The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
On the various and changing meanings of organizational membership: A field study of organizational identification
Abstract
The primary aim of this study was to analyze and interpret some aspects of the process of organizational identification in a corporate field setting. Specifically, the study focused on how an individual's identification (or identifying) with an employing organization influences on‐the‐job decision making. Past research efforts have been limited by their treatment of organizational identification as a product or state, rather than as a process. The wider perspective on identification is well represented by Herbert A. Simon and Kenneth Burke, whose writings were integrated to provide a theoretical framework for this study. While this study neither examined the phenomenon of identification over time nor placed it in a clearly‐defined causal chain, it explicitly recognized identification as a continuing development involving many changes. The study employed two methodologies for the examination of identification in a corporate field setting: moderately‐scheduled interviews that produced largely qualitative data and a questionnaire instrument that yielded quantitative data. The methods were “triangulated” so as to provide a more detailed “snapshot” of the identification process than either would offer alone; moreover, the “accounts” elicited in employee interviews yielded retrospectives on individual‐organization relationships. The results suggest the soundness of the theoretical framework advanced at the outset. Most employees who were interviewed saw organizational interests as directly relevant to work‐related decisions. Their comments as well as their questionnaire responses indicated that they also identified with the organization, thus offering support for the link between organizational identification and decision making.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Triangulation in Action.
Jick, T. D. (1979) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2392366 · Cited by 7,103
Cited by
Organizational Images and Member Identification
Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V. (1994) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393235 · Cited by 4,915
Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2003) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1509/jmkg.67.2.76.18609 · Cited by 3,336
Organizational identification: A meta-analysis
Riketta, M. (2005) · Journal of Vocational Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2004.05.005 · Cited by 1,808
van Knippenberg, D., & Sleebos, E. (2006) · Journal of Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1002/job.359 · Cited by 760
Van Dick, R., Grojean, M. W., Christ, O., & Wieseke, J. (2006) · British Journal of Management · doi:10.1111/j.1467-8551.2006.00520.x · Cited by 441
Metadata
- Authors
- Cheney, G.
- Venue
- Communication Monographs
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1983-12
- Volume
- 50
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 342-362
- ISSN
- 0363-7751 (ISSN-L)
- 1479-5787
- OpenAlex
- W1982272452
- Cited by
- 528
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 0.87
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: On the various and changing meanings of organizational membership: A field study of organizational identification. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/03637758309390174
- The paper
- Cheney, G. (1983). On the various and changing meanings of organizational membership: A field study of organizational identification. Communication Monographs. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637758309390174
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.