08832323.2015.1087372
Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
A Study of Organizational Identification of Faculty
Members in Hong Kong Business Schools
Po Yung Tsui & Hang-Yue Ngo
To cite this article: Po Yung Tsui & Hang-Yue Ngo (2015) A Study of Organizational
Identification of Faculty Members in Hong Kong Business Schools, Journal of Education for
Business, 90:8, 427-434, DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2015.1087372
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2015.1087372
Published online: 14 Oct 2015.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 22
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji]
Date: 11 January 2016, At: 19:44
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS, 90: 427–434, 2015
Copyright Ó Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0883-2323 print / 1940-3356 online
DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2015.1087372
A Study of Organizational Identification of Faculty
Members in Hong Kong Business Schools
Po Yung Tsui and Hang-Yue Ngo
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 19:44 11 January 2016
Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
The authors examine how four organizational antecedents affect the organizational
identification (OI) and in-role and extra-role performance of Hong Kong business school
faculty. OI was tested to be a mediator. The survey results indicated a high level of OI,
consistent with the collectivist cultural value of Chinese employees. However, OI was
positively associated with two antecedents only. And contrary to the existing literature that
OI only affects extra-role behavior, OI was positively associated with both consequences.
The data did not support OI as a mediator. Further research in the Chinese context and
extension of studies with additional variables are recommended.
Keywords: business school, business school rankings, faculty, organizational identification,
university rankings
Defined as “the perceived oneness with an organization and
the experience of the organization’s success and failure as
one’s own” (Mael & Ashforth, 1992, p. 104), organizational
identification (OI) has attracted considerable management
research interest (Ashforth, Harrison, & Corley, 2008;
Edwards, 2005; Riketta, 2005). OI is positively associated
with many types of employee behavior (Ashforth et al.,
2008; Edwards, 2005). Given the phenomenon of eroding
employee loyalty due to organizational changes, attention
to OI effects is thus important.
Despite the rich OI literature, this study intends to fill a
few existing research gaps. First, we examine the concept
of OI, which is rarely found in higher education institution
(HEI) literature. Globalization has led to reforms of HEIs,
which often compete through university ranking systems.
Criticism of this competitive process, however, is ubiquitous (Marginson, 2007; O’Connell, 2013). Nevertheless,
stakeholders are tempted to judge HEIs using these systems
(Kreutzer & Wood, 2007). Competition among business
schools is intense (Corley & Gioia, 2000, 2002), and favorable rankings provide numerous advantages to business
schools. High rankings have strong positive correlations
with program fees (Peters, 2007), salaries commanded by
Correspondence should be addressed to Po Yung Tsui, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Department of Management, Room 833, Cheng Yu
Tung Building, 12 Chak Cheung Street, Shatin, New Territories, Hong
Kong. E-mail: tsuipoyung@gmail.com
graduates (Kreutzer & Wood, 2007), and faculty perceptions (Elsbach & Kramer, 1996).
In Hong Kong, a culture of competition has also emerged
among its business schools (So, 2013). They compete based
on a variety of performance indicators, including their international rankings (Hou, Fan, & Liu, 2014; Mudambi, Peng,
& Weng, 2008). Different business schools may cite diverse
sources of information to reflect their favorable status. It is
clear that they actively pursue success in the ranking game.
However, competition has created intense frustration, as
well as changing roles and identities among faculty (Winter,
2009). In Asia, faculty must take on increasingly workloads
and experience a substantial reduction in decision-making
power (Mok & Nelson, 2013). Therefore, it is critically
important to elucidate business school faculty’s OI, which
is likely to be affected by the above factors.
Second, it is unfortunate that most existing OI research
has been conducted in the West. But many aspects of Asian
cultures differ from those of the West (Hofstede, 2001).
The concept of OI and its underlying social identity theory
is particularly relevant to the Chinese setting, as Chinese
people are typically more collectivist, and would thus identify more strongly with their organizations. Although a few
OI studies have been performed in Asia, most have taken
place in industrial settings (Liu, Loi & Lam, 2011; Ngo,
Loi, Foley, Zheng, & Zhang, 2013; Tso, 2005). Moreover,
current literature about Asian higher education only provides general descriptions of education reforms or university rankings (Deem, Mok & Lucas, 2008; Mok & Nelson,
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 19:44 11 January 2016
428
P. Y. TSUI AND H-Y. NGO
2013). To the best of our knowledge, no study has yet
examined the identification of Chinese academics with their
institutions. This study, possibly the first one in Asia,
attempts to fill this void using the quantitative method.
Third, while most research has examined OI either as a
predictor or an outcome variable, this construct may be
considered as a mediator (Olkkonen & Lipponnen, 2006).
In fact, the relationships of OI with other constructs, antecedents, and consequences are frequently confusing in the
extant literature (Meyer & Allen, 1997; O’Reilly &
Chapman, 1986). In the limited number of studies conducted in Chinese settings, the research findings are ambiguous as well (Liu et al., 2011; Tso, 2005). Furthermore,
current theories mainly describe the conditions under which
people identify with an organization, but do not identify the
reasons why they do so (Pratt, 1998).
Accordingly, the objective of this study is to address
the above research gaps with the following model
(Figure 1). Hong Kong is selected because (a) it is
widely considered to be Asia’s world city and has been
recognized as the world’s freest economy for many years
(Heritage Foundation, 2015); (b) it is a melting pot of
Eastern and Western cultures, which provides a unique
opportunity to understand how its universities are
affected by international rankings; and (c) Hong Kong is
promoted as a regional hub of higher education (Mok &
Nelson, 2013). Therefore, the findings would be instructive to other Asian or Chinese HEIs.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESES
OI is a form of social identification that constructs identities
in terms of memberships and affiliations with organizations
(Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Riketta, 2005). Studies of OI
mainly utilize the insights of social identity theory (SIT)
and self-categorization theory (SCT). According to SIT, an
individual’s self-concept consists of both a personal identity and a social identity. A social identity is “part of an
individual’s self-concept which derives from his knowledge
of his membership in a social group (or groups) together
with the value and emotional significance attached to that
membership” (Tajfel, 1978, p. 63). The more the individual
identifies with an organization, the more likely he or she is
to take the organization’s perspective as self-defining and
act in the organization’s best interest (van Knippenberg &
van Schie, 2000).
SCT was developed to compensate for the inadequacies
of the SIT. It argues that the categorization of the self and
social groups can occur at various levels of abstraction triggered by social cues of two kinds (i.e., the salience of intergroup boundaries as well as maximization of within-group
similarity and between-group difference; Hogg, 1996).
Based on these two theories, researchers hypothesize that
clear and distinct differences between groups, and a high
salience for organizational categories in an attractive group
can enhance identification with a particular social group
(Pratt, 1998).
Organizational Identification and its Antecedents
Existing literature suggests that individuals’ perception of
their organization as distinctive and prestigious constitute
key criteria for OI (Ashforth & Mael, 1989, 1992). Perceived organizational distinctiveness taps into individuals’
need to be unique and does so through membership in a distinctive group. When an organization becomes “infused
with value” (Selznick, 1957), its distinctiveness generates
strong loyalty from members. It also differentiates an organization from others, and strong levels of OI are found. We
predicted a positive relationship between OI and organizational distinctiveness.
Perceived organizational prestige indicates the “degree
to which the institution is well regarded both in absolute
and comparative terms” (Mael & Ashforth, 1992, p. 107)
that aligns individuals and organizational identities through
a focus on self, since individuals identify with organizations
partly to enhance their own self-esteem. The more prestigious the organization, the greater the potential for raising
self-esteem through identification with the organization. As
a result, members’ perception of their business school’s
prestige (through their business school’s international rankings in this study) was expected to be positively related to
their OI strength.
For perceived interorganizational competition, existence
of outgroups facilitates individuals to differentiate their
ingroups from outgroups, and causes them to assume
ingroup homogeneity (Brown & Ross, 1982). This in-group
FIGURE 1. Proposed model of organizational identification.
ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTIFICATION OF FACULTY MEMBERS
homogeneity makes it easier for them to identify with the
organization. A positive relationship between interorganizational competition and members’ OI was thus
hypothesized.
Finally, perceived intraorganizational competition was
hypothesized to be negatively related to OI. Increasing
internal competition would weaken the homogeneity of
organizational members. A negative relationship between
intraorganizational competition and members’ OI was
hypothesized.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 19:44 11 January 2016
Organizational Identification and its Consequences
Riketta (2005) demonstrates high correlations between OI
and in-role and extra-role performance. As in-role performance belongs to work behaviors that are prescribed by formal job roles as assigned by organizations (Williams &
Anderson, 1991), it should play a crucial role in the OI process. Thus, members with a high level of OI would expend
greater efforts in their in-role performance.
Extra-role behavior is the “behavior that attempts to benefit the organization and that goes beyond existing role
expectations” (Organ, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 2006,
p. 33). Despite ambiguous findings, it is contended that
members employ extra-role behavior as a strategy to confirm their organizational identity (Swann, 1987). Therefore,
people possessing high levels of OI tend to engage in more
extra-role performance.
Finally, as shown in Figure 1, OI may act as a mediator.
For example, when members perceive organizational distinctiveness in a positive light, they tend to develop a strong
identification with their organization, which in turn results
in positive role behaviors.
The preceding discussion results in the following
hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1 (H1): OI of Hong Kong business school faculty would positively related to perceived organizational distinctiveness, perceived interorganizational
competition, and perceived organizational prestige,
and would be negatively related to perceived intraorganizational competition.
H2: OI of Hong Kong business school faculty would be positively related to their in-role and extra-role performance.
H3: OI of Hong Kong business school faculty would
mediate the relationship between in-role and extra-role
performance, and perceived organizational distinctiveness, interorganizational competition, intraorganizational competition, and organizational prestige.
METHODS
The unit of analysis for this study was business school faculty members in Hong Kong. A survey was conducted
429
between August and October 2012. A total of 1,162 faculty
(including full-time, part-time, and adjunct faculty on both
research and teaching tracks) were invited from 11 Hong
Kong universities. Altogether, 194 completed valid questionnaires were received. The questionnaires were developed using well-established scales from existing literature.
Unless otherwise stated, all responses were given on a 5point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree)
to 5 (strongly agree).
For OI and its antecedents, existing measures developed
by Mael and Ashforth (1992) were utilized. Regarding
organizational identification, a 6-item scale was adopted,
with a Cronbach’s alpha of .871. Perceived organizational
distinctiveness, measured by a 4-item scale, had a
Cronbach’s alpha of .799. The Cronbach’s alpha of perceived interorganizational competition’s 4-item scale was
.710. Perceived intraorganizational competition had a 4item scale with Cronbach’s alpha .639, which was a bit
lower than desired. Perceived organizational prestige was
assessed by another 4-item scale complemented with international rankings, and its Cronbach’s alpha was .859.
Concerning the consequences, the in-role performance
variable was from Williams and Anderson’s (1991) study,
with a Cronbach’s alpha of .935. The extra-role performance was adapted from a scale in Somech and DrachZahavy (2000), and its Cronbach’s alpha was .806.
Six control variables were included: gender (coded 0 for
male and 1 for female), highest education level (four categories: 1, bachelor; 2, master; 3, doctoral or above degree;
4, others), year of service/tenure in current business school
(four categories: 1, 0–5 years; 2, 6–10 years; 3, 10–20
years; 4, more than 20 years), job type (0, research track; 1,
teaching track), employment status (0, tenured; 1, contract,
part-time, or others), and university (coded from 1 to 11).
RESULTS
Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics. The respondents
reported quite a high level of OI (x̄ D 3.384, SD D .76, on a
5-point scale). In other words, the local faculty did possess
a fairly strong sense of belonging to their business schools.
Interestingly, however, a negative correlation was found
between years of service and OI. It was conjectured that
faculty members in the early stage of their careers might be
more likely to report a higher level of OI than those at a
later career stage. On the other hand, faculty with longer
service may become less identified with their organizations
given the occurrence of various changes and educational
reforms. As expected, OI was positively correlated with
organizational distinctiveness, interorganizational competition, and organizational prestige. However, contrary to the
expectation, OI exhibited a positive correlation with intraorganizational competition. OI’s correlations with the two
430
P. Y. TSUI AND H-Y. NGO
TABLE 1
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations of Study Variables
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 19:44 11 January 2016
Variable
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Gender
Highest education level
Years of service
Job type
Employment status
University
Organizational identification
Organizational distinctiveness
Interorganizational competition
Intraorganizational competition
Organizational prestige
In-role performance
Extra-role performance
M
SD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0.300
2.850
2.100
0.280
0.630
6.110
3.384
3.184
3.992
3.084
2.829
4.248
3.690
0.458
0.369
1.103
0.448
0.487
3.373
0.757
0.828
0.617
0.666
0.974
0.533
0.525
¡.120
¡.137
.214**
.172*
.027
¡.020
¡.013
¡.045
¡.064
¡.045
¡.016
¡.140
.116
¡.579**
¡.191**
.003
.047
.016
.018
.051
¡.004
.017
¡.062
¡.120
¡.517**
.121
¡.149*
¡.068
¡.055
.047
¡.094
.076
¡.073
.361**
¡.116
¡.036
¡.042
.022
¡.114
¡.010
¡.057
¡.011
¡.020
¡.044
¡.010
¡.054
¡.065
¡.104
¡.146*
¡.101
¡.090
¡.104
¡.144*
¡.108
¡.436**
.039
¡.079
.427**
.185**
.160*
.387**
.254**
.404**
.176*
.214**
.462**
.158*
.293**
9
10
11
12
.235**
.253** .403**
.262** .035 .100
.172* .148* .235** .452**
Note. n D 194.
*p < .05 (two-tailed); **p < .01 (two-tailed).
consequences (i.e., in-role and extra-role performance)
were significant and in predicted directions.
Business school faculty in different universities might
possess different perceptions regarding antecedents, OI,
and their work behaviors. Thus, a series of one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted. Table 2 shows
that respondents of various business schools reported different levels of organizational antecedents. Significant differences
were
found
in
interorganizational
and
intraorganizational competition, as well as organizational
prestige, among different business schools. Especially, the
organizational prestige variable possessed a large significant F ratio, F D 13.576 (df D 10, 180), p < .001, revealing
significantly different perceptions of this variable among
business school faculty members.
Table 3 presents the results of hierarchical regression analyses in order to elucidate the effects of different variables on
OI, and in-role and extra-role performance. To test the mediating effect, the first condition set by Baron and Kenny
(1986) required that the independent variable must predict the
dependent variable. In our study, this means that the four antecedents should have a significant effect on two consequences.
However, for in-role performance, Model 2 indicates that
only interorganizational competition had a positive effect.
Moreover, all four independent variables did not have any
effect on extra-role performance (Model 5).
Nevertheless, the second condition of mediation was
examined. The four antecedents should have significant
effects on OI. Model 8 indicates that organizational distinctiveness and organizational prestige were indeed significant
predictors of OI, but not interorganizational competition
and intraorganizational competition. The second condition
of mediation was partially fulfilled with effects from two
antecedents (i.e., organizational distinctiveness and organizational prestige). Based on the previous results, H1 was
partially confirmed only.
The third condition requires the mediator to affect the
dependent variable. From Table 3, OI had a significant positive effect on in-role and extra-role performance (Models 3
and 6). It thus affirmed the third condition of mediation. H2
was supported, as OI was positively related to both in-role
and extra-role performance.
The last condition of mediation was assessed. After OI
was entered into Model 3, the original coefficient of interorganizational competition on in-role performance did not
reduce significantly. It changed slightly and remained significant, from b D .219 (p < .05) to b D .211 (p < .05). Furthermore, Model 6 showed that the coefficients of the four
antecedents remained insignificant. OI did not mediate the
relationships between the four independent variables on the
two outcomes. Thus, H3 was not supported.
DISCUSSION
In this study we aimed to enrich the stream of OI research
by investigating relationships among several organizational
antecedents, OI, and the business school faculty’s work
behavior under a Chinese higher education context. The
findings, however, could fulfill limited expectations only.
First, local business school faculty reported quite a high
level of OI, consistent with the collectivist cultural value of
Chinese employees. In addition, OI had positive correlations with all four antecedents and two consequences. A
surprising finding came from its positive correlation with
intraorganizational competition. Possible explanations for
this are the following: (a) competition between business
schools was so intense that there was a spillover effect from
interorganizational competition to competition between
faculty members in the same business school; (b) it could
reflect that the inherent nature of business schools is competitive; and (c) it could be due to core elements of Chinese
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 19:44 11 January 2016
TABLE 2
Results of Analysis of Variance: Differences Among Universities on Various Variables
1
Variables/University
Organizational distinctiveness
Interorganizational competition
Intraorganizational competition
Organizational prestige
Organizational identification
In-role performance
Extra-role performance
Note. n D 194.
*p < .05 (two-tailed).
**p < .01 (two-tailed).
M
3.13
4.29
3.29
3.41
3.46
4.18
3.84
2
SD
M
3
SD
0.70 2.86 1.12
0.54 4.21 0.39
0.71 3.14 0.79
0.77 3.50 1.17
0.77 3.52 0.73
0.47 4.27 0.48
0.53 3.71 0.26
M
4
SD
M
3.56 0.77 3.50
4.09 0.65 3.90
3.22 0.65 2.88
3.88 0.75 2.23
3.44 0.76 3.62
4.24 0.50 4.47
3.62 0.42 3.91
5
SD
M
6
SD
M
0.79 3.50 0.90 3.06
0.61 3.70 0.54 3.53
0.61 3.22 0.49 2.31
0.84 2.53 0.81 1.47
0.63 3.89 0.76 2.81
0.45 4.29 0.38 4.19
0.42 3.94 0.47 3.28
7
SD
M
8
SD
0.40 2.75 0.79
0.80 3.40 0.42
0.55 2.50 0.53
0.49 2.00 0.47
0.66 3.43 0.38
0.40 3.83 0.23
0.79 3.67 0.28
M
9
SD
M
3.06 0.80 2.88
3.95 0.64 3.99
3.17 0.59 3.13
2.86 0.71 2.49
3.27 0.77 3.08
4.13 0.73 4.29
3.62 0.46 3.51
10
SD
M
11
SD
M
0.95 3.43 0.82 3.09
0.51 3.83 0.72 4.10
0.62 2.98 0.62 2.96
0.74 2.35 0.75 2.31
0.76 3.60 0.65 3.47
0.46 4.40 0.65 4.34
0.62 3.75 0.49 3.86
SD
F ratio
df
0.78
0.55
0.77
0.72
0.80
0.46
0.57
1.868
2.310*
2.307*
13.576***
1.812
0.941
1.877
10, 180
431
432
P. Y. TSUI AND H-Y. NGO
TABLE 3
Dimensions of Regression Results on In-Role Performance, Extra-Role Performance, and Organizational Identification
In-role performance
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 19:44 11 January 2016
Variable
Gender
Highest education level
Years of service
Job type
Employment status
University
Organizational distinctiveness
Interorganizational competition
Intraorganizational competition
Organizational prestige
Organizational identification
Adjusted R2
DR2
F statistics
df #
Extra-role performance
Organizational identification
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Model 4
Model 5
Model 6
Model 7
Model 8
.019
¡.025
.015
.006
¡.122
.057
.021
¡.027
.046
¡.014
¡.088
.108
.072
.219*
¡.075
.088
.025
¡.043
.081
¡.024
¡.072
.093
.021
.211**
¡.076
.034
.203*
.053*
.032
1.886*
11, 163
¡.126
¡.098
¡.170
.016
¡.149
¡.047
¡.114
¡.090
¡.142
.032
¡.120
.032
.129
.051
.084
.129
¡.010
.058
¡.221*
.040
¡.155
¡.037
.017
.051
1.519
6, 171
.071**
.073
2.345*
10, 167
¡.115
¡.115
¡.089
.013
¡.092
.005
.062
.040
.083
.043
.296***
.138***
.068
3.568***
11, 166
¡.005
.071
¡.167*
.053
¡.094
.095
.237**
.032
.007
.285**
—
.181***
.188
4.955***
10, 169
¡.017
.018
0.523
6, 168
.025*
.063
1.452
10, 164
.006
.039
1.177
6, 173
Note. n D 194. Standardized regression coefficients are reported.
*p < .05 (two-tailed). **p < .01 (two-tailed). ***p < .001 (two-tailed). #regression and residual degree of freedom.
culture, particularly Confucianism. Specifically, Confucian
ideology places a heavy emphasis on education, hard work,
and competitiveness. However, it simultaneously encourages harmony between people (Yao & Tu, 2011). These
contradictory forces motivate people to strive for high work
goals while achieving harmony with each other without
demonstrating strong overt competition. A positive correlation between intraorganizational competition and OI was
thus noted.
The second observation was that perceived organizational distinctiveness and organizational prestige engendered direct effects on OI; whereas, there were no
significant relationships between OI and interorganizational
as well as intraorganizational competition. This partially
supported our H1. In other words, distinctiveness and prestige of a business school constituted the main factors driving faculty’s OI. Especially, perceived organizational
prestige was critically important, which is consistent with
the findings of Western studies. Rankings identify a business school as an elite provider of educational services, and
stakeholders would attempt to ascribe quality and status to
themselves through affiliation (Elsbach & Kramer, 1996).
This study provides important evidence to Asian HEIs,
demonstrating that in order to obtain strong attachment
from current and potential members, Hong Kong (or other
Chinese or Asian) business schools must engage in international ranking exercises, despite the existing controversy.
However, in contrast to the results of Western studies
that showed that increased interorganizational competition
or reduction of intraorganizational competition would
increase members’ OI, our investigation found that these
factors did not induce stronger OI. In other words, competition, in the form of outgroups versus ingroups, or internal
subgroups, did not result in increased OI. Two reasons may
explain the nonsignificant effect of interorganizational
competition on OI. First, it may again be due to the Confucian nature of Chinese culture. Members in a Confucian
society, who typically strive for harmony and respect, did
not seek strong interorganizational competition as a basis
of organizational identification. Thus, if business schools
focused on competition, it would not prompt categorization
processes regarding membership. Second, members might
perceive competitive threats between business schools as
causing their organizations to engage in harmful behavior.
Business schools pursuing competitive actions would be
perceived as deviating substantially from educational ideals
that encompass typically positive values, such as equality,
justice, and truth. Thus, members might dissociate themselves from their business schools. Regarding the nonsignificant effect of intraorganizational competition on OI, it
could be argued that OI derives from a collective identity.
However, the pursuit of intraorganizational competition
and rewards would drive one toward an individual identity,
contrary to the Chinese collectivist culture.
Third, we found that OI was positively associated with both
consequences, and H2 was thus confirmed. This study, however, refuted the findings of some Western studies that showed
that OI affects extra-role behavior but not in-role performance
(O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986). While the faculty exerted great
efforts to complete their normal duties, they also identified their
membership in the organizations positively and were willing to
perform tasks outside of their scope.
Finally, OI was not found to be a mediator. Thus, H3 of
the proposed model could not be proved. This does not
mean that OI is not a mediator in the Chinese context.
Rather, it indicates that the model could not be replicated in
ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTIFICATION OF FACULTY MEMBERS
Hong Kong under the business school context only. Other
antecedents (e.g., organizational commitment) may exist
that can affect members’ OI first. Additional studies in
other faculties/universities in China or Asia would be necessary to elucidate this issue.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 19:44 11 January 2016
Implications
In addition to the previous theoretical findings, this research
provides some practical insights. First, employees coming
from collectivist cultures, such as those in Asia, often possess a stronger identification with their organization than do
those from individualistic cultures. Second, this study found
that organizations should increase the perceptions of organizational distinctiveness and prestige among their employees
in order to raise their members’ OI. To increase distinctiveness, possible strategies include having charismatic leaders or specialized curricula and programs, creating a unique
organizational culture and values, as well as developing
relationships between stakeholders (Clark, 1970). To
enhance members’ perceptions of organizational prestige
and their OI, universities/business schools should commence
or continue actively participating in various international
ranking exercises that signify status and competence (but
not purely for the sake of competition). There are numerous
ways to achieve this goal. For example, universities may
recruit prominent faculty, such as Nobel laureates and community leaders, name buildings and erect statues honoring
prominent individuals, maintain high admission standards,
establish ties with world-renowned institutions, and strive
for internationalization. In addition, high-commitment
human resource strategies that increase individuals’ evaluation of their own status inside of their organization may
help. Examples of this are perceived growth opportunities
and participation in decision making by the employees
(Fuller et al., 2006). Third, this study revealed that creating
a competitive culture between (or inside) business schools
did not help to increase members’ OI. If leaders of these
business schools/universities emphasize competition, this
may be disadvantageous because it may lower their members’ sense of belonging. Fourth, different from Western
findings, members of Chinese society tended to exhibit
cooperative behavior that was related to their own role specifications, as well as those beyond their job assignments.
Given the existing reform pressure, universities should pay
close attention to their members’ OI levels and their relationship with employee behaviors. This issue is particularly
important for people in collectivistic cultures.
REFERENCES
Ashforth, B. E., Harrison, S. H., & Corley, K. G. (2008). Identification in
organizations: An examination of four fundamental questions. Journal
of Management, 34, 325–374.
433
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. A. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14, 20–39.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable
distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and
statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
51, 1173–1182.
Brown, R. J., & Ross, G. F. (1982). The battle for acceptance: An investigation into the dynamics of intergroup behavior. In H. Tajfel (Ed.),
Social identity and intergroup relations (pp. 155–178). Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Clark, B. R. (1970). The distinctive college: Antioch, Reed and Swarthmore. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Corley, K. G., & Gioia, D. A. (2000). The rankings game: Managing business school reputation. Corporate Reputation Review, 3, 319–333.
Deem, R., Mok, K. H., & Lucas, L. (2008). Transforming higher education
in whose image? Exploring the concept of the “world-class” university
in Europe and Asia. Higher Education Policy, 21, 83–97.
Edwards, L. L. (2005). A model of the effects of reputational rankings on
organizational change. Organization Science, 16, 701–720.
Elsbach, K. D., & Kramer, R. M. (1996). Members’ responses to organizational identity threat: Encountering and countering the Business Week
rankings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 442–476.
Fuller, J. B., Hester, K., Barnett, T., Frey, L., Relyea, C., & Beu, D.
(2006). Perceived external prestige and internal respect: New insights
into the organizational identification process. Human Relations, 59,
815–846.
Gioia, D. A., & Corley, K. G. (2002). Being good versus looking good:
Business school rankings and the circean transformation from substance
to image. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 1, 107–120.
Heritage Foundation. (2015). 2015 index of economic freedom. The Heritage Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.heritage.org/index
Hofstede, G. H. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors,
institutions, and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hogg, M. A. (1996). Social identity, self-categorization, and the small
group. In J. Davis & E. Witte (Eds.), Understanding group behavior:
Vol. 2. Small group processes and interpersonal relations (pp. 227–
254). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hou, M. J., Fan, P. H., & Liu, H. (2014). A ranking analysis of the management schools in Greater China (2000–2010): Evidence from the SSCI
database. Journal of Education for Business, 89, 230–240.
Kreutzer, D. W., & Wood, W. C. (2007). Value-added adjustment in
undergraduate business school ranking. Journal of Education for Business, 82, 357–362.
Liu, Y., Loi, R., & Lam, L. W. (2011). Linking organizational identification and employee performance in teams: The moderating role of teammember exchange. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22, 3187–3201.
Mael, F. A., & 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.
Marginson, S. (2007). Global university rankings: Implication in general
and for Australia. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management,
29, 131–142.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory,
research and application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mok, K. H., & Nelson, A. R. (2013). Introduction: The changing roles of
academics and administrators in times of uncertainty. Asia Pacific Education Review, 14, 1–9.
Mudambi, R., Peng, M. W., & Weng, D. H. (2008). Research rankings of
Asia Pacific business schools: Global versus local knowledge strategies.
Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 25, 171–188.
Ngo, H. Y., Loi, R., Foley, S., Zheng, X. M., & Zhang, L. Q. (2013). Perceptions of organizational context and job attitudes: The mediating
effect of organizational identification. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 30, 149–168.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 19:44 11 January 2016
434
P. Y. TSUI AND H-Y. NGO
O’Connell, C. (2013). Research discourses surrounding global university
rankings: Exploring the relationship with policy and practice recommendations. Higher Education, 65, 709–723.
O’Reilly, C. A., & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and
psychological attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and
internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology,
71, 492–499.
Olkkonen, M., & Lipponnen, J. (2006). Relationships between organizational justice, identification with organization and work unit, and grouprelated outcome. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100, 202–215.
Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. P. (2006). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature, antecedents, and consequences.
London, England: Sage.
Peters, K. (2007). Business school rankings: Content and context. Journal
of Management Development, 26, 49–53.
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
organizations: Building theory through conversations (pp. 171–208).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Riketta, M. (2005). Organizational identification: A meta-analysis. Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 66, 358–384.
Selznick, P. (1957). Leadership in administration. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
So, A. Y. (2013). Globalism and competitive culture in the universities of
Hong Kong. Education Research Journal, 3, 1–6.
Somech, A., & Drach-Zahavy, A. (2000). Understanding extra-role behavior in
schools: The relationships between job satisfaction, sense of efficacy, and
teachers’ extra-role behavior. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 649–659.
Swann, W. B. Jr. (1987). Identity negotiation: Where two roads meet.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1038–1051.
Tajfel, H. (1978). The achievement of group differentiation. In H. Tajfel (Ed.),
Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of
intergroup relations (pp. 77–98). London, England: Academic Press.
Tso, S. K. (2005). Organizational identification under unfavourable outcome: A factory study in China. (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Chinese
University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
van Knippenberg, D., & van Schie, C. M. (2000). Foci and correlates of
organizational identification. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, 137–147.
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and inrole behaviors. Journal of Management, 17, 601–617.
Winter, R. (2009). Academic manager or managed academic? Academic
identity schisms in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 31, 121–131.
Yao, X. Z., & Tu, W. M. (2011). Confucian studies: Critical concepts in
Asian philosophy. New York, NY: Routledge.
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
A Study of Organizational Identification of Faculty
Members in Hong Kong Business Schools
Po Yung Tsui & Hang-Yue Ngo
To cite this article: Po Yung Tsui & Hang-Yue Ngo (2015) A Study of Organizational
Identification of Faculty Members in Hong Kong Business Schools, Journal of Education for
Business, 90:8, 427-434, DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2015.1087372
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2015.1087372
Published online: 14 Oct 2015.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 22
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji]
Date: 11 January 2016, At: 19:44
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS, 90: 427–434, 2015
Copyright Ó Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0883-2323 print / 1940-3356 online
DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2015.1087372
A Study of Organizational Identification of Faculty
Members in Hong Kong Business Schools
Po Yung Tsui and Hang-Yue Ngo
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 19:44 11 January 2016
Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
The authors examine how four organizational antecedents affect the organizational
identification (OI) and in-role and extra-role performance of Hong Kong business school
faculty. OI was tested to be a mediator. The survey results indicated a high level of OI,
consistent with the collectivist cultural value of Chinese employees. However, OI was
positively associated with two antecedents only. And contrary to the existing literature that
OI only affects extra-role behavior, OI was positively associated with both consequences.
The data did not support OI as a mediator. Further research in the Chinese context and
extension of studies with additional variables are recommended.
Keywords: business school, business school rankings, faculty, organizational identification,
university rankings
Defined as “the perceived oneness with an organization and
the experience of the organization’s success and failure as
one’s own” (Mael & Ashforth, 1992, p. 104), organizational
identification (OI) has attracted considerable management
research interest (Ashforth, Harrison, & Corley, 2008;
Edwards, 2005; Riketta, 2005). OI is positively associated
with many types of employee behavior (Ashforth et al.,
2008; Edwards, 2005). Given the phenomenon of eroding
employee loyalty due to organizational changes, attention
to OI effects is thus important.
Despite the rich OI literature, this study intends to fill a
few existing research gaps. First, we examine the concept
of OI, which is rarely found in higher education institution
(HEI) literature. Globalization has led to reforms of HEIs,
which often compete through university ranking systems.
Criticism of this competitive process, however, is ubiquitous (Marginson, 2007; O’Connell, 2013). Nevertheless,
stakeholders are tempted to judge HEIs using these systems
(Kreutzer & Wood, 2007). Competition among business
schools is intense (Corley & Gioia, 2000, 2002), and favorable rankings provide numerous advantages to business
schools. High rankings have strong positive correlations
with program fees (Peters, 2007), salaries commanded by
Correspondence should be addressed to Po Yung Tsui, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Department of Management, Room 833, Cheng Yu
Tung Building, 12 Chak Cheung Street, Shatin, New Territories, Hong
Kong. E-mail: tsuipoyung@gmail.com
graduates (Kreutzer & Wood, 2007), and faculty perceptions (Elsbach & Kramer, 1996).
In Hong Kong, a culture of competition has also emerged
among its business schools (So, 2013). They compete based
on a variety of performance indicators, including their international rankings (Hou, Fan, & Liu, 2014; Mudambi, Peng,
& Weng, 2008). Different business schools may cite diverse
sources of information to reflect their favorable status. It is
clear that they actively pursue success in the ranking game.
However, competition has created intense frustration, as
well as changing roles and identities among faculty (Winter,
2009). In Asia, faculty must take on increasingly workloads
and experience a substantial reduction in decision-making
power (Mok & Nelson, 2013). Therefore, it is critically
important to elucidate business school faculty’s OI, which
is likely to be affected by the above factors.
Second, it is unfortunate that most existing OI research
has been conducted in the West. But many aspects of Asian
cultures differ from those of the West (Hofstede, 2001).
The concept of OI and its underlying social identity theory
is particularly relevant to the Chinese setting, as Chinese
people are typically more collectivist, and would thus identify more strongly with their organizations. Although a few
OI studies have been performed in Asia, most have taken
place in industrial settings (Liu, Loi & Lam, 2011; Ngo,
Loi, Foley, Zheng, & Zhang, 2013; Tso, 2005). Moreover,
current literature about Asian higher education only provides general descriptions of education reforms or university rankings (Deem, Mok & Lucas, 2008; Mok & Nelson,
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 19:44 11 January 2016
428
P. Y. TSUI AND H-Y. NGO
2013). To the best of our knowledge, no study has yet
examined the identification of Chinese academics with their
institutions. This study, possibly the first one in Asia,
attempts to fill this void using the quantitative method.
Third, while most research has examined OI either as a
predictor or an outcome variable, this construct may be
considered as a mediator (Olkkonen & Lipponnen, 2006).
In fact, the relationships of OI with other constructs, antecedents, and consequences are frequently confusing in the
extant literature (Meyer & Allen, 1997; O’Reilly &
Chapman, 1986). In the limited number of studies conducted in Chinese settings, the research findings are ambiguous as well (Liu et al., 2011; Tso, 2005). Furthermore,
current theories mainly describe the conditions under which
people identify with an organization, but do not identify the
reasons why they do so (Pratt, 1998).
Accordingly, the objective of this study is to address
the above research gaps with the following model
(Figure 1). Hong Kong is selected because (a) it is
widely considered to be Asia’s world city and has been
recognized as the world’s freest economy for many years
(Heritage Foundation, 2015); (b) it is a melting pot of
Eastern and Western cultures, which provides a unique
opportunity to understand how its universities are
affected by international rankings; and (c) Hong Kong is
promoted as a regional hub of higher education (Mok &
Nelson, 2013). Therefore, the findings would be instructive to other Asian or Chinese HEIs.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESES
OI is a form of social identification that constructs identities
in terms of memberships and affiliations with organizations
(Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Riketta, 2005). Studies of OI
mainly utilize the insights of social identity theory (SIT)
and self-categorization theory (SCT). According to SIT, an
individual’s self-concept consists of both a personal identity and a social identity. A social identity is “part of an
individual’s self-concept which derives from his knowledge
of his membership in a social group (or groups) together
with the value and emotional significance attached to that
membership” (Tajfel, 1978, p. 63). The more the individual
identifies with an organization, the more likely he or she is
to take the organization’s perspective as self-defining and
act in the organization’s best interest (van Knippenberg &
van Schie, 2000).
SCT was developed to compensate for the inadequacies
of the SIT. It argues that the categorization of the self and
social groups can occur at various levels of abstraction triggered by social cues of two kinds (i.e., the salience of intergroup boundaries as well as maximization of within-group
similarity and between-group difference; Hogg, 1996).
Based on these two theories, researchers hypothesize that
clear and distinct differences between groups, and a high
salience for organizational categories in an attractive group
can enhance identification with a particular social group
(Pratt, 1998).
Organizational Identification and its Antecedents
Existing literature suggests that individuals’ perception of
their organization as distinctive and prestigious constitute
key criteria for OI (Ashforth & Mael, 1989, 1992). Perceived organizational distinctiveness taps into individuals’
need to be unique and does so through membership in a distinctive group. When an organization becomes “infused
with value” (Selznick, 1957), its distinctiveness generates
strong loyalty from members. It also differentiates an organization from others, and strong levels of OI are found. We
predicted a positive relationship between OI and organizational distinctiveness.
Perceived organizational prestige indicates the “degree
to which the institution is well regarded both in absolute
and comparative terms” (Mael & Ashforth, 1992, p. 107)
that aligns individuals and organizational identities through
a focus on self, since individuals identify with organizations
partly to enhance their own self-esteem. The more prestigious the organization, the greater the potential for raising
self-esteem through identification with the organization. As
a result, members’ perception of their business school’s
prestige (through their business school’s international rankings in this study) was expected to be positively related to
their OI strength.
For perceived interorganizational competition, existence
of outgroups facilitates individuals to differentiate their
ingroups from outgroups, and causes them to assume
ingroup homogeneity (Brown & Ross, 1982). This in-group
FIGURE 1. Proposed model of organizational identification.
ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTIFICATION OF FACULTY MEMBERS
homogeneity makes it easier for them to identify with the
organization. A positive relationship between interorganizational competition and members’ OI was thus
hypothesized.
Finally, perceived intraorganizational competition was
hypothesized to be negatively related to OI. Increasing
internal competition would weaken the homogeneity of
organizational members. A negative relationship between
intraorganizational competition and members’ OI was
hypothesized.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 19:44 11 January 2016
Organizational Identification and its Consequences
Riketta (2005) demonstrates high correlations between OI
and in-role and extra-role performance. As in-role performance belongs to work behaviors that are prescribed by formal job roles as assigned by organizations (Williams &
Anderson, 1991), it should play a crucial role in the OI process. Thus, members with a high level of OI would expend
greater efforts in their in-role performance.
Extra-role behavior is the “behavior that attempts to benefit the organization and that goes beyond existing role
expectations” (Organ, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 2006,
p. 33). Despite ambiguous findings, it is contended that
members employ extra-role behavior as a strategy to confirm their organizational identity (Swann, 1987). Therefore,
people possessing high levels of OI tend to engage in more
extra-role performance.
Finally, as shown in Figure 1, OI may act as a mediator.
For example, when members perceive organizational distinctiveness in a positive light, they tend to develop a strong
identification with their organization, which in turn results
in positive role behaviors.
The preceding discussion results in the following
hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1 (H1): OI of Hong Kong business school faculty would positively related to perceived organizational distinctiveness, perceived interorganizational
competition, and perceived organizational prestige,
and would be negatively related to perceived intraorganizational competition.
H2: OI of Hong Kong business school faculty would be positively related to their in-role and extra-role performance.
H3: OI of Hong Kong business school faculty would
mediate the relationship between in-role and extra-role
performance, and perceived organizational distinctiveness, interorganizational competition, intraorganizational competition, and organizational prestige.
METHODS
The unit of analysis for this study was business school faculty members in Hong Kong. A survey was conducted
429
between August and October 2012. A total of 1,162 faculty
(including full-time, part-time, and adjunct faculty on both
research and teaching tracks) were invited from 11 Hong
Kong universities. Altogether, 194 completed valid questionnaires were received. The questionnaires were developed using well-established scales from existing literature.
Unless otherwise stated, all responses were given on a 5point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree)
to 5 (strongly agree).
For OI and its antecedents, existing measures developed
by Mael and Ashforth (1992) were utilized. Regarding
organizational identification, a 6-item scale was adopted,
with a Cronbach’s alpha of .871. Perceived organizational
distinctiveness, measured by a 4-item scale, had a
Cronbach’s alpha of .799. The Cronbach’s alpha of perceived interorganizational competition’s 4-item scale was
.710. Perceived intraorganizational competition had a 4item scale with Cronbach’s alpha .639, which was a bit
lower than desired. Perceived organizational prestige was
assessed by another 4-item scale complemented with international rankings, and its Cronbach’s alpha was .859.
Concerning the consequences, the in-role performance
variable was from Williams and Anderson’s (1991) study,
with a Cronbach’s alpha of .935. The extra-role performance was adapted from a scale in Somech and DrachZahavy (2000), and its Cronbach’s alpha was .806.
Six control variables were included: gender (coded 0 for
male and 1 for female), highest education level (four categories: 1, bachelor; 2, master; 3, doctoral or above degree;
4, others), year of service/tenure in current business school
(four categories: 1, 0–5 years; 2, 6–10 years; 3, 10–20
years; 4, more than 20 years), job type (0, research track; 1,
teaching track), employment status (0, tenured; 1, contract,
part-time, or others), and university (coded from 1 to 11).
RESULTS
Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics. The respondents
reported quite a high level of OI (x̄ D 3.384, SD D .76, on a
5-point scale). In other words, the local faculty did possess
a fairly strong sense of belonging to their business schools.
Interestingly, however, a negative correlation was found
between years of service and OI. It was conjectured that
faculty members in the early stage of their careers might be
more likely to report a higher level of OI than those at a
later career stage. On the other hand, faculty with longer
service may become less identified with their organizations
given the occurrence of various changes and educational
reforms. As expected, OI was positively correlated with
organizational distinctiveness, interorganizational competition, and organizational prestige. However, contrary to the
expectation, OI exhibited a positive correlation with intraorganizational competition. OI’s correlations with the two
430
P. Y. TSUI AND H-Y. NGO
TABLE 1
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations of Study Variables
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 19:44 11 January 2016
Variable
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Gender
Highest education level
Years of service
Job type
Employment status
University
Organizational identification
Organizational distinctiveness
Interorganizational competition
Intraorganizational competition
Organizational prestige
In-role performance
Extra-role performance
M
SD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0.300
2.850
2.100
0.280
0.630
6.110
3.384
3.184
3.992
3.084
2.829
4.248
3.690
0.458
0.369
1.103
0.448
0.487
3.373
0.757
0.828
0.617
0.666
0.974
0.533
0.525
¡.120
¡.137
.214**
.172*
.027
¡.020
¡.013
¡.045
¡.064
¡.045
¡.016
¡.140
.116
¡.579**
¡.191**
.003
.047
.016
.018
.051
¡.004
.017
¡.062
¡.120
¡.517**
.121
¡.149*
¡.068
¡.055
.047
¡.094
.076
¡.073
.361**
¡.116
¡.036
¡.042
.022
¡.114
¡.010
¡.057
¡.011
¡.020
¡.044
¡.010
¡.054
¡.065
¡.104
¡.146*
¡.101
¡.090
¡.104
¡.144*
¡.108
¡.436**
.039
¡.079
.427**
.185**
.160*
.387**
.254**
.404**
.176*
.214**
.462**
.158*
.293**
9
10
11
12
.235**
.253** .403**
.262** .035 .100
.172* .148* .235** .452**
Note. n D 194.
*p < .05 (two-tailed); **p < .01 (two-tailed).
consequences (i.e., in-role and extra-role performance)
were significant and in predicted directions.
Business school faculty in different universities might
possess different perceptions regarding antecedents, OI,
and their work behaviors. Thus, a series of one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted. Table 2 shows
that respondents of various business schools reported different levels of organizational antecedents. Significant differences
were
found
in
interorganizational
and
intraorganizational competition, as well as organizational
prestige, among different business schools. Especially, the
organizational prestige variable possessed a large significant F ratio, F D 13.576 (df D 10, 180), p < .001, revealing
significantly different perceptions of this variable among
business school faculty members.
Table 3 presents the results of hierarchical regression analyses in order to elucidate the effects of different variables on
OI, and in-role and extra-role performance. To test the mediating effect, the first condition set by Baron and Kenny
(1986) required that the independent variable must predict the
dependent variable. In our study, this means that the four antecedents should have a significant effect on two consequences.
However, for in-role performance, Model 2 indicates that
only interorganizational competition had a positive effect.
Moreover, all four independent variables did not have any
effect on extra-role performance (Model 5).
Nevertheless, the second condition of mediation was
examined. The four antecedents should have significant
effects on OI. Model 8 indicates that organizational distinctiveness and organizational prestige were indeed significant
predictors of OI, but not interorganizational competition
and intraorganizational competition. The second condition
of mediation was partially fulfilled with effects from two
antecedents (i.e., organizational distinctiveness and organizational prestige). Based on the previous results, H1 was
partially confirmed only.
The third condition requires the mediator to affect the
dependent variable. From Table 3, OI had a significant positive effect on in-role and extra-role performance (Models 3
and 6). It thus affirmed the third condition of mediation. H2
was supported, as OI was positively related to both in-role
and extra-role performance.
The last condition of mediation was assessed. After OI
was entered into Model 3, the original coefficient of interorganizational competition on in-role performance did not
reduce significantly. It changed slightly and remained significant, from b D .219 (p < .05) to b D .211 (p < .05). Furthermore, Model 6 showed that the coefficients of the four
antecedents remained insignificant. OI did not mediate the
relationships between the four independent variables on the
two outcomes. Thus, H3 was not supported.
DISCUSSION
In this study we aimed to enrich the stream of OI research
by investigating relationships among several organizational
antecedents, OI, and the business school faculty’s work
behavior under a Chinese higher education context. The
findings, however, could fulfill limited expectations only.
First, local business school faculty reported quite a high
level of OI, consistent with the collectivist cultural value of
Chinese employees. In addition, OI had positive correlations with all four antecedents and two consequences. A
surprising finding came from its positive correlation with
intraorganizational competition. Possible explanations for
this are the following: (a) competition between business
schools was so intense that there was a spillover effect from
interorganizational competition to competition between
faculty members in the same business school; (b) it could
reflect that the inherent nature of business schools is competitive; and (c) it could be due to core elements of Chinese
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 19:44 11 January 2016
TABLE 2
Results of Analysis of Variance: Differences Among Universities on Various Variables
1
Variables/University
Organizational distinctiveness
Interorganizational competition
Intraorganizational competition
Organizational prestige
Organizational identification
In-role performance
Extra-role performance
Note. n D 194.
*p < .05 (two-tailed).
**p < .01 (two-tailed).
M
3.13
4.29
3.29
3.41
3.46
4.18
3.84
2
SD
M
3
SD
0.70 2.86 1.12
0.54 4.21 0.39
0.71 3.14 0.79
0.77 3.50 1.17
0.77 3.52 0.73
0.47 4.27 0.48
0.53 3.71 0.26
M
4
SD
M
3.56 0.77 3.50
4.09 0.65 3.90
3.22 0.65 2.88
3.88 0.75 2.23
3.44 0.76 3.62
4.24 0.50 4.47
3.62 0.42 3.91
5
SD
M
6
SD
M
0.79 3.50 0.90 3.06
0.61 3.70 0.54 3.53
0.61 3.22 0.49 2.31
0.84 2.53 0.81 1.47
0.63 3.89 0.76 2.81
0.45 4.29 0.38 4.19
0.42 3.94 0.47 3.28
7
SD
M
8
SD
0.40 2.75 0.79
0.80 3.40 0.42
0.55 2.50 0.53
0.49 2.00 0.47
0.66 3.43 0.38
0.40 3.83 0.23
0.79 3.67 0.28
M
9
SD
M
3.06 0.80 2.88
3.95 0.64 3.99
3.17 0.59 3.13
2.86 0.71 2.49
3.27 0.77 3.08
4.13 0.73 4.29
3.62 0.46 3.51
10
SD
M
11
SD
M
0.95 3.43 0.82 3.09
0.51 3.83 0.72 4.10
0.62 2.98 0.62 2.96
0.74 2.35 0.75 2.31
0.76 3.60 0.65 3.47
0.46 4.40 0.65 4.34
0.62 3.75 0.49 3.86
SD
F ratio
df
0.78
0.55
0.77
0.72
0.80
0.46
0.57
1.868
2.310*
2.307*
13.576***
1.812
0.941
1.877
10, 180
431
432
P. Y. TSUI AND H-Y. NGO
TABLE 3
Dimensions of Regression Results on In-Role Performance, Extra-Role Performance, and Organizational Identification
In-role performance
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 19:44 11 January 2016
Variable
Gender
Highest education level
Years of service
Job type
Employment status
University
Organizational distinctiveness
Interorganizational competition
Intraorganizational competition
Organizational prestige
Organizational identification
Adjusted R2
DR2
F statistics
df #
Extra-role performance
Organizational identification
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Model 4
Model 5
Model 6
Model 7
Model 8
.019
¡.025
.015
.006
¡.122
.057
.021
¡.027
.046
¡.014
¡.088
.108
.072
.219*
¡.075
.088
.025
¡.043
.081
¡.024
¡.072
.093
.021
.211**
¡.076
.034
.203*
.053*
.032
1.886*
11, 163
¡.126
¡.098
¡.170
.016
¡.149
¡.047
¡.114
¡.090
¡.142
.032
¡.120
.032
.129
.051
.084
.129
¡.010
.058
¡.221*
.040
¡.155
¡.037
.017
.051
1.519
6, 171
.071**
.073
2.345*
10, 167
¡.115
¡.115
¡.089
.013
¡.092
.005
.062
.040
.083
.043
.296***
.138***
.068
3.568***
11, 166
¡.005
.071
¡.167*
.053
¡.094
.095
.237**
.032
.007
.285**
—
.181***
.188
4.955***
10, 169
¡.017
.018
0.523
6, 168
.025*
.063
1.452
10, 164
.006
.039
1.177
6, 173
Note. n D 194. Standardized regression coefficients are reported.
*p < .05 (two-tailed). **p < .01 (two-tailed). ***p < .001 (two-tailed). #regression and residual degree of freedom.
culture, particularly Confucianism. Specifically, Confucian
ideology places a heavy emphasis on education, hard work,
and competitiveness. However, it simultaneously encourages harmony between people (Yao & Tu, 2011). These
contradictory forces motivate people to strive for high work
goals while achieving harmony with each other without
demonstrating strong overt competition. A positive correlation between intraorganizational competition and OI was
thus noted.
The second observation was that perceived organizational distinctiveness and organizational prestige engendered direct effects on OI; whereas, there were no
significant relationships between OI and interorganizational
as well as intraorganizational competition. This partially
supported our H1. In other words, distinctiveness and prestige of a business school constituted the main factors driving faculty’s OI. Especially, perceived organizational
prestige was critically important, which is consistent with
the findings of Western studies. Rankings identify a business school as an elite provider of educational services, and
stakeholders would attempt to ascribe quality and status to
themselves through affiliation (Elsbach & Kramer, 1996).
This study provides important evidence to Asian HEIs,
demonstrating that in order to obtain strong attachment
from current and potential members, Hong Kong (or other
Chinese or Asian) business schools must engage in international ranking exercises, despite the existing controversy.
However, in contrast to the results of Western studies
that showed that increased interorganizational competition
or reduction of intraorganizational competition would
increase members’ OI, our investigation found that these
factors did not induce stronger OI. In other words, competition, in the form of outgroups versus ingroups, or internal
subgroups, did not result in increased OI. Two reasons may
explain the nonsignificant effect of interorganizational
competition on OI. First, it may again be due to the Confucian nature of Chinese culture. Members in a Confucian
society, who typically strive for harmony and respect, did
not seek strong interorganizational competition as a basis
of organizational identification. Thus, if business schools
focused on competition, it would not prompt categorization
processes regarding membership. Second, members might
perceive competitive threats between business schools as
causing their organizations to engage in harmful behavior.
Business schools pursuing competitive actions would be
perceived as deviating substantially from educational ideals
that encompass typically positive values, such as equality,
justice, and truth. Thus, members might dissociate themselves from their business schools. Regarding the nonsignificant effect of intraorganizational competition on OI, it
could be argued that OI derives from a collective identity.
However, the pursuit of intraorganizational competition
and rewards would drive one toward an individual identity,
contrary to the Chinese collectivist culture.
Third, we found that OI was positively associated with both
consequences, and H2 was thus confirmed. This study, however, refuted the findings of some Western studies that showed
that OI affects extra-role behavior but not in-role performance
(O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986). While the faculty exerted great
efforts to complete their normal duties, they also identified their
membership in the organizations positively and were willing to
perform tasks outside of their scope.
Finally, OI was not found to be a mediator. Thus, H3 of
the proposed model could not be proved. This does not
mean that OI is not a mediator in the Chinese context.
Rather, it indicates that the model could not be replicated in
ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTIFICATION OF FACULTY MEMBERS
Hong Kong under the business school context only. Other
antecedents (e.g., organizational commitment) may exist
that can affect members’ OI first. Additional studies in
other faculties/universities in China or Asia would be necessary to elucidate this issue.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 19:44 11 January 2016
Implications
In addition to the previous theoretical findings, this research
provides some practical insights. First, employees coming
from collectivist cultures, such as those in Asia, often possess a stronger identification with their organization than do
those from individualistic cultures. Second, this study found
that organizations should increase the perceptions of organizational distinctiveness and prestige among their employees
in order to raise their members’ OI. To increase distinctiveness, possible strategies include having charismatic leaders or specialized curricula and programs, creating a unique
organizational culture and values, as well as developing
relationships between stakeholders (Clark, 1970). To
enhance members’ perceptions of organizational prestige
and their OI, universities/business schools should commence
or continue actively participating in various international
ranking exercises that signify status and competence (but
not purely for the sake of competition). There are numerous
ways to achieve this goal. For example, universities may
recruit prominent faculty, such as Nobel laureates and community leaders, name buildings and erect statues honoring
prominent individuals, maintain high admission standards,
establish ties with world-renowned institutions, and strive
for internationalization. In addition, high-commitment
human resource strategies that increase individuals’ evaluation of their own status inside of their organization may
help. Examples of this are perceived growth opportunities
and participation in decision making by the employees
(Fuller et al., 2006). Third, this study revealed that creating
a competitive culture between (or inside) business schools
did not help to increase members’ OI. If leaders of these
business schools/universities emphasize competition, this
may be disadvantageous because it may lower their members’ sense of belonging. Fourth, different from Western
findings, members of Chinese society tended to exhibit
cooperative behavior that was related to their own role specifications, as well as those beyond their job assignments.
Given the existing reform pressure, universities should pay
close attention to their members’ OI levels and their relationship with employee behaviors. This issue is particularly
important for people in collectivistic cultures.
REFERENCES
Ashforth, B. E., Harrison, S. H., & Corley, K. G. (2008). Identification in
organizations: An examination of four fundamental questions. Journal
of Management, 34, 325–374.
433
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. A. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14, 20–39.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable
distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and
statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
51, 1173–1182.
Brown, R. J., & Ross, G. F. (1982). The battle for acceptance: An investigation into the dynamics of intergroup behavior. In H. Tajfel (Ed.),
Social identity and intergroup relations (pp. 155–178). Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Clark, B. R. (1970). The distinctive college: Antioch, Reed and Swarthmore. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Corley, K. G., & Gioia, D. A. (2000). The rankings game: Managing business school reputation. Corporate Reputation Review, 3, 319–333.
Deem, R., Mok, K. H., & Lucas, L. (2008). Transforming higher education
in whose image? Exploring the concept of the “world-class” university
in Europe and Asia. Higher Education Policy, 21, 83–97.
Edwards, L. L. (2005). A model of the effects of reputational rankings on
organizational change. Organization Science, 16, 701–720.
Elsbach, K. D., & Kramer, R. M. (1996). Members’ responses to organizational identity threat: Encountering and countering the Business Week
rankings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 442–476.
Fuller, J. B., Hester, K., Barnett, T., Frey, L., Relyea, C., & Beu, D.
(2006). Perceived external prestige and internal respect: New insights
into the organizational identification process. Human Relations, 59,
815–846.
Gioia, D. A., & Corley, K. G. (2002). Being good versus looking good:
Business school rankings and the circean transformation from substance
to image. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 1, 107–120.
Heritage Foundation. (2015). 2015 index of economic freedom. The Heritage Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.heritage.org/index
Hofstede, G. H. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors,
institutions, and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hogg, M. A. (1996). Social identity, self-categorization, and the small
group. In J. Davis & E. Witte (Eds.), Understanding group behavior:
Vol. 2. Small group processes and interpersonal relations (pp. 227–
254). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hou, M. J., Fan, P. H., & Liu, H. (2014). A ranking analysis of the management schools in Greater China (2000–2010): Evidence from the SSCI
database. Journal of Education for Business, 89, 230–240.
Kreutzer, D. W., & Wood, W. C. (2007). Value-added adjustment in
undergraduate business school ranking. Journal of Education for Business, 82, 357–362.
Liu, Y., Loi, R., & Lam, L. W. (2011). Linking organizational identification and employee performance in teams: The moderating role of teammember exchange. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22, 3187–3201.
Mael, F. A., & 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.
Marginson, S. (2007). Global university rankings: Implication in general
and for Australia. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management,
29, 131–142.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory,
research and application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mok, K. H., & Nelson, A. R. (2013). Introduction: The changing roles of
academics and administrators in times of uncertainty. Asia Pacific Education Review, 14, 1–9.
Mudambi, R., Peng, M. W., & Weng, D. H. (2008). Research rankings of
Asia Pacific business schools: Global versus local knowledge strategies.
Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 25, 171–188.
Ngo, H. Y., Loi, R., Foley, S., Zheng, X. M., & Zhang, L. Q. (2013). Perceptions of organizational context and job attitudes: The mediating
effect of organizational identification. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 30, 149–168.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 19:44 11 January 2016
434
P. Y. TSUI AND H-Y. NGO
O’Connell, C. (2013). Research discourses surrounding global university
rankings: Exploring the relationship with policy and practice recommendations. Higher Education, 65, 709–723.
O’Reilly, C. A., & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and
psychological attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and
internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology,
71, 492–499.
Olkkonen, M., & Lipponnen, J. (2006). Relationships between organizational justice, identification with organization and work unit, and grouprelated outcome. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100, 202–215.
Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. P. (2006). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature, antecedents, and consequences.
London, England: Sage.
Peters, K. (2007). Business school rankings: Content and context. Journal
of Management Development, 26, 49–53.
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
organizations: Building theory through conversations (pp. 171–208).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Riketta, M. (2005). Organizational identification: A meta-analysis. Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 66, 358–384.
Selznick, P. (1957). Leadership in administration. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
So, A. Y. (2013). Globalism and competitive culture in the universities of
Hong Kong. Education Research Journal, 3, 1–6.
Somech, A., & Drach-Zahavy, A. (2000). Understanding extra-role behavior in
schools: The relationships between job satisfaction, sense of efficacy, and
teachers’ extra-role behavior. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 649–659.
Swann, W. B. Jr. (1987). Identity negotiation: Where two roads meet.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1038–1051.
Tajfel, H. (1978). The achievement of group differentiation. In H. Tajfel (Ed.),
Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of
intergroup relations (pp. 77–98). London, England: Academic Press.
Tso, S. K. (2005). Organizational identification under unfavourable outcome: A factory study in China. (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Chinese
University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
van Knippenberg, D., & van Schie, C. M. (2000). Foci and correlates of
organizational identification. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, 137–147.
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and inrole behaviors. Journal of Management, 17, 601–617.
Winter, R. (2009). Academic manager or managed academic? Academic
identity schisms in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 31, 121–131.
Yao, X. Z., & Tu, W. M. (2011). Confucian studies: Critical concepts in
Asian philosophy. New York, NY: Routledge.