOTIVATION, AND PERFORMANCE

Membership in an organisation implies multiple group memberships:
membership in the organisation as a whole, in one's own department, in
one's own team or work unit, and so forth (see Ashforth & Mael, 1989;

# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2000.

360 VAN KNIPPENBERG

van Knippenberg & van Schie, in press; for a discussion of the multiple foci
of organisational identification). An obvious question from the point of
view of the social identity approach is how these identifications affect
organisational behaviour, and especiallyÐgiven that this is so central to
organisational lifeÐwork motivation and performance. The answer to this
question is that identification motivates group members to work for the
group's interests, which in turn may affect performance. These arguments
are elaborated below.
Identification elicits a sense of oneness with the target of identification.
This psychological oneness with the group (or organisation) induces indi-
viduals to take the group's perspective and to experience the group's goals
and interests as their own (see Dutton et al., 1994). Thus, identification will
generally be associated with a motivation to achieve group goals and work
for the group's interest. Yet, whether identification with the organisation
or within-organisation subunit (i.e. team, work group) actually results in
higher performance at work is contingent on a number of other factors.
First, as outlined above, identification with the group or organisation will
only affect attitudes and behaviour to the extent that social identity is
salient. Thus, identification will only result in the motivation to exert effort
on behalf of the collective to the extent that group or organisational identity
is salient (see also Haslam, in this issue).
Second, the relationship between identification and motivation to exert
effort on behalf of the collective may be positive (although the strength of
the relationship will be contingent on social identity salience), but this does
not necessarily mean that identification results in work motivation. That is,
we should distinguish between the motivation to exert effort on behalf of the
collective and the motivation to perform well on the job (i.e. work moti-
vation). Even though identification may be associated with the willingness
to exert effort on behalf of the collective, whether this results in work
motivation is contingent on what the goals and interests of that collective
are perceived to be. Identification may only be expected to be positively
related to work motivation if high performance is perceived to be in the
collective's interest. Only then will motivation to exert effort on behalf of the
collective translate to motivation to perform well on the job. Performance
standards may, however, not be particularly high, clear, or salient as it is not
always clear in organisations or jobs what is expected or desired in terms
of performance, and high performance may not be a goal. Moreover,
performance standards may be different at the organisational and subunit
level, as arises when the organisation advocates high performance, while
informal work group norms promote minimisation of work efforts or a
focus on interpersonal relations. If the primary target of identification is
not perceived to have a commitment to high performance, identification is
unlikely to result in striving to enhance performance.

# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2000.

 IDENTIFICATION, MOTIVATION, AND PERFORMANCE 361

To the extent that identification results in work motivation (i.e. con-

tingent on social identity salience and the perceived goals and interests of
the target of identification) it will have a positive effect on performance.
This should hold to the extent that performance is under volitional control
(e.g. to the extent that performance is contingent on effort and persistence)
rather than on, for example, knowledge, skills, abilities, or available resources
(because this qualification is not specific for the social identity analysis, but
holds for the relationship between work motivation and performance in
general, it receives no further attention here).
The analysis presented above is modelled in Fig. 1. In this model, identi-
fication affects the motivation to exert effort on behalf of the collective to
the extent that social identity is salient, and this motivation affects work
motivation to the extent that the collective's interests are perceived to be
performance-related. Finally, work motivation is related to performance to
the extent that performance is under volitional control. Note that whereas
the relationships between identification and the motivation to exert effort on
behalf of the collective, and between work motivation and performance, are
assumed to be positive (although moderated by social identity salience and
the extent to which performance is under volitional control, respectively),
the relationship between the motivation to exert effort on behalf of the
collective and work motivation may be either positive, negative, or zero
contingent on the perceived goals and interests of the collective.
In the following, I review empirical studies to evaluate the model. In order
to unambiguously assess the merits of the model and to avoid confusion
with the effects of other concepts reflecting psychological attachment, like
organisational commitment (Allen & Meyer, 1990; Mowday, Steers, &
Porter, 1979) or dispositional group loyalty (James & Cropanzano, 1994), or
with other conceptualisations of identification (e.g. O'Reilly & Chatman,
1986), this review is limited to studies that explicitly focus on identification
as defined in the social identity approach. Moreover, it is limited to studies
that measured work motivation or performance and does not address
studies of related attitudes or behaviour (e.g. Mael & Ashforth's, 1992,
study of organisational identification and support for the organisation; see
Haslam, in press, for a review of studies of the relationship of identification
with a broader range of work attitudes and behaviour).
Where performance is concerned, a distinction is made between ``task
performance'' and ``contextual performance''. Whereas task performance
refers to performance on the job that ``you were hired to do'', contextual
performance (cf. organisational citizenship behaviour; Organ, 1997) refers
to behaviour that supports the organisational, social, and psychological
environment in which task performance takes place, like helping others,
taking others' interests into consideration, and presenting a positive image of
the organisation to outsiders (e.g. Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; Moorman &

# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2000.

362 VAN KNIPPENBERG
FIGURE 1. A social identity model of work motivation and performance.
# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2000.
 IDENTIFICATION, MOTIVATION, AND PERFORMANCE 363

Blakely, 1995; Organ, 1988). This distinction is of interest for two reasons.
First, contextual performance may be assumed to be more under volitional
control than task performance (Organ, 1988), because behaviours like
helping others and taking others' interests into consideration are generally
less contingent on skills, ability, resources, and so on, than task perform-
ance. Moreover, contextual performance more or less by definition refers to
behaviours that individuals are not required to perform, whereas task
performance is part of job requirements. As a consequence, an employee can
more easily refrain from contextual than from task behaviours. Second, task
performance is more likely to benefit the self (e.g. in terms of career
opportunities or bonuses) than contextual performance, and may therefore
be less contingent on group-oriented motivations. These considerations
suggest that the effects of identification may be more apparent on con-
textual than on task performance. Moreover, contextual performance may
benefit the task performance of the work unit as a whole (Podsakoff,
Ahearne, & MacKenzie, 1997), even if it does not benefit the task perform-
ance of the individual engaging in the contextual behaviours. Even so, it
should be noted that although contextual performance may be in the
collective's best interest, individuals need not perceive it as such, and may
engage in contextual behaviours for other reasons than wanting to contri-
bute to the collective interest (e.g. because they want to help a friend). Thus,
the relationship between identification and contextual performance may not
be straightforward either.

Identification and Work Motivation

To the author's knowledge, only one study has assessed the relationship
between organisational identification and work motivation (van Knippen-
berg & van Schie, in press). In a survey of work attitudes of the employees of
a university, van Knippenberg and van Schie assessed work motivation
(with Hackman & Lawler's, 1971, internal motivation scale) and both work
group identification and organisational identification (with Mael and Ash-
forth's, 1992, organisational identification questionnaire). In addition, the
study included a measure of job involvement with items like ``I am always
prepared to do my best'', which seems to come close to a measure of work
motivation as defined here (i.e. as the willingness to exert effort to perform
well). Work group identification was found to be related to work motivation
(r = 0.30, P50.001) and both work group identification (r = 0.46,
P50.001) and organisational identification (r = 0.27, P50.01) were related
to the job involvement measure. Although only a cross-sectional study in
which all data were gathered with the same questionnaire, this does
corroborate the proposition that identification may be associated with the
motivation to exert effort on the job.

# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2000.

364 VAN KNIPPENBERG

Identification and Task Performance

Evidence regarding the relationship between identification and task
performance comes from a series of laboratory studies that all used simple
tasks on which performance may be assumed to be highly dependent on
effort and persistence rather than skills, knowledge, or ability. Performance
on these tasks may thus be regarded as indicative of work motivation.
Concerning the role of social identity salience and the perception that high
performance is in the group's best interest, a study by James and Greenberg
(1989) is especially relevant. James and Greenberg experimentally manipu-
lated the salience of students' membership in their university by presenting
half of the participants with cues that rendered their university membership
salient (the university colours in the first experiment, reference to the uni-
versity mascot in the second study). In addition, James and Greenberg told
their participants that the performance of students from their university
would be compared to the performance of students from another university,
thus implicitly suggesting that high performance would be beneficial to
the university's image (Experiment 1), or manipulated whether such inter-
group comparison was implied or not (Experiment 2). Under these different
experimental conditions, participants performed a simple anagram task. As
predicted, participants in the high identification condition solved more
anagrams, but only when intergroup comparison was salient. James and
Greenberg did not assess identification, but Worchel, Rothgerber, Day,
Hart, and Butemeyer (1998) included a measure of identification in a study
that basically replicated the James and Greenberg study. Worchel et al.
(Exp. 3) let participants work on an assembly task (making a chain out of
strips of paper) either in the presence of another work group or not and
either wearing group uniforms (same-colour lab coats) or not. Individual
performance was higher when group members were wearing group uniforms
(i.e. social identity was salient), but only when the other group was present.
Moreover, mediation analysis indicated that the effects of the experimental
manipulations were partly mediated by identification. Results of these studies
support the proposition that identification results in increased work motivation
and task performance, provided social identity is salient (see also Pilegge &
Holtz, 1997), and high performance is seen as serving the group's interests.
Evidence that identification may induce individuals to experience the
group's interest as self-interest (i.e. social self-interest rather than personal
self-interest) comes from a study by van Leeuwen and van Knippenberg
(1999). Van Leeuwen and van Knippenberg investigated the effects on
performance of work group identification, prosocial versus proself value
orientations (an individual difference variable), and expectations about
other group members' effort. Participants worked on a simple group task
(putting sheets of paper in envelopes). Identification with the work group

# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2000.

 IDENTIFICATION, MOTIVATION, AND PERFORMANCE 365

and value orientations were measured and expectations about other group
members' task effort were manipulated. Van Leeuwen and van Knippenberg
predicted that identification would motivate group members to exert effort
on the group task, especially for group members who were not disposi-
tionally inclined to take others' interests into account (i.e. individuals with
proself as compared with prosocial value orientations). Results supported
these predictions. Performance (number of envelopes filled) was higher
for participants who identified more with their work group, and this effect
was stronger for group members with a proself rather than a prosocial
orientation. Performance was also affected by expectations about the effort
other group members would invest in the group task. Higher expected effort
from others resulted in higher own performance, but more so for partici-
pants with relatively low identification. High identifiers were motivated
to perform more or less irrespective of the effort and performance they
expected from their fellow group members. These results show that identi-
fication is positively related to performance, even if it means exerting effort
on behalf of the group while other group members are taking it easy.
Moreover, and of more importance to the present discussion, the fact that
identification was primarily related to performance of individuals who
dispositionally focus on personal self-interest showed that identification
may elicit the motivation to exert effort on behalf of the collective because it
leads individuals to experience the collective's interests as self-interest, albeit
social self-interest and not personal self-interest.

Identification and Contextual Performance

Only one study provides an empirical test of the relationship between
identification as defined in the social identity approach and contextual
performance (van Knippenberg & Sleebos, 1999). In a survey of university
faculty, van Knippenberg and Sleebos measured identification (using the
Mael & Ashforth scale), individualism±collectivism as an individual differ-
ence variable (with Wagner & Moch's, 1986, measure), and affective commit-
ment (with Allen & Meyer's, 1990, scale). Two weeks later they assessed
self-reported contextual performance. This second survey focused on two
dimensions: altruism, the helping of coworkers in their job when needed,
and generalised compliance with norms defining ``what a good employee
ought to do'' (Organ, 1988). Identification was found to be positively related
to self-reports of both altruism and generalised compliance, although for
generalised compliance this was only true for more individually oriented as
compared with more collectively oriented employees.
The fact that identification was positively related to self-reports of con-
textual performance obviously supports the social identity analysis of moti-
vation and performance. It should, however, be noted that the relationship

# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2000.

366 VAN KNIPPENBERG

established in the van Knippenberg and Sleebos study is one between

identification and self-reports of behaviour, and not between identification
and actual performance (e.g. as in the previous section). Thus, this relation-
ship still awaits a more conclusive test. The finding that the relationship
between identification and (self-reported) contextual performance was in
part moderated by individualism±collectivism is also highly relevant to the
present discussion. Individualism±collectivism as an individual difference
variable refers to a dimension that distinguishes individuals who consider
their personal interests more important than the interests of the group
(individualists) from individuals who are primarily focused on the interests
of the group and would pursue group goals at the possible expense of their
personal interests (collectivists). In other words, more collectivistically oriented
individuals are dispositionally more inclined to exert effort on behalf of
the group. Indeed, individualism±collectivism as an individual difference
variable was found to be related to both task performance on group tasks
(e.g. Wagner, 1995) and to contextual performance ratings (Moorman
& Blakely, 1995). Analogous to van Leeuwen and van Knippenberg's (1999)
reasoning concerning the interaction between identification and social value
orientation, van Knippenberg and Sleebos argued that individualism±
collectivism moderated the relationship between identification and perform-
ance ratings, because identification leads individuals to experience the
collective interest as self-interest (i.e. again, social rather than personal self-
interest). This should affect individualists, who primarily focus on self-
interest, to a greater extent than collectivists, for whom group interest
generally prevails over personal interest.
Although not directly related to the social identity analysis of motivation
and performance, one other finding from the van Knippenberg and Sleebos
study is of interest here. Identification is conceptually similar to the concept
of affective commitment, ``the employee's emotional attachment to, identi-
fication with, and involvement in, the organisation'' (Allen & Meyer, 1990,
p. 1; cf. Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979). In view of this conceptual simi-
larity (especially the reference to identification), one may wonder whether
identification as defined in the social identity approach is not just a ``new
name for an old concept''. Addressing this issue, Ashforth and Mael (1989)
argue that despite the apparent similarity, commitment and identification
are different, because identification has a cognitive, self-definitional com-
ponent (in addition to identification's affective component; Karasawa, 1991;
Tajfel, 1978) that affective commitment has not (see also Pratt, 1998).
Corroborating this conceptual distinction, Mael (1988, in Ashforth & Mael,
1989; Mael & Tetrick, 1992) showed that identification as measured by
Mael and Ashforth's (1992) organisational identification questionnaire is
empirically distinguishable from commitment measured with Mowday
et al.'s (1979) Organisational Commitment Questionnaire. Extending these

# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2000.

 IDENTIFICATION, MOTIVATION, AND PERFORMANCE 367

findings, results from Confirmatory Factor Analysis in the van Knippen-

berg and Sleebos study showed that identification is also empirically dis-
tinguishable from commitment as assessed with Allen and Meyer's (1990)
Affective Commitment Scale. The fit of a model with two correlated factors
(w2 (76) = 125.71, P50.0001, NFI = 0.850, NNFI = 0.920, CFI = 0.934)
was superior to that of a model with one single identification/commitment
factor (w2 (77) = 162.25, P50.001, NFI = 0.807, NNFI = 0.865, CFI =
0.886). Obviously, this is no proof that the difference between the two lies
in the self-definitional aspect of identification, but it does show that
identification and commitment are different concepts.

CONCLUSIONS
The number of studies of the relationship of identification with motivation
and performance is as yet rather small, but these studies do yield converging
evidence in support of the proposed social identity model of motivation and
performance, and corroborate the conclusion that identification is positively
related to work motivation, task performance, and contextual performance
to the extent that (a) social identity is salient, and (b) high performance is
perceived to be in the group's or organisation's interest. Even so, some of
the relationships proposed by the model are not tested yet, only implicated
by the results of the studies reviewed, or only established correlationally
rather than experimentally. Therefore, more extensive testing of the rela-
tions proposed in the model seems in order before more definite conclusions
about the merits of the social identity approach to motivation and perform-
ance may be drawn.
The relationship between social identity processes and performance on
simple tasks (i.e. where performance is highly dependent on motivation)
seems to be well established in the experimental research reviewed. As
proposed in the model, but not addressed in the studies reviewed here,
performance on more complex tasks (i.e. tasks on which performance is less
contingent on motivation alone) may only be contingent on social identity
processes to the extent that the individual possesses the necessary skills,
knowledge, and so on, to render performance on the task primarily an issue
of motivation. Yet, one may argue that especially on such tasks, where
individuals may be more dependent on help, cooperation, and information
from others, social identity processes may affect group performance through
contextual performance (cf. Podsakoff et al., 1997) and interpersonal co-
operation (cf. Kramer, 1991). The study of these more complex relationships
would seem to be an obvious next step both from a theoretical and from an
applied point of view.
Although the discussion has primarily focused on the positive effect
identification may have on performance, there is a definite potential for

# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2000.

368 VAN KNIPPENBERG

social identity processes to result in lowered performance. Work groups may

develop counter-productive norms, for instance as a result of a conflict with
management (e.g. if the organisation is seen as exploitative, nonproductivity
may be an obvious response) or because within the informal network of the
work group doing as little as possible and getting away with it is regarded as
an accomplishment. In such cases, increased identification and increased
social identity salience may result in lowered productivity (note that, in this
example, low productivity is undesirable from the organisation's point of
view, but not from the point of view of the target of identification, the work
group). In addition, for individuals who do not identify with the group
or organisation, an emphasis on their group membership (which would
enhance social identity salience) may actually elicit responses aimed at
underscoring the individual's personal (i.e. as opposed to social) identity
(van Prooijen & van Knippenberg, 2000) and thus engender behaviour that
is incongruent with the implied social identity (e.g. nonproductivity; see
Haslam, in press, for a more elaborate discussion of these issues). Thus, it
would seem crucial for a proper understanding of the effects of social
identity processes on motivation and performance not only to study the
factors that affect organisational identifications and the salience of organ-
isational identities, but also to study the factors that affect perceptions of
the group's goals and interests.
Factors that affect organisational identification and identity salience are
extensively discussed elsewhere (e.g. Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Dutton et al.,
1994; Haslam, in press; Hogg & Terry, 2000; Pratt, 1998), and although
factors that affect the extent to which high performance is perceived to be in
the group's or organisation's interest have not received much attention in
social identity research, they are addressed elsewhere (e.g. in research on
organisational culture; cf. van Vianen, in press). A discussion of these issues
is beyond the scope of the present study, and the conclusion of the previous
paragraph is meant as a suggested agenda for research rather than as an
issue to be resolved here. Even so, to conclude I may highlight a factor that
may be especially relevant in this respect: group goal setting. A large body of
evidence shows that setting clear and specific performance goals has a
positive effect on the performance of individuals as well as groups (Locke
& Latham, 1990; O'Leary-Kelly, Martocchio, & Frink, 1994). In a recent
discussion of the effects of group goal setting, Wegge, in this issue, argues
that setting group goals, especially setting group goals participatively,
enhances social identity salience and increases group identification. Because
group goal setting also provides a clear performance standard, Wegge's
discussion implies that group goal setting may affect the three variables
highlighted above: identification, identity salience, and group goals. Thus,
group goal setting in particular may engender a social identity-based
motivation to perform well. More definite conclusions about this proposi-

# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2000.

 IDENTIFICATION, MOTIVATION, AND PERFORMANCE 369

tion, and other propositions made here, will have to await the results of
future research.

REFERENCES
Allen, N.J., & Meyer, J.P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective,
continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occu-
pational Psychology, 63, 1±18.
Ashforth, B.E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization.
Academy of Management Review, 14, 20±39.
Borman, W.C., & Motowidlo, S.J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include
elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt & W.C. Borman (Eds.),
Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 71±98). New York: Jossey-Bass.
Brown, R.J. (1978). Divided we fall: An analysis of relations between sections of a
factory workforce. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation between social groups: Studies in
the social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 395±429). London: Academic Press.
Brown, R., Condor, S., Mathews, A., Wade, G., & Williams, J. (1986). Explaining
intergroup differentiation in an industrial organization. Journal of Occupational
Psychology, 59, 273±286.
Dutton, J.E., Dukerich, J.M., & Harquail, C.V. (1994). Organizational images and
member identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 239±263.
Ely, R. (1994). The effects of organizational demographics and social identity on rela-
tionships among professional women. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 203±238.
Fajak, A., & Haslam, S.A. (1998). Gender solidarity in hierarchical organizations.
British Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 73±94.
Hackman, J.R., & Lawler, E.E. (1971). Employee reactions to job characteristics.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 55, 259±286.
Haslam, S.A. (in press). The psychology of organizations: A social identity approach.
London & Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Haslam, S.A. (2000). Social identity, self-categorization and work motivation:
Rethinking the contribution of the group to positive and sustainable organiz-
ational outcomes. Applied Psychology: An International Review.
Haslam, S.A., McGarty, C., Brown, P.M., Eggins, R.A., Morrison, B.E., &
Reynolds, K.J. (1998). Inspecting the emperor's clothes: Evidence that random
selection of leaders can enhance group performance. Group Dynamics: Theory,
Research, & Practice, 2, 168±184.
Hogg, M.A. (1993). Group cohesiveness: A critical review and some new directions.
European Review of Social Psychology, 4, 85±111.
Hogg, M.A., & Abrams, D. (1988). Social identifications: A social psychology of
intergroup relations and group processes. London: Routledge.
Hogg, M.A., Cooper-Shaw, L., & Holzworth, D.W. (1993). Group prototypicality
and depersonalized attraction in small interactive groups. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 19, 452±465.
Hogg, M.A., Hains, S.C., & Mason, I. (1998). Identification and leadership in small
groups: Salience, frame of reference, and leader stereotypicality effects on leader
evaluations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1248±1263.

# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2000.

370 VAN KNIPPENBERG

Hogg, M.A., & Terry, D.J. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in
organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25, 121±140.
James, K., & Cropanzano, R. (1994). Dispositional group loyalty and individual
action for the benefit of an ingroup: Experimental and correlational evidence.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 60, 179±205.
James, K., & Greenberg, J. (1989). In-group salience, intergroup comparison, and
individual performance and self-esteem. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 15, 604±616.
Karasawa, M. (1991). Toward an assessment of social identity: The structure of
group identification and its effects on in-group evaluations. British Journal of
Social Psychology, 30, 293±307.
Kramer, R. (1991). Intergroup relations and organizational dilemmas. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 13, 191±228.
Locke, E.A., & Latham, G.P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Mael, F., & Ashforth, B.E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the
reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 13, 103±123.
Mael, F., & Ashforth, B.E. (1995). Loyal from day one: Biodata, organizational
identification, and turnover among newcomers. Personnel Psychology, 48, 309±333.
Mael, F.A., & Tetrick, L.E. (1992). Identifying organizational identification.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52, 813±824.
Moorman, R.H., & Blakely, G.L. (1995). Individualism-collectivism as an individual
difference predictor of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organiza-
tional Behavior, 16, 127±142.
Mowday, R.T., Steers, R.M., & Porter, L.W. (1979). The measurement of organ-
izational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224±247.
O'Leary-Kelly, A.M., Martocchio, J.J., & Frink, D.D. (1994). A review of the
influence of group goals on group performance. Academy of Management
Journal, 37, 1285±1301.
O'Reilly, C.A., & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psycholo-
gical attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on
prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 492±499.
Organ, D.W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome.
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Organ, D.W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It's construct clean-up
time. Human Performance, 10, 85±97.
Pilegge, A.J., & Holtz, R. (1997). The effects of social identity on the self-set goals
and task performance of high and low self-esteem individuals. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 70, 17±26.
Podsakoff, P.M., Ahearne, M., & MacKenzie, S.B. (1997). Organizational citizen-
ship behavior and the quality and quantity of work group performance. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 82, 262±270.
Pratt, M.G. (1998). To be or not to be? Central questions in organizational
identification. In D.A. Whetten & P.C. Godfrey (Eds.), Identity in organiz-
ations: Building theory through conversations (pp. 171±207). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.

# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2000.

 IDENTIFICATION, MOTIVATION, AND PERFORMANCE 371
Smith, E.R., & Henry, S. (1996). An in-group becomes part of the self: Response
time evidence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 635±642.
Tajfel, H. (1978). Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social
psychology of intergroup relations. London: Academic Press.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J.C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour.
In S. Worchel & W.G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (2nd edn.,
pp. 7±24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Terry, D.J., & Callan, V.J. (1998). In-group bias in response to an organizational
merger. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 2, 67±81.
Tsui, A., Egan, T., & O'Reilly, C. (1992). Being different: Relational demography
and organizational attachment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 549±579.
Turner, J.C. (1985). Social categorization and the self-concept: A social cognitive
theory of group behavior. In E.J. Lawler (Ed.), Advances in group processes, 2
(pp. 77±122). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Turner, J.C., Hogg, M.A., Oakes, P.J., Reicher, S.D., & Wetherell, M.S. (1987).
Rediscovering the social group. A self-categorization theory. Oxford: Blackwell.
van Knippenberg, D., & Sleebos, E. (1999). Identification, commitment, and
individualism-collectivism: Their interrelations and relationship with organiza-
tional citizenship behavior. Unpublished manuscript, University of Amsterdam.
van Knippenberg, D., van Knippenberg, B., Monden, L., & de Lima, F. (1999). A
social categorization perspective on mergers and acquisitions. Unpublished
manuscript, University of Amsterdam.
van Knippenberg, D., & van Schie, E.C.M. (in press). Foci and correlates of organ-
izational identification. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology.
van Leeuwen, E., & van Knippenberg, D. (1999). Social value orientations and group
performance: The role of expectations of other group members' effort. Un-
published manuscript, Leiden University.
van Prooijen, J.W., & van Knippenberg, D. (2000). Individuation or depersonal-
ization: The influence of personal status position. Group Processes & Intergroup
Relations, 3, 63-77.
van Vianen, A. (in press). Person-organization fit: The match between newcomers'
and recruiters' preferences for organizational cultures. Personnel Psychology.
Wagner, J.A. (1995). Studies of individualism-collectivism: Effects on cooperation in
groups. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 152±172.
Wagner, J.A., & Moch, M.K. (1986). Individualism-collectivism: Concept and
measure. Group and Organization Studies, 11, 280±304.
Worchel, S., Rothgerber, H., Day, E.A., Hart, D., & Butemeyer, J. (1998). Social
identity and individual productivity within groups. British Journal of Social
Psychology, 37, 389±413.

# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2000.