Identification Theory in Organizational Communication

Identification Theory in Organizational Communication
Name:
Institution:
Table of Contents
 TOC \o "1-3" \h \z \u HYPERLINK \l "_Toc350337230"Introduction  PAGEREF _Toc350337230 \h
3
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc350337231"The development of the identification theory  PAGEREF _Toc350337231 \h
4
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc350337232"Literature review  PAGEREF _Toc350337232 \h
6
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc350337233"The categories of organizational identification  PAGEREF _Toc350337233 \h
10
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc350337234"Adoption of the identification theory  PAGEREF _Toc350337234 \h
12
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc350337235"Conclusion  PAGEREF _Toc350337235 \h
12
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc350337236"References  PAGEREF _Toc350337236 \h
14

Introduction
The success of an organization greatly relies on the behavior of the employees. This behavior is a result of strength and the power of the identity of the organization as well as the employee identification. The continuity and centrality of the employee identification seems to influence the attitude knowledge and the behavior of the employees. However, the continuity behavior is negative. Therefore, the employee identification is subject to behavior, centrality and the perception of the external prestige. It is therefore the duty of the managers to articulate the organizations’ central values as objective would stimulate high levels of identification.
Organizational identification theory addresses how the self-concepts of the employees affect the attachments made in the work place. Further it looks into how the attachments at the work place affect the employees’ self-concepts. On the grounds of symbolic interactions (Heath, 2005), the theory puts into consideration the manner in which language, meaning and thoughts would constitute the employees’ sense of belonging to the organization. Further there is the consideration of how the current processes of establishing identification would facilitate an organization’s patterns of control. Research done on multiple organizational disciplines from various methodological and theoretical perspectives indicates that identification is a process as well as a product of interactions. The theory of organizational identification was initially formulated in the 1980s by the scholars George Cheney and Philip Tompkins. They suggest that workplaces are not mere avenues for accomplishing labor and tasks. However, it is a place where participation is a way of life that is important to individuals in that it helps them reinforce their preferred senses of the persons they are.
Therefore, here in is the report on the identification theory by George and Philip. The work elaborates on the relationship between the organization communication and the identification theory (Heath, 2005). The discussion further extends to how they came up with the theory and its organization. Various organizations have adopted the theory. Such organizations are put into the limelight and how successful they have employed the theory. In addition, there are the contributions of other scholars in relation to the theory.
The development of the identification theory
George being a communication professor at the Kent state university has carried out various researches on the communication and the organizational development and identification. In his researches he involves development of various multidisciplinary approaches in order to analyze communication. Particularly, he addresses issues such as power, identity, control, resistance, peace, and ethics among others (Heath, 2005). His research pays attention to group or rather collective epistemology instead of the traditional method of analyzing individuals. This theory facilitates the analysis of the collective/ group political endeavors in conflict movements, the socialization processes as well as other communication behaviors. The theory also indicates how these behaviors come about because of the group interactions and communication (Daft, 2010).
The field of public relations suffers deficiency of theoretical grounding. Scholars and researchers in the field of organizational identification and communication focus on the development of the field professionally (Daft, 2010). Despite the fact that organizations have paid dividends for the practitioners of the field, there has been instability in the field or public relations and communication hence affecting the identification and image of the employees who in turn affect the image of the organization. Researchers and scholars of the public relations field have borrowed theories from other fields in attempts to build a theory for this particular field. These theories may include systems theory, media, and agenda setting theory among others. In real sense these are not related to public relations (Daft, 2010).
.
Therefore it was necessary for George to develop the identification theory in order to help the managers and the organizations understand maintain and where necessary regain their image to the stakeholders. The theory was in efforts to provide a model that would add value in the development of the organizational communication and identification (Heath, 2005). It is laid on the grounds of the process of management of the organizational identity or in other terms image. The management of the organizational image refers to as the measures taken in order to regain, maintain and or create an image desired by the organization for the sake of the stakeholders (Daft, 2010). The image in this case refers to as the vivid picture or impression held by the individuals or a particular group in relation to identifying a particular organization and its products and services. This comes about because of sense making by employees and organization’s communication (Heath, 2005). This communication done by the organization takes place when the managers as well as the organization’s corporate representatives lead the deliberate trials of influencing the public (Miller, 2012).
It is evident that organizations that do not have a positive image do not make it to the top of their field of operation. Therefore, it is important for every organization to maintain a desirable image in order for it to stand great chances of being successful. The theory is greatly developed on the significance of identification in the organizations (Miller, 2012). The identification theory proves that the stronger the organization’s identity, the better the employees knowledge, behavior and attitude in relation to the objectives of the organization. As mentioned above, it is clear that the employees’ perception of organization’s objectives is greatly influenced by the identity of the organization. This brings about the assumption that a powerful identity would cause a positive effect on the behavior attitude and knowledge relating to organizational objectives. The theory hypothesizes that a strong identification is associated with the behavior, knowledge and attitude I line with the organizational objectives and goals (Whetten, 1998).
When an organizational identity at its organizational level has a central, continuous and distinctive core, it is easy to improve the performance and the effectiveness of the organization. This can play the role of a framing mechanism for the organization to make decisions. Therefore these effects play a significant role in achieving the organizational objectives and realizing the organizational goals (Whetten, 1998). This device enhances the perception as well as the implementation of the strategic measures. In turn, this adds value to the organization.However, at the individual level, the identity of the organization causes effects on the premises underlying the choices made by the employees in relation to the strategic, operational and organizational agendas (Cheney, 1999).
Literature review
In the past several decades, there have been increasing interests in the field of public relations and the perception of the organizations by the public by the researchers and scholars. These concepts include identity, credibility, reputation and image (Whetten, 1998). However, the research in this particular field faces one major problem; almost all of the concepts at one point or the other has been treated synonymously. However, there may be various similarities between the concepts in the field the theory brings about a clear difference between them. As mentioned earlier on, the theory relies on three components: the external organizational perceived prestige, the length of tenure and the value congruence. The success of an organization is subject to influencing factors such as organizational identification and identity and behavior, attitude and knowledge in relation to the objectives of the organization (Whetten, 1998).
The theory therefore goes ahead to give clear definitions of the concepts on which the theory is laid upon, their differences and how they relate with each other. Further, there is the demonstration of how the concepts relate to the organizations and the capturing of the relationships and communications between groups and individuals. It is worth noting that most of the concepts are rooted in the credibility of institutions and individuals (Cheney, 1999).
To start with is the understanding of the concept of credibility. Factors such as organizational crises, unethical practices being exposed, as well as the increasing role of media have led to dramatic increase in credibility of organizations. The credibility of an organization refers to how much the consumers feel contented by the organization’s ability and or knowledge to carry out its claims: whether the organization is trust worth telling the truth or not (Cheney, 1999). On the other hand, source credibility looks into whether the sources used by the organization are worth depending or relying on.
Identity of the organization is one of the concepts that affect the identification theory. The identity of any given organization is closely related to the organization’s core values. The members of the organization perceive the core values of the organization as its distinctive, enduring and central character (Whetten, 1998). The identity of an organization is its special characteristics that are carried on by the members of the organization through their behaviors, attitudes and knowledge. The identity of an organization goes beyond the perception of the employees. The identity stands for the organization, what it does and the manner in which it does it. This is to say that identity of an organization is defined by the members based on the values of the organization. The identities are subject to change (Cheney, 1999).
The reputation of the organization is the other concept of the theory in relation to the efficiency of an organization. These are on the basis of the actions or the measures that greatly depend on the behavior of the members of the organization. This is so called the co-creation of the organization. The behavior of the members of the organization depends on the perceptions of the internal organization. As the identi...