Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Reducing employee turnover through organizational identity
(USC Thesis Other)
Reducing employee turnover through organizational identity
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Reducing Employee Turnover Through Organizational Identity
by
Stuart Meurer
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
May 2022
© Copyright by Stuart Meurer 2022
All Rights Reserved
The Committee for Stuart Meurer certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Mary Andres
Eric Canny
Rufus T. Spann, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2022
Abstract
This study sought to understand characteristics that have a strong influence on an employee’s
intentions for resignation from an organization. All of the drivers for turnover intentions may be
grouped into one of two areas; employee engagement and satisfaction. Among the drivers for
satisfaction, this study pursued role conflict and role ambiguity as strong influencers. Social
identity theory explains how the nature of one’s identity with a team has strong impacts on their
interactions with other members and their ability to resolve issues. It was theorized that the
existence of a strong organizational identification by team members is positively associated with
reducing role conflict and role ambiguity. Data obtained via surveys from two organizations
were analyzed to investigate these relationships. Results show a moderate and significant,
negative relationship for both variables (role conflict: r = -.526, p < .01; role ambiguity: r =
-.391, p < .01). This indicates that an employee with a strong organizational identification is
more likely to experience lower levels of perceived role conflict and role ambiguity. With a
focus on developing a strong organizational identity among its employees, a company may be
able to reduce its realized, dysfunctional turnover. Methods for improving company identity and
measuring employee identification are provided.
v
Dedication
To all the perpetual students of life whose paths are lit by a candle that burns at both ends; as we
advance the practice of disciplines necessary to sustain life, enjoy the experiences that
encompass what we live for.
vi
Acknowledgments
Thanks to my dissertation committee for the feedback provided to strengthen this paper.
And a special thanks to Dr. Jeffrey Bentley who prompted my research into identity studies.
Your academic support and friendship have benefited my life.
vii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. x
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ xi
Chapter One: Overview of the Study .............................................................................................. 1
Background of the Problem ................................................................................................ 1
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................... 2
Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................... 2
Significance of the Study .................................................................................................... 3
Limitation and Delimitations .............................................................................................. 4
Definition of Terms............................................................................................................. 4
Organization of the Study ................................................................................................... 5
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature .......................................................................................... 6
Employee Turnover ............................................................................................................ 6
Dysfunctional Turnover ................................................................................................. 7
Functional Turnover ....................................................................................................... 8
Organizational Impacts .................................................................................................. 9
Stakeholders ................................................................................................................. 11
Job Satisfaction ................................................................................................................. 13
Engagement and Burnout ............................................................................................. 13
Motivation .................................................................................................................... 16
viii
Role Ambiguity ............................................................................................................ 16
Role Conflict ................................................................................................................ 18
Turnover Intentions ...................................................................................................... 20
Team Psychological Safety ............................................................................................... 21
Social Identity Theory....................................................................................................... 24
Background .................................................................................................................. 24
Implications .................................................................................................................. 26
Onboarding ................................................................................................................... 27
Cultivating Identity ...................................................................................................... 28
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 29
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 30
Sample and Population ..................................................................................................... 30
Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................................... 32
Instrumentation ................................................................................................................. 33
Data Collection ................................................................................................................. 36
Rationale for the Institutional Review Board............................................................... 36
Underlying Ethics......................................................................................................... 36
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 37
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 37
Chapter Four: Results ................................................................................................................... 38
Survey Participants ........................................................................................................... 39
Inter-Company Analysis ................................................................................................... 41
Results for Research Question 1 ....................................................................................... 42
ix
Discussion for Research Question 1 ................................................................................. 43
Results for Research Question 2 ....................................................................................... 43
Discussion for Research Question 2 ................................................................................. 44
Team Psychological Safety as a Mediator ........................................................................ 44
Secondary Findings ........................................................................................................... 47
Professional Identity..................................................................................................... 47
Influence of Team Psychological Safety...................................................................... 48
Group Collaboration..................................................................................................... 48
Accountability .............................................................................................................. 50
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 51
Chapter Five: Discussion .............................................................................................................. 53
Findings............................................................................................................................. 53
Organizational Identity................................................................................................. 54
Team Psychological Safety .......................................................................................... 58
Professional Identity..................................................................................................... 60
Limitations ................................................................................................................... 61
Future Research ................................................................................................................ 62
Implications for Practice ................................................................................................... 65
Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 68
References ..................................................................................................................................... 71
Tables ............................................................................................................................................ 91
Appendix A: Research Survey .................................................................................................... 117
Appendix B: Organizational Performance Survey ..................................................................... 121
x
List of Tables
Table 1: Demographic Results From Surveys 40
Table 2: Correlation Analysis Data for Team Sail Demographics 91
Table 3: Correlation Analysis Data for Aero Controls Demographics 93
Table 4: Correlation Analysis Data for Company Combined Demographics 95
Table 5: Group Values for Identity Measures 97
Table 6: Correlation Analysis Data for Team Sail Absolute Identity 98
Table 7: Correlation Analysis Data for Team Sail Relative Identity 99
Table 8: Correlation Analysis Data for Aero Controls Absolute Identity 100
Table 9: Correlation Analysis Data for Aero Controls Relative Identity 101
Table 10: Correlation Analysis Data for Company Combined Absolute Identity 103
Table 11: Correlation Analysis Data for Company Combined Relative Identity 104
Table 12: Group Statistics for Dependent Variable Measures 106
Table 13: t-Test of Dependent Variables Between Organizations 107
Table 14: Correlation Analysis Data for Team Sail Dependent Variables 108
Table 15: Correlation Analysis Data for Aero Controls Dependent Variables 110
Table 16: Correlation Analysis Data for Company Combined Dependent Variables 112
Table 17: Mediation Analysis for Team Psychological Safety at Team Sail 114
Table 18: Mediation Analysis for Team Psychological Safety at Aero Controls 115
Table 19: Mediation Analysis for Team Psychological Safety for Companies Combined 116
xi
List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework 32
Figure 2: Team Sail Correlations Between Organization Identity, Team Psychological
Safety, Role Conflict, and Role Ambiguity 45
Figure 3: Aero Controls Correlations Between Organization Identity, Team Psychological
Safety, Role Conflict, and Role Ambiguity 45
Figure 4: Combined Company Correlations Between Organization Identity, Team
Psychological Safety, Role Conflict, and Role Ambiguity 46
Figure 5: Team Sail Relationship With Group Collaboration 49
Figure 6: Aero Controls Relationship With Group Collaboration 49
Figure 7: Scaling Divergence/Convergence Between Individual and Organizational
Identities 55
1
Chapter One: Overview of the Study
Employee turnover is a common problem in U.S. companies. When employees leave a
company, there are typically significant, negative cost and performance impacts for the
company. Data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (n.d.) indicated that the annual turnover
rate in 2019 was 45.1% (number of total separations as a percent of annual average employment)
which is considered high (Dalton et al., 1981). This was an increase from 42.3% in 2015 and in
2020, the turnover rate jumped to 57.3% which may have been, in part, due to employee attitudes
caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Employees that voluntarily resign from a position tend to do
so because of having low job satisfaction relative to other options (Bluedorn, 1982). Factors that
have a strong impact on job satisfaction include role conflict and role ambiguity (MacKenzie et
al., 1998). This study sought to understand how this turnover problem may be improved.
Background of the Problem
While employees that voluntarily resign tend to have low job satisfaction, employees that
are terminated, tend to have low job performance (Batt & Colvin, 2011). Within this paper,
turnover refers to resignations (dysfunctional turnover) and not terminations. Bluedorn (1978;
1982) and Mobley (1977) provided research and modeling that consistently indicated that
employees who have high job satisfaction were less likely to quit a job. Social identity theory
and related research suggest that the interaction between the turnover-related characteristics
under review are consistent regardless of the specific organization (Ashforth et al., 2008). As
such, there is no focus herein on a specific company or industry. This study focused on how the
individual employee perceives the organizational conditions that lead them to develop turnover
intentions. The effects of turnover are experienced by multiple entities, the most directly
impacted being, the resigning employee, their management, and immediate team members.
2
Statement of the Problem
This study supports research into the problem of the negative impacts on U.S.-based
companies due to employee turnover. This problem is important to address because of the high
cost associated with the negative attributes that are realized when losing strong performers
(Tziner & Birati, 1996). Research has consistently shown that job satisfaction has a strong
correlation to an employee’s intentions for turnover and that job satisfaction is strongly
influenced by the employee’s perception of role conflict and ambiguity (Bluedorn, 1978; De
Clercq & Belausteguigoitia, 2016; Gilani & Rabbani, 2020; MacKenzie et al., 1998; Mobley,
1977; Mohammad Hoseini et al., 2021; Rizzo et al., 1970; Shuck et al., 2011; Tongchaiprasit &
Ariyabuddhiphongs, 2016). This paper investigated how organizational identity may influence
role ambiguity and conflict.
Purpose of the Study
Given the understanding of the correlation between job satisfaction and turnover, the
purpose of this study is to determine key characteristics that affect job satisfaction that may be
affected by organizational identity. Fransen et al. (2020) showed that strong identification with
the team, predicts high levels of team psychological safety. It was theorized here that
psychological safety mediates the effect of organizational identity on role ambiguity and conflict.
This study investigated the relationship among organization identity, team psychological safety,
role conflict, and role ambiguity through the following research questions:
1. How is an employee’s perception of role conflict in the workplace affected by their
identification with the organization?
2. How is an employee’s perception of role ambiguity in the workplace affected by their
identification with the organization?
3
It was hypothesized that role conflict is negatively associated with organizational
identity. Strong organizational identity promotes team psychological safety which reduces the
perceived level of conflict and promotes conflict resolution. It was also hypothesized that role
ambiguity is negatively associated with organizational identity. Strong organizational identity
promotes team psychological safety which promotes team communication that resolves
ambiguous situations.
Significance of the Study
This research is intended to increase the general body of knowledge related to
organization turnover. All organizations, especially those with higher levels of dysfunctional
turnover may benefit from the information obtained through this study. In some ways, the
majority of turnover has a negative impact on a company whether by purely financial loss or in
potentially more impactful ways such as decreased productivity to the larger team (Dalton et al.,
1981; Garmin et al., 2005). As an example data point; when a company’s turnover rate increases
from 10% to 30%, the labor productivity can decrease by 5% (De Winne et al., 2018).
Organizational effects include financial costs and individual as well as team psychological
negativity (Tziner & Birati, 1996). Additionally, Batt and Colvin (2011) showed that high
turnover results in lower customer satisfaction. By not addressing this problem, organizations
will maintain the current, high level of turnover. This turnover results in large, financial costs
which makes the company less profitable. Based on research by Cascio (2000), the employee
turnover at a company with 10,000 employees and a 30% attrition rate could cost the company
nearly $400,000,000 annually. It also results in an ongoing, negative impact on the operating
environment for the employees, the companies, and their customers as well as a large
opportunity cost of stronger short and long-term team performance.
4
If a correlation could be determined between organizational identity to role conflict and
ambiguity, companies may have the means to reduce turnover using actions that increase identity
with the organization. With reduced turnover, there is an expected reduction in cost to the
company and an increase in performance. By reducing role conflict and ambiguity, employee job
satisfaction is expected to increase which is a benefit for the employee and the organization.
Limitation and Delimitations
Given that this study focused on organization identity, it was necessary to obtain data
from a population within the same organization. The data obtained was from two different
organizations to have a degree of breadth however, these two companies may not represent the
nature of all companies or industries. The research pursued herein is based on characteristics that
research suggests will be consistent among all people. It is conceivable, however, that certain
organizations may employ or attract types of people such as a younger generation for which
there is less research-based knowledge. Demographic information from study participants will be
reviewed for any indications of disparities that may be considered for future research.
People hold multiple social identities at any time. This study evaluated only a few areas
of identity which are considered most applicable for the focus of this research. It could be the
case that other social identities provide characteristics that would not support the outcomes found
herein. Limited data was gathered related to other social identities. I considered this when
reviewing the acquired data to provide insight into what areas may be of interest to pursue for
future research.
Definition of Terms
Dysfunctional turnover is when an employee has strong performance and voluntarily
separates from the company (Abelson & Baysinger, 1984).
5
Functional turnover is when a company decides to remove the employee, commonly due
to poor performance (Abelson & Baysinger, 1984).
Job crafting refers to the activity of employees, on their own initiative, altering the
physical nature or meaning of their job (Shin et al., 2020).
Role ambiguity exists when a person does not have the necessary information or
understanding to accomplish their function (Rizzo et al., 1970).
Role conflict exists when a person perceives conflicting, behavioral expectations (Rizzo
et al., 1970).
Team psychological safety is defined as “a shared belief held by members of a team that
the team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking” (Edmondson, 1999, p. 350).
Organization of the Study
This study performs a review of existing literature related to employee turnover and its
driving factors. Based on the research, a specific area was identified for study to provide novel
information to the existing body of knowledge. Justification is then provided for the use of
secondary data that can be used to satisfy the research questions posed. This data was from a
previous study that was performed for a different purpose. Analysis of this data was performed,
and the results were discussed. This study is performed with perspectives based in social identity
theory. This theory describes how people relate to groups and roles. It also provides
understanding as to how people make sense of situations and develop motivation (Ashforth et al.,
2008).
6
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
This literature review covers fours areas that pertain to this study: turnover, job
satisfaction, team psychological safety, and identity. The review attempted to understand the
types of impacts from turnover and more importantly the drivers for turnover. Given the
association between turnover and job satisfaction, it then attempted to find key contributors to
job satisfaction and characteristics that may control those contributors.
Employee Turnover
Employee turnover can generally be categorized as either functional or dysfunctional.
Both kinds of turnover have some similar conditions and similar impacts on a company. While
both are important for an organization to understand, this paper focuses on dysfunctional
turnover. For further clarification on the topic, a differentiation needs to be made between
turnover and turnover intentions. Turnover represents the act of resigning from or leaving a
company. Turnover intention is a precursor to turnover and represents an employee’s desire to
leave a company along with the motivation to seek alternatives (Gilani & Rabbani, 2020). Gilani
and Rabbani (2020) considered turnover intentions to also include the employee actions (in
addition to the mindset) that are conducted with the goal of leaving the company.
The timeframe after realizing turnover intentions and resigning from a position is when
the employee considers the available options and makes a decision. This decision-making
process is typically stressful for the employee with considerations of the impacts on their life
including the financial effect (Maertz & Kmitta, 2012). The final act of turnover may be
commonly viewed as the end of the turnover process however, Gilani and Rabbani (2020) view
turnover intention as the final phase of real turnover. No direct correlation has been shown
between when a person identifies with an organization and when they intend to leave the
7
organization. People can identify with a group either before, during, or after active involvement
in that group. It is also possible for a person to never even be involved with a group they identify
with as a person must only perceive themself as psychologically intertwined with the fate of the
group to identify with it (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). This study focuses on the process of getting to
turnover intentions and does not investigate the decision process of considering alternate
employment options or the act of resigning.
Dysfunctional Turnover
Dalton et al. (1981) noted that there are specific reasons for employees leaving a
company that are not under organization control: education, family commitments, and health
issues. In 2011, 54.2% of all turnover was considered dysfunctional and could have been
prevented by the company (Batt & Colvin, 2011). Organizational management methods have a
direct impact on employee engagement and job satisfaction which are predictors for employee
voluntary turnover. Bluedorn (1978; 1982) and Mobley (1977) provided research and modeling
that consistently indicated that employees who have high job satisfaction were less likely to quit
a job. Shuck et al. (2017) showed that engagement provided a strong, direct relationship with job
satisfaction.
By achieving engagement, employees become more satisfied with their jobs and are then
less likely to leave a company or consider other options (Shuck et al., 2011). The ability to obtain
engagement is affected by the company managerial methods (Harter et al., 2002). How
employees are treated and managed by their direct supervisors has a stronger impact on
employee engagement than the impact from others in the company (Harter et al., 2002). These
managerial factors include fostering a positive working environment, appropriate compensation,
training, development plans, organization policies, the employee relationship with the team, and
8
leadership characteristics (Anitha, 2013). When a company does not place strong attention on
hiring and management activities, there is more likely to be higher turnover rates. Just as
dysfunctional turnover is commonly the result of poor management practices that result in the
employee voluntarily resigning, functional turnover is also the result of poor managerial
practices and although functional turnover is not the focus of this paper it is important to
understand the difference from dysfunctional turnover.
Functional Turnover
Removal of poor-performing employees from an organization is commonly due to poor
candidate selection or poor management methods that do not sufficiently create engagement for
the individual (Batt & Colvin, 2011). For this discussion, dismissals do not include the removal
of employees due to cuttings costs, mass layoffs, downsizing, early retirement, buyouts, or
company restructuring. Dismissals are initiated by the organization and are the result of poor
employee performance. Employee engagement is a strong predictor of performance
(Hameduddin & Fernandez, 2019). Specifically, a study by Anitha (2013) showed that
“employee engagement had a significant impact on employee performance” (p. 308).
Batt and Colvin (2011) claimed that “dismissals are viewed as the result of hiring errors”
(p. 695). Some employees do not have sufficient potential for performance within a given team.
Batt and Colvin (2011) noted that hiring these people is considered an error. In a 2017 survey,
74% of employers claimed to have hired the wrong candidate for a position (Northwestern
University, 2019). While hiring errors and lack of engagement may seem to be separate issues, it
is likely that when the wrong person is hired in an organization, there is less potential for them to
fit within the team or become engaged. Reigle (2014) supported this position noting that
employee fit in the team is an important characteristic and that managerial approaches for
9
evaluating potential employees should consider the attributes of existing employees as a model
for who will fit in. In a 2020 survey, 48% of surveyed businesses noted that their highest quality,
new hires were the result of existing employee referrals.
It is logical to infer that existing employees in a company understand the company
culture and can communicate the organizational attributes to people they know and are, to some
extent, able to discern whether they would fit well in the company culture. In their study, Batt
and Colvin (2011), showed that organizations with lower selectivity for new employees had
higher dismissal rates. When a company does not spend sufficient time and effort selecting new
employees, there is likely to be higher turnover rates. In a survey of American workers, 25% said
that the company culture was a top reason for changing jobs and 29% claimed to have left a job
(in their life) within the first 90 days (Calvello, 2020). While employee turnover can be either
functional or dysfunctional, there is always an associated cost to the organization.
Organizational Impacts
It is commonly recognized that people are the greatest asset that a company has (Pfeffer
& Veiga, 1999) and that the cost of turnover is significant. Functional turnover can have positive,
results for the company (Dalton et al., 1981) such as cost reduction to the company with little to
no impact on accomplishing the company’s goals. While functional turnover is often good for
the company, dysfunctional turnover is always considered a negative impact. The negative
impacts of dysfunctional turnover include some overt impacts such as advertising, recruitment,
interviewing, background assessments, hiring, and training a replacement (Dalton et al.,1981).
The cost to the company for this process from recruitment through onboarding is estimated at
30% of the employee’s annual salary (Northwestern University, 2019). The impact to the
company from an employee leaving also includes numerous hidden costs.
10
These hidden costs include impacts on customer relations and psychological or
motivational impacts on other employees (Garman et al., 2005). A loss of a good employee can
decrease morale within a team and reduce productivity. In a survey of U.S. businesses, 70% of
employees noted that having a friend in the workplace was crucial to their happiness at work
(Smith, 2021), and having a best friend at work is a key component of employee engagement
(Gallup, n.d.). While some people change fairly easily between identities (Ashforth & Mael,
1989), some with an especially strong team identification may be psychologically impacted by
the loss of a team member and question the team’s integrity. Hill et al. (2014) noted that
negativity associated with the uncertainty of a person in their position is projected onto peers in
the organization. This chain of impacts suggests an ongoing, negative impact from the
resignation of a team member.
Abelson and Baysinger (1984) stated that the optimal rate of turnover is the point at
which the costs of turnover equal the costs of reducing the turnover. This position assumes that
turnover is under the control of the organization as even with functional turnover, efforts can be
made to cause the employee to reconsider leaving and stay with the company. These efforts
commonly include additional financial compensation but can include other benefits for the
employee. In 2021, employers were frequently offering up to 25% salary increases to keep an
employee who intended to leave the company (Morel, 2021). This number may be somewhat
elevated from previous years due to the large-scale resignation phenomenon being realized at the
time. Although a company may be capable of financially preventing a person from leaving, it
may not be justifiable or considered worthy to make such an adjustment.
11
Stakeholders
In addition to the individual employee and their immediate working team, additional
stakeholders within the problem of turnover include the employee’s immediate management and
human resource management. These two groups have a strong influence on the factors that affect
turnover intentions and they are impacted by an employee’s decision to resign from a company.
The goals of the management groups include maintaining the ideal level of resources while
supporting the business needs (Batt & Colvin, 2011). When good employees resign, it often
results in increased costs and disrupts operations thus negatively impacting the business
objectives. Management must therefore consider the potential cost of trying to keep a person
who has resigned compared to the organization cost from losing the employee (Abelson &
Baysinger, 1984).
Research by Fransen et al. (2020), suggests that employees develop a perception about
how a company values the employee’s well-being. That perceived organizational support (POS)
has a strong impact on the employee’s performance and job satisfaction. Employees with a high
level of POS are less likely to develop turnover intentions and experience higher satisfaction
(Allen et al., 2003). Managers are able to influence an employee’s POS by fostering
identification with the team. This team identification has been shown to promote team members
feeling healthier and reduce their likelihood of burnout (Fransen et al., 2020).
Human resource management can influence POS by recognizing the contributions of the
individual employee to the organization. Higher pay, good benefit systems, and procedural
fairness were also shown to increase POS. These factors directly improve the employee’s well-
being and indicate that the organization is investing in the individual and should reduce turnover
intentions (Allen et al., 2003). Indications that an organization is investing in an employee make
12
a job more attractive. Shaw et al. (1998) noted that as the reason for any decrease in turnover
intention. Othman and Mahmood (2019) found that high performance or high potential
employees are especially sensitive to these managerial influences. Company management can
influence employees’ perceptions in both positive and negative ways.
Research has shown that direct supervisors have the strongest influence on job
satisfaction which correlates to employee performance (Harter et al., 2002). One example is
when managers engage in close monitoring of employee activities, it can be perceived by the
employee that they have low control of their job and that job demands are higher. This can have
a negative impact on turnover intentions (Shaw et al., 1998). This effect on turnover intentions
extends beyond the individual employee but also to managers who are also influenced by these
factors from their management.
Further concerns specifically affecting managers are that managers often have more
ambiguous roles and positions that interact between multiple organizational tiers. Role ambiguity
is particularly important for managers. As managers interact and communicate with their
employees, higher levels of management, and others in the organization, they must satisfy varied
requirements. The ability to perform job crafting allows the manager to remove some of the
position ambiguity by molding parts of the role themselves. Job crafting has been shown to
improve organizational performance, which depends on management effectiveness and increases
job satisfaction (Shin et al., 2020). Onboarding new employees is another discrete task among
managers. Efforts to integrate new employees within an organization and the working team can
be time-consuming and demand considerable energy which can contribute to work overload
depending on other work demands (Tziner & Birati, 1996).
13
Although the decision to remove poor-performing employees from the organization can
have positive outcomes for a company, there is a cost to the organization spent through the
process of hiring and developing the employee until they leave. Tziner and Birati (1996) as well
as Garman et al. (2005) found that there is a higher, subsequent cost to the company with
dysfunctional turnover (losing a high-performing employee). The total cost of losing a strong
employee is estimated at 93% to 200% of an employee’s annual salary (Cascio, 2000; Johnson,
1995). In addition to employee engagement, job satisfaction is a key driver of turnover intentions
(MacKenzie et al., 1998).
Job Satisfaction
As a primary driver of turnover intentions, it is important to understand variables that
determine an employee’s satisfaction with their job. Low job satisfaction is not likely to result in
immediately leaving the company but to motivate the search for, or consideration of other
options which could subsequently result in resigning from a company. Significant drivers for job
satisfaction include compensation systems, benefits, recognition (Gu & Siu, 2008), rewards,
organizational communication (Kumar et al., 2014), advancement opportunities (Singh, 2000),
role conflict, and role ambiguity (MacKenzie et al., 1998). Of these characteristics, role conflict
and role ambiguity are consistently found to be negatively correlated to job satisfaction (Rizzo et
al., 1970).
Engagement and Burnout
Job satisfaction can increase and decrease over time for employees. This variation with
time can be due to burnout. Those who exert high levels of effort and repeatedly fail to meet
their expectations are likely to realize burnout. Burnout is a slow process that results in mental
and physical exhaustion which leads to decreased job satisfaction. This can result not only from
14
being over-worked but can also be the result of a pursued activity failing to produce desired
results. Strong predictors for burnout include role ambiguity, role conflict, and high workload
(Bakker et al, 2014).
Burnout is commonly related to work-related stress and manifests as emotional
exhaustion or the depletion of one’s capacity for accomplishing tasks (Eldor & Harpaz, 2016).
This condition reduces the person’s ability to achieve their goals or even accomplish common
work tasks. The impact on the U.S. economy by workplace stress has been estimated to cost
$500 billion and 500 million lost work days annually (American Psychological Association,
2015). Shin et al. (2020) found that when managers can participate in job crafting, they can
alleviate some of the hindrances in their job demands that cause emotional exhaustion. This
improved job condition reduced turnover intentions. Cole et al. (2012) found that the
characteristics that promote engagement, forestall burnout.
A key attribute of that noted condition is identity. Engaged employees who identify with
their work tend to apply high levels of discretionary effort into their work (Bakker et al., 2014)
and demonstrate lower turnover intentions (Shuck et al., 2011). Eldor and Harpaz (2016), also
defined a key attribute of engagement as identification with the organization. Anitha (2013),
described the level of employee engagement to be defined by their level of commitment and
involvement towards their company. This identification with the organization, however, should
not come at the expense of reducing one’s individual identity. Cable et al. (2013), through field
and lab experiments, found that employees who experienced personal-identity socialization and
were able to apply their signature strengths were less likely to experience emotional burnout.
Shuck et al. (2017) showed that engagement provided a strong, direct relationship with
job satisfaction. By achieving engagement, employees become more satisfied with their jobs and
15
are then less likely to leave a company or consider other options (Shuck et al., 2011). The ability
to obtain engagement is affected by the company managerial methods (Harter et al., 2002). How
employees are treated and managed by their direct supervisors has a stronger impact on
employee engagement than the impact from others in the company (Harter et al., 2002). These
managerial factors include fostering a positive working environment, appropriate compensation,
training, development plans, organization policies, the employee relationship with the team, and
the leadership characteristics (Anitha, 2013). Hameduddin and Fernandez (2019) provided
several managerial characteristics that strongly promote engagement: promoting growth,
appropriate communication, listening, respect, and development for the employee.
This is a connection between engagement, satisfaction, and performance where highly
engaged employees tend to be more satisfied and have better work performance. High levels of
engagement are positively correlated with individual work performance (Othman & Mahmood,
2019). That engagement-induced performance results in meaningful business outcomes (Harter
et al., 2002) whereas disengaged employees can become liabilities (Babakus et al., 2016). The
connection between these characteristics also works in reverse order where higher job
satisfaction commonly results in higher employee engagement (Huang et al., 2018). This is
supported by the work of Shuck et al. (2011), which showed that employee engagement was
influenced most strongly by job satisfaction, followed by job involvement. Anitha (2013) also
found a strong relationship of engagement determining performance and also noted that a
positive working environment as well as positive co-worker relationships significantly improved
engagement. Engagement with one’s work is a positive, motivational state of mind. Engaged
employees tend to be vigorously absorbed in and motivated by their work (Shin et al., 2020),
resulting in roughly 17% more productivity (Ryba, 2021).
16
Motivation
Work environments or practices that contribute to employee motivation create more
engaging and satisfying jobs which reduce turnover intentions (Huselid, 1995). Tziner and Birati
(1996) examined and amended a formula for determining turnover costs by considering a large
breadth of areas of impact. They showed how understanding the economic factors of turnover
can influence a company’s competitiveness. Tziner and Birati (1996) found that employees were
unlikely to sustain work motivation or commitment to the organization when the company did
not create a culture of retaining employees during difficult economic periods. Babakus et al.
(2016) found that strong drivers of motivation include training, empowerment, and rewards.
Fransen et al. (2020) however, found that empowerment includes the condition of motivation.
This suggests an inter-role play between these characteristics where each promotes the other.
Findings by Desivilya and Eizen (2005) suggest that group identification supports high levels of
motivation by individuals within the group. This motivation is demonstrated by an engaged
approach to resolving issues and achieving team goals.
When employees are more involved in the operational decisions concerning their work,
they are more motivated to produce higher quality work and are more committed to the results of
the organization (Batt & Colvin, 2011). Job crafting is a strong form of that noted type of
involvement. Job crafting aligns the employee’s motivations with their personal strengths and
job requirements. This reduces role ambiguity which can lead to emotional exhaustion and
turnover intentions (Shin et al., 2020).
Role Ambiguity
The degree of ambiguity reflects how well required information is communicated clearly
as well as consistently (Kahn, 1964). Rizzo et al. (1970) and MacKenzie et al. (1998) showed
17
that role ambiguity results in lower job satisfaction as well as lower job performance.
Mohammad Hoseini et al. (2021) found the same correlation of job satisfaction to both role
ambiguity and role stress. While research is consistent on the relationship between satisfaction to
role ambiguity, it is not as clear how ambiguity is created. Luthans et al. (2006) believed that
both teammates and directors can create ambiguity through reduced communication, poor
preparation, or incorrect (or incomplete) information. Gilani and Rabbani (2020) believed that
ambiguity is explicitly caused by one’s supervisor. In addition to lacking understanding of one’s
job, ambiguity exists when an employee receives conflicting directions regarding their
obligations (Gilani & Rabbani, 2020). It seems that ambiguity is not directly created but is
formed by the lack of proper team characteristics.
Gilani and Rabbani (2020) noted that role ambiguity is associated with a state of mind
where an employee experiences disappointment which may be targeted towards their overall
work, specific tasking, supervision, and/or colleagues. Ambiguity has a strong influence on a
person’s satisfaction as it is an emotional judgment of their situation (Gilani & Rabbani, 2020).
The ambiguity is a perception by the employee and therefore can be influenced by factual
characteristics and emotional ones. The existence of role ambiguity can be stressful to employees
which reduces their job satisfaction and can result in emotional exhaustion (Shin et al., 2020).
O’Driscoll and Beehr (2000) noted this dissatisfaction may be due to a view that the organization
does not care for the employee’s success or well-being. If this results in a person perceiving that
their team does not share an intertwined fate, it should impact the strength of team identity for
the person. Singh et al. (2012) noted that this stress can manifest from the uncertainty that is
created and affects their overall perceptions of the organization in a negative manner. However,
it develops, the perception of ambiguity by the employee affects their role in the organization.
18
Excessive role ambiguity creates the perception of the inability to perform one’s job
adequately (Schwab & Iwanicki, 1982; Showail et al., 2013) which also results in negative
feelings concerning the employer (Chen et al., 2011). This perception is motivated by a lack of
clear understanding, by an employee, of how to conduct their job (Rizzo et al., 1970; Senatra,
1980; Singh et al., 2012). Gilboa et al. (2008) found that role ambiguity also results in lower job
performance (r = .26) which is consistent with the survey results by Tubre and Collins (2000).
Hill et al. (2014) argued that this condition of uncertainty combined with low performance
results in a higher tendency to blame others, resulting in negative social interactions. This is
supported by the research showing that ambiguity manifests into relationship conflict at work
which decreases employee feeling of attachment (Hill et al., 2014). The negative impacts of role
ambiguity can be reduced when employees have high levels of trust in their team (Schmidt et al.,
2014). This interaction will be investigated later in this paper via psychological safety. The lack
of clarity with job ambiguity drives role conflict (Olaleye & Arogundade, 2013).
Role Conflict
When a person is confronted with multiple, simultaneous goals where the success of one
results in the decreased success of another, they experience role conflict (Mohammad Hoseini et
al., 2021). This conflict can exist in several forms. Inter-sender conflict arises when requirements
imposed from one person disagree with requirements imposed by another (Kahn, 1964). This can
be caused by a number of reasons including differing agendas or, for the focus of this research,
differences in identity perceptions.
Members of different groups can hold differing expectations of a role based on the
paradigms they have for the identities they give others. The identities that individuals give
themselves can be starkly different than the identities given to them by others (Ashforth et al.,
19
2008). Role conflict can also come from inter-role conflict in which objectives from different
groups are in disagreement with each other. Intra-sender conflict exists when multiple
requirements from a single person conflict with each other. Person-role conflict exists when the
requirements of the person’s role violate their moral values (Kahn, 1964). This situation results
in lower job performance and satisfaction (Rizzo et al., 1970). It is important to understand the
difference between role conflict and relationship conflict. Although both have been shown to
predict turnover intentions and low satisfaction (Shaukat et al., 2016), relationship conflict is
associated with interpersonal disagreements or disputes (Amason, 1996).
Hill et al. (2014) validated a relationship where increases in role ambiguity result in
increased turnover intentions and that this relationship is mediated over time by conflict.
Mohammad Hoseini et al. (2021) found a similar relationship with role conflict and ambiguity
serving as predictors for turnover intentions. Experiencing role conflict is unpleasant and
frustrating (MacKenzie et al., 1998) which is an obvious reason for low satisfaction. The level of
perceived role conflict can be affected by unexpected changes, the need to acquire new skills to
fulfill duties, or lack of time to accomplish tasks (Palomino & Frezatti, 2016).
There exists a relationship between identity, self-efficacy, and conflict resolution within
teams. Teams that doubt their ability to resolve conflict may become de-motivated and
ineffective at resolving conflict (Alper et al., 2000). When teams have a strong group
identification, they have higher self-efficacy and engage in successful conflict resolution (Guan
& So, 2016). When employees have low efficacy (or belief in their ability to be successful) for
resolving conflict, they will tend not to try to resolve the issues. It is reasonable to believe that
identification with the team increases a person’s feeling of social support as well as alignment of
personal goals with that of the team. A perception of shared goals is likely to result in actively
20
pursuing and resolving conflicts as an individual is more likely to accept solutions that are better
for the team rather than what may be best for the individual. Desivilya and Eizen (2005) found
that self-efficacy was the only predictor for the desire of teams to resolve conflict. With a strong
team identity, individuals have a sense of shared characteristics among other team members and
when there is a presence of confidence in the ability to resolve conflict, other team members are
likely to share in that belief. With a strong team identification, individuals are also more
committed to the team relationships and are more likely to engage in constructive conflict
resolution (Desivilya & Eizen, 2005). When people possess self-efficacy in their workplace, they
tend to have higher job satisfaction (Bandura, 1991).
The conditions that create both role conflict and ambiguity are not only irritating to the
employee but in a persistent and/or extreme nature can be “identity destroying” (Kahn, 1964, p.
6). Similar to ambiguity, role conflict is based on the employee’s perception. Role conflict has a
strong, negative emotional impact on the employee which leads to negative thoughts about their
organization. Consequently, having negativity towards one’s organization increases the
likelihood of developing turnover intentions (r = .70, p < .05; Haq et al., 2018).
Turnover Intentions
In addition to motivating turnover intentions indirectly through lower job satisfaction, it
has been consistently shown that role conflict and role ambiguity directly, motivate turnover
intentions (Gilani, 2020; Tongchaiprasit & Ariyabuddhiphongs, 2016). Jackson and Schuler
(1985) also found this correlation between turnover and ambiguity as well as with absenteeism.
Mohammad Hoseini et al. (2021) found the same correlation between both role conflict and
ambiguity to turnover intentions in the nursing industry. In the same study, role conflict also
showed a correlation with decreased organizational commitment and job involvement. De Clercq
21
and Belausteguigoitia (2016) also found that role ambiguity enhances turnover intentions. Gilani
and Rabbani (2020) found that ambiguity is a strong predictor of turnover intention. There
appears to be a correlation between ambiguity, conflict, satisfaction, burnout, and turnover.
Scanlan and Hazelton (2019) showed that burnout is reduced with higher levels of job
satisfaction. Consistent with this, Shin et al. (2020) found that the positive relationship between
ambiguity and emotional exhaustion results in turnover intentions. Considering that ambiguity
has been shown to increase relationship conflict, it is interesting to note that Hill et al. (2014)
found that the turnover intentions caused by ambiguity are mediated by relationship conflict.
This is consistent with Hill et al.’s (2014) findings that the prominence of interpersonal conflict
results in higher turnover intentions and that an increase in role ambiguity results in an increase
in relationship conflict over time. With the understanding of primary characteristics that predict
low job satisfaction and high turnover intentions, it is important to understand what factors can
impact these characteristics. Specifically, I examine the relationship with team psychological
safety.
Team Psychological Safety
Previous research has shown the strong implications of team psychological safety (TPS)
in an organization. Teams that perceive a safe environment exhibit both high team functioning
and individual well-being (Fransen et al., 2020). It is normal for people to not engage in risky
behaviors including actions as common as voicing a differing opinion. The unwillingness to
engage in such acts increases when others are viewed as being different, whether that is due to
differing work status and power levels or differing backgrounds (Brashers, 2001; Edmondson &
Lei, 2014). When a team possesses a high level of TPS, individuals believe they will not be
subjected to negativity, punishment, insults, or acts against their dignity, by their team members
22
(Johnson & Avolio, 2018). Pearsall and Ellis (2011) noted that in this condition, employees are
more willing to undertake interpersonally risky behaviors including; voicing ideas, providing
honest and candid feedback, experimenting, collaborating, and seeking feedback. Fransen et al.
(2020) also found that TPS reduced the likelihood of burnout. In their survey analysis, team
psychological safety had a negative correlation with burnout (r = -.38, p < .001). The seminal
work on TPS by Schein and Bennis (1965) described it as “the extent to which individuals feel
secure and confident in their ability to manage change” (Newman et al., 2017, p. 523). With
strong TPS, team members believe that others will give them the benefit of the doubt instead of
assuming a negative response (Frazier et al., 2017).
TPS includes perceptions of trust and respect within the team. Since this seems similar to
the characteristics involved with relationship conflict, it is important to note that where
relationship conflicts deal with disagreements between individuals, TPS is involved with the
perceptions of the team environment or operating norm (Johnson & Avolio, 2018). Similarly,
goodwill trust relates to a person’s willingness to allow others to operate without oversight
because of the individual’s trust in their ability and intentions which is also not in the domain of
TPS (Newman et al., 2017; Dayan et al., 2009; Rousseau et al., 1998).
When people are regularly monitored by others, they consider it an indication of a lack of
trust which can lead to dissatisfaction (Batt & Colvin, 2011). TPS involves a level of
interpersonal trust where team members are vulnerable to others’ actions (Fransen et al., 2020).
There can be influences among these different domains of trust, relationships, and TPS. Newman
et al. (2017) predicted that conflicts can develop with a lack of TPS. Similarly, Johnson and
Avolio (2018) found that in the presence of relationship conflicts, expectations for TPS are likely
to be negatively impacted.
23
Edmonson (1999) noted that team psychological safety is an indicator of strong learning
behavior in organizations however, it is not an indicator of positively satisfying the goals.
However, Frazier et al. (2017) found that TPS does support characteristics that should support
goal achievement including communication, engagement, and task performance. Modern
corporations typically have a stable environment that would not only benefit from but support the
ability to create strong TPS. The lack of TPS can reduce willingness to challenge others’ views.
All too often do teams quickly commit resources to a direction that may have been unwise given
other possibilities not yet known.
A possible example of this lack of willingness is that a person may be worried about
asking a question that seems obvious or stupid and would therefore be seen as less competent or
knowledgeable and have their dignity impacted. In a study performed at Google, TPS was found
to be the strongest characteristic of high-performing teams (Bergmann & Schaeppi, 2016) which
is likely due to team members’ perception of a safe environment in which they can take risks and
experiment (Edmonson, 1999). In small teams, people tend to interact with high frequency and
have more shared experiences. Small groups are more likely to have potent levels of TPS. Within
psychologically safe environments, members have a genuine interest and respect for each other
(Newman et al., 2017) which is easier to develop for a few people versus a large number of
people. As a group grows, it becomes more difficult to have the same connection with all team
members and less likely to establish strong TPS (Newman et al., 2017). As TPS is highly
influenced by leadership, with larger groups that have more members of leadership whose
characteristics are inconsistent, TPS becomes less likely to have strength (Carmeli et al., 2010;
Chen & Tjosvold, 2012). Kim (2020) however, believed that it is possible for a person to
perceive TPS throughout an entire organization.
24
Although little work has been done to examine the variables that predict TPS (Newman et
al., 2017), there is a strong relationship between team identification and TPS. Johnson & Avolio
(2018) found that TPS was positively related to team identification. Kim (2020) also found that
TPS increases an employee’s identification with their organization. In support of these findings,
Liu et al. (2015) concluded a similar connection where decreased TPS results in lower
organizational identification (r = .38, p < .001).
Social Identity Theory
According to social identity theory, people have an intrinsic motivation for a positive
social identity (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) and the reasons that they identify with a group are, in
part, to reduce uncertainty and for self-enhancement (Hogg & Terry, 2000). “Team identification
refers to a sense of oneness with a group or a perceived overlap in the attributes of a group and
themselves” (Johnson & Avolio, 2018, p. 846). One’s identity is a strong predictor of decisions
and behavior. Establishing identities is part of how people make sense of their environment and
interactions with others. Bluedorn (1982) noted that organizational commitment and one’s
identification with an organization are strongly correlated, just as lack of organizational
commitment is strongly correlated to having turnover intentions.
Background
Some identities are deliberately chosen while many are developed over time. There are
identities that we give ourselves and identities that we give to others (whether or not they are
aware). While involved in their time together, team members engage in sense-making (Ashforth
et al., 2008; Johnson & Avolio, 2018) and develop the social knowledge required in their roles
(Cable & Parsons, 2001; Trice & Beyer, 1993). These efforts result in team identification
(Johnson & Avolio, 2018). Team members may have difficulty identifying with the team if they
25
are different (as perceived by the individual) from others however, this situation can be improved
with proper leadership and shared tasks or goals (Kearney & Gebert, 2009; Van der Vegt et al.,
2003). Fransen et al. (2020) found that effective leaders could instill a sense of identification that
promotes healthier attributes including the reduced occurrence of burnout. Team identification
had a negative correlation with burnout (r = -.23, p < .001). Due to the desire for high self-
esteem, people have a higher likelihood of team identification when the team has a high level of
perceived prestige (Dukerich et al., 2002; Smidts et al., 2001). With a shared team identity, there
is an attraction among group members based on perceived similarity which also creates
boundaries for other teams (Tajfel & Turner, 1979).
Assuming that a person’s social identification is affected by others' behavior (as social
identification is defined as a perception of oneness with a group), others can affect how close this
person feels or perceives they are within the group. Farmer and Van Dyne (2010) note that we
“…create meaning by constructing identities…” (p. 503). People are able to reach for self-
actualization by first creating an identity that they want; a definition of who or what they want to
become. Identification with the team does not necessarily indicate a person’s agreement with the
values or strategy of the team as indicated by Ashforth and Mael (1989) however, it is likely that
over enough time, they may become congruent. This shared belief in the organization’s values is
an indicator of commitment to the team and a desire to maintain one’s membership within the
team.
A person’s social identity is comprised of numerous identities. While a person is likely to
have a dominant identity in any situation, it is possible that at any time, the desires or goals of
those identities may differ, thus imposing conflict within the person and tempered ability to
satisfy all goals in the best fashion, having to make some compromise (Ashforth & Mael, 1989).
26
In the situation where the goals of a person’s identity with profession and team coincide, there
should be more likelihood for good results. Chughtai (2016) found that when a strong
organizational identity exists, there is a positive correlation between voicing behavior and
negative feedback-seeking. It should also be considered that a strong team identification suggests
a person wants to remain with the team and increase organizational motivation in the form of
desire (and perceived ability) to move into higher-status roles within the organization.
Implications
One’s identification with an organization supports commitment and job satisfaction
(Hogg & Terry, 2000). The likelihood of organizational identification is, in part, regulated by
perceived prestige of an organization and one’s position within it. Bluedorn (1978; 1982) and
Mobley (1977) provided research and modeling that consistently indicated that employees who
have high job satisfaction were less likely to quit a job. Ashforth and Mael (1989) also noted
how social identity can be a source of role conflict when it disagrees with differing, tacit
identities. This conflict within an organization can lead to decreased satisfaction and group
commitment.
Fransen et al. (2020) found that team identification is a strong predictor for the presence
of team psychological safety. When combined with job satisfaction, a strong professional
identity correlates with reduced burnout, and the professional identity supports higher job
satisfaction (Scanlan, 2019). Fransen et al. (2020) also found that within sports teams, team
identity is positively associated with satisfaction and negatively associated with burnout.
Interestingly in the same study, it was shown that TPS mediates the effects of identity on
burnout, individual characteristics, and team outcomes. In their multi-level field study, Johnson
et al. (2019) also found that TPS is positively associated with team identification.
27
The strength and duration of an individual’s identification with the team are highly
impacted by their leadership (Lord et al., 1999). Abusive supervision can negatively affect
cognitive or emotional association with a team and because supervisors represent the
organization, their actions may be viewed as those of the organization (Liu et al., 2015). Cable et
al. (2013) performed a study that provided seemingly counter-intuitive results (considering other
research) where individuals were 20% less likely to quit their job and 15% more satisfied when
the company emphasized personal identity rather than organizational identity. This does not
however show that organizational identity was lacking – only that personal identity was
emphasized. It may be that support to be a unique individual motivated a bridge for the presence
of psychological safety until identification with the organization was formed. The period of time
from a new employee’s first day until they are fully integrated into the organization and capable
of being effective in their job is critical.
Onboarding
In the 1970s, after extensive research on romantic relationships, psychologist Dorothy
Tennov coined the term limerence which described the infatuation felt early in a romantic
relationship (Wyant, 2021). This feeling, which is a result of certain chemicals in the body being
triggered into large-scale production, seems to provide couples with a motivator to be together
until they form a stronger connection or attachment. Solinger et al. (2013) suggest a similar
phenomenon when a new employee enters the workplace. This new member of the organization
is often filled with enthusiasm and goodwill that prevents the employee from being substantially,
negatively impacted by setbacks and conflicts. Solinger et al. (2013) refer to this time period as
the employee/company’s “honeymoon period” and tends to last three to six months. Ideally, over
time, the newcomer’s identity partially transforms towards the organizational identity.
28
The methods used by the organization to integrate the new employee, during this
onboarding phase, strongly influence how successful it will be. Organizational socialization
refers to the activities and interactions by which an employee develops sense-making within their
new work environment (Saks & Gruman, 2017). The process begins with the employee as an
“insider” and ends with the employee and the team perceiving the newcomer as an “insider”
which helps the new employee perceive reduced ambiguity (Solinger et al., 2013).
Starting on the first day of hire, it is a common approach for companies to focus on
having a new employee assimilate to the organizational identity. However, through field
experiments, Cable et al. (2013) found that when employees were subjected to onboarding
practices that focused on the individual identity, they were 21% to 32% less likely to quit. This
method of personal-identity socialization drives an approach of having the employee express
their own uniqueness and focus more on a results accountable approach. This allows the
employee to use their individual strengths to determine how they accomplish tasks. Using a
personal-identity approach to socialization, in lab experiments, also resulted in increased work
engagement and job satisfaction (Cable et al. (2013).
Cultivating Identity
Press (2011) found three methods in which identification is created; epiphany, emulation,
and exploration. Identification via epiphany is a near-instantaneous event where a person senses
attributes about an organization and immediately feels a level of identification. This is likely by
finding attributes that are similar to those pre-existing within the individual. Identification via
emulation is a gradual process wherein individuals adopt organizational values through multiple
instances of acquiring information and engaging in sensemaking activities. This can include
29
specific, job-related tasks, company rituals, communications, and other inter-personal or
company interactions.
Any attribute that is consistent across the norm of the organization supports sensemaking
which can include features as simple as employee dress, office décor, or employee routines
(Ashforth et al., 2008). Identification via exploration is also a gradual process in which the
individual is involved in sensemaking however these efforts are in relation to one’s life as a
whole. The perception of the organization is compared to the ideal version of the organization
and one’s life. An employee’s direct supervisor is consistently shown to affect an employee in
various, profound ways. In addition to previously discussed areas such as engagement and
conflict, trust in one’s leader has been shown to be a mediator for organizational identification
(Ceri–Booms, 2012).
Conclusion
Existing research is consistent in regards to the relationships between turnover, job
satisfaction, role conflict, and role ambiguity. When perceived role conflict and/or ambiguity are
high, job satisfaction is reduced and turnover intentions increase. High levels of team
psychological safety have been shown to promote characteristics within a team that should serve
to reduce both role conflict and ambiguity. A strong organizational identification has been shown
to promote high team psychological safety. There is a gap in the research as to how
organizational identity and team psychological safety directly impact role conflict and ambiguity.
30
Chapter Three: Methodology
This research was performed using secondary data that was previously acquired using a
quantitative method. Quantitative studies involve the use of gathering and analyzing data to
answer a hypothesis that is developed from existing theory and research (Creswell, 2018). A
review of existing knowledge provided the basis for a theory of how the variables of interest are
connected and a hypothesis generated. The data gathered through this research was used to prove
or disprove the hypothesis and identify trends among the characteristics. A survey design was
used for this research. This method attempts to study a population using data from a sample of
that population in the form of answers to pre-established questions that seek to understand
associations among variables (Creswell, 2018). This survey approach was best suited for this
research as it can acquire data from a significantly sized sample using answers to questions that
have been previously validated for measuring the variables in question. Because each of the
variables being evaluated has question inventories that have been previously validated, there is
high confidence in the results that were gathered.
Sample and Population
This was a purposeful selection of data. Because a previous study had been performed
that meets the needs of the research, no new study will be performed. The data used is from a
study of two companies. While both companies are involved in the development of high-
technology products, they operate in different industries and have observably different operating
environments. The first company, Team Sail (pseudonym), is a professional sports team that
competes at the highest level in the sailing environment. In addition to the physical competition,
the team designs and manufactures the race boat that they use to train and compete with. The
team is comprised not only of the competing sailors but the engineers and designers of the boat,
31
the shore personnel, analysts, boat builders, coaches, business personnel as well as other support
functions.
This organization is considered to be highly prestigious to work for by fans and those
working in the sailing industry. Team Sail had previously proven themselves to be successful in
competition. The reasons for this success would presume to include advanced sailing skills and
experience, technical innovation, extensive training and observation, an unusually high level of
motivation, and teamwork. They work extensive hours, quickly resolve problems, and are
passionate about their work. The team operates under firmly time-bound conditions, travels to
multiple sites throughout the world. Although this is a team that represents the United States in
competition, the team is highly diversified in regard to nationality, background, and education.
The second company, Aero Controls (pseudonym) is primarily an engineering and
manufacturing company that designs and produces control systems for aircraft. Because this U.S.
based company performs work for the U.S. military, all employees are required to be U.S.
citizens. The engineers and other office personnel are required to have college degrees.
Team Sail employs approximately 120 to 150 people. The operating group of Aero
Controls that was surveyed employs approximately 100 to 120 people. The survey data acquired
responses from over 30 participants from each organization to achieve a statistically relevant
portion of the population. The participants were recruited by their management sending an email
to all employees within the organization asking for voluntary participants. As this project
investigates employee characteristics and perceptions within the company, all employees of the
two organizations qualify for participation.
32
Conceptual Framework
For this research, the independent variable is defined as organizational identity. The
dependent variables are role conflict and role ambiguity. Team psychological safety is the
mediating variable. The conceptual framework for the expected relationship between these
variables is shown in Figure 1. It has been shown through previous research that this relationship
is likely to exist. This research seeks to validate this relationship.
Figure 1
Conceptual Framework
33
Instrumentation
A survey was prepared for both Team Sail and Aero Controls to collect data pertaining to
the factors under investigation including identity, team psychological safety (TPS), role conflict,
and role ambiguity. The same factors were surveyed at both companies. The survey was
provided to Sail Team employees with an option of completing a physical, paper format, or an
online format via an emailed link to a website with the survey. Aero Controls participants
received an email with a link to an online survey. The difference in formats was due to what was
perceived to be the most feasible given the environments with consideration of the likelihood for
persons to complete the survey. Those who completed the survey were entered into a raffle for
small-value items. These surveys were conducted voluntarily and anonymously. The survey was
expected to take about 10 minutes to complete. The survey is provided in Appendix A with
labels added to distinguish which questions relate to which variables.
Survey respondents were first asked about their identities using measures based on
questions used by Doosje et al. (1995) to measure group identification. Doosje et al.’s measures
evaluated cognitive, evaluative, and affective aspects of identification among college students. In
studies performed by Doosje et al., the measures used for identity repeatedly showed high
reliability. The statements were adjusted to measure identification among team members.
Respondents were asked to write out their current job as well as their nationality of which they
identify. As this study is not interested in the specific job function or nationalities, this was done
for the purpose of priming the respondent to have these identities defined in their own mind
before answering follow on questions that pertain to these factors. Respondents were then asked
to rate how strongly they identify with several different identities under evaluation to obtain the
34
strength of their identities. Next, they are given forced-choice questions to pair different
identities against each other in an attempt to discern the most prominent identity or identities.
Then, the survey asked a series of questions about each of the factors under evaluation
that was prepared using standard question sets for each of the factors. Team psychological safety
was based on Edmondson’s (1999) seven-item scale. This survey was developed during his
research on TPS in work teams and has been subsequently used as a standard for TPS studies
such as Liu et al.’s (2015) research on the mediating role of TPS and organizational identity.
Edmondson’s measure has been subject to numerous validation tests and extensively used by
researchers to operationalize TPS. According to Newman et al. (2017), Edmondson’s measure
has invariably strong validity in content, criterion, and construction as well as strong internal
consistency reliability.
Rizzo et al.’s (1970) measures were used to evaluate role conflict and role ambiguity.
These measures were previously used in Palomino and Frezatti’s (2016) study of role conflict
and role ambiguity relating to job satisfaction. According to Jackson and Schuler (1985), this
measurement tool had been used in over 85% of studies concerning role conflict and ambiguity
and has shown to have consistent reliability. Six items were selected to measure role ambiguity.
Four items were selected to measure role conflict. These items were deliberately selected from
the full 30 item list that Rizzo et al. (1970) used to measure role conflict and ambiguity. This was
done for two reasons. First, given the extensive nature of the survey (breath of topics being
studied), using the full list would make the survey require too much time to complete. Second,
there are a number of items within the full list that were not applicable to the subjects under
study. A question such as “I feel certain how I will be evaluated for a raise or promotion” (Rizzo
et al., 1970, p. 156), is not applicable for a team that is not subject to promotions. The final
35
questions of the survey included some demographic items. Level of education and length of time
in the job (or with the team) are especially important to evaluate these factors and their effect on
identity.
Theoretical Framework
Applying social identity theory to employee turnover provides an analysis of a person’s
direct commitment to an organization as well as job satisfaction and job performance which are
contributors to turnover. Henri Tajfel (1974) developed social identity theory and its relationship
to intergroup behavior. Ashforth and Mael (1989) define social identification as “…a perception
of oneness with a group of persons” (p. 20). According to Social Identity Theory, people
categorize themselves using social groups. People have multiple social identities which can
include their religion, social class, race, team, organization, family, gender, or any other
definable cohort. Which social identities a person has and the order of precedence of the
identities is a strong predictor for various attributes (Ashforth & Mael, 1989).
Social Identity Theory is an appropriate framework to evaluate this problem as it has
application to all individuals and has direct implications to the motivation for an employee to
leave a company or for a company to want to remove the employee. For the purpose of this
study, turnover considers dysfunctional turnover only and not functional turnover. It is assumed
that all turnover is a function of characteristics of the employee, the organization, and the inter-
relationship of the two. Existing research has shown that employee turnover has a strong
correlation with job satisfaction and engagement. This research theorizes that another parameter
“identity” has an additional, strong influence indirectly on engagement and job satisfaction via
role ambiguity and conflict. By understanding the relationship between organization identity,
36
role conflict, and role ambiguity a method may be determined to aid organizations in reducing
turnover through improved employee experience.
Data Collection
Rationale for the Institutional Review Board
Information regarding the nature, type, and purpose of the study was disclosed to all
potential survey participants prior to conducting the survey. Participation in the study was
voluntary and anonymously submitted. No collection of identifying information from the
participants was collected. An incentive for participation was be provided in the form of a raffle.
Each participant was entered into a raffle for one of three gift cards to a local establishment in
the amount of $100. Upon completion of the survey, they were to place their name on a raffle
entry which is physically separate and in no way traceable to the survey responses. The
institutional review board (IRB) review type was expedited with no participants under any form
of legal guardianship.
Underlying Ethics
It is possible that participants may experience psychological discomfort when answering
questions due to unique negative experiences in their own lives; participants are free to skip (not
answer) any questions that make them uncomfortable. The only other risk associated with this
study is from the possibility of a breach of confidentiality, however, all data was kept on a
password locked hard-drive accessible only by the principal investigator. The questions used in
the survey were selected from inventories that had been previously validated for their intended
purpose.
37
Data Analysis
The data from the surveys conducted at the two companies were segregated by company
such that it could be evaluated both at the individual company level and with all data combined.
The survey questions were grouped into themes: identity, team psychological safety, conflict,
ambiguity, and demographics. Each survey question was assigned a simplified label for use in
analytical software. The data were processed using SPSS statistical software to determine
correlation and mediating characteristics.
Summary
Secondary data from studies performed at two companies were used to evaluate the
posed research questions. The data was evaluated to understand the relationship between
organizational identity, role conflict, and role ambiguity. Team psychological safety was
evaluated for its effect of mediating that relationship. Considering the attributes of employees
suggested by social identity theory and previous research, it is expected that team members with
high levels of team identification will demonstrate lower levels of role conflict and ambiguity as
well as high levels of team psychological safety. Given the propensity to identify with more
prestigious organizations, it was expected that members of Team Sail would generally
demonstrate stronger team identification than members of Aero Controls. Any additional
findings or correlations related to demographics would also be provided in the results.
38
Chapter Four: Results
The secondary data from the previously conducted surveys were obtained and combined
into a single Excel spreadsheet with each survey response being assigned a random, unique
identifier and identified as to which company the response was from. The data used for analysis
included more measures than specifically targeted for this study. Due to the availability of the
data, four additional variables were evaluated in addition to those targeted for this study:
creativity (creative problem solving), autonomy, accountability, and group collaboration.
Two variations of measuring identity were collected by the surveys: relative identity and
absolute identity. Relative identity provided the respondents with forced-choice questions to
choose between two identities, which they identified more strongly with. The identity categories
included their organization, the society they work in, their job, and their nationality. For this
study, society refers to the industry in which someone works. For Team Sail this refers to the sail
racing industry. For Aero Controls this refers to the aerospace industry. This identity measure
attempts to understand which category the respondent identifies most strongly with compared to
the others. The absolute identity measure asked the respondents to rate how strongly they
identify with each of the same identity options. In this measure, the score for each identity is
independent of the score for each other identity.
Several of the questions within the team psychological safety (TPS) and role ambiguity
measures were asked in reverse; where for some questions a higher score represented a positive
condition and, for some, a higher score represented a negative condition. The response scores to
these questions were therefore reversed to provide a consistent direction for analyzing. The final
condition for TPS is that higher scores for each question represent a positive condition. This is
the same direction for all other measures except for role ambiguity and conflict. For role
39
ambiguity and conflict, higher scores represent a negative condition (higher score equals higher
levels of conflict or ambiguity).
For each of the measures, several questions were asked. Therefore, the average of the
measures was used for analysis. For each measure, the responses to each question were summed
and divided by the number of questions. This method was performed for the variables of absolute
identity, creativity, autonomy, accountability, safety, group collaboration, role ambiguity, and
role conflict. For relative identity, the number of times the specific identity was noted was
counted. The resultant score is the total times the identity was selected.
Survey Participants
The surveys had a total of 77 respondents with 36 from Team Sail and 42 from Aero
Controls. A cursory review of the data set was performed to evaluate any possible flaws.
Although some respondents did not answer every question, the majority of respondents answered
every question and there were no obvious signs of invalid data except for one individual from
Team Sail whose answers to some questions were not within the allowable options. This was
possible as the majority of Team Sail’s respondents used paper surveys which could not limit the
possible answers written by respondents. This respondent’s data was considered invalid and
removed from the data set leaving a total of 35 responses analyzed from Team Sail.
Of the respondents, 92% were male which was proportional to the gender populations of
the companies. The average education level for Team Sail was a university bachelor’s degree
and a master’s degree for Aero Controls. Demographic statistics are shown in Table 1 along with
correlation data for demographic variables in Table 2 (Team Sail), Table 3 (Aero Controls), and
Table 4 (combined). The identification type with the highest mean with Team Sail was with the
team (organization) whereas, at Aero Controls, it was with one’s profession (job). Average age,
40
years in job, years with team, and gender of respondents is similar between teams. Statistics for
identity measures are shown in Table 5 along with correlation data for identity variables in
Tables 6 (Team Sail), Table 7 (Aero Controls), and Table 8 (combined). Average scores for
creative problem solving and team psychological safety were higher at Aero Controls. It should
be considered that given the very different environments, the perceptional baseline for these
measures may be different. Average scores for other variables were very similar between the
groups. Statistics for these dependent variables are shown in Table 9.
Table 1
Demographic Results from Surveys
Parameter Team Sail Aero Controls
# Respondents Mean # Respondents Mean
Age 35 39 42 40
# of male respondents 35 33 41 37
Level of education 35 Bachelors 41 Masters
# of years in profession 35 15 41 18
# of years in organization 35 5 41 7
41
Inter-Company Analysis
Each of the following variables was analyzed within SPSS using an independent-samples
t-test comparing the measures from both Team Sail and Aero Controls (alpha = .05, two-tailed);
TPS, role conflict, role ambiguity, accountability, creativity, autonomy, and group collaboration.
This was performed to determine whether there was a significant difference in the means of these
two independent groups. This was done to set expectations for how different the analysis results
may be between companies and understand where it may make sense to review results
independently or combined. These results are shown in Table 10. All characteristics show they
are not significantly different between the two organizations except for TPS. Aero Controls
demonstrates a 10% higher mean score on TPS (5.11 compared to Team Sail at 4.66 on a scale of
one to seven). The type of organization may influence this parameter. Team Sail is an
organization that employs individuals for only a few years at a time whereas Aero Controls hires
people for an indefinite period of time. TPS is a characteristic that is strongly influenced by the
trust within the team and perceptions based on an operating norm (Johnson & Avolio, 2018). It
seems likely that a team that has spent long periods of time together, (such as teams within Aero
Controls) may be more likely to achieve an operating norm and have sufficient interactions to
achieve higher levels of TPS.
To answer the research questions, the data was evaluated using SPSS software to
determine correlations between variables. This was performed to compare organizational identity
with the targeted variables of role conflict and role ambiguity as well as the additional, available
variables. The data were reviewed at the individual organization level and with both companies
combined to consider differences that may appear between organizations. Correlations were
analyzed using bivariate correlation in SPSS. This method was used due to its strength for
42
determining statistical significance between two continuous variables and the direction of that
relationship.
Results for Research Question 1
The first question this study attempted to answer; how is an employee’s perception of
role conflict in the workplace affected by their identification with the organization?
Interpretation of the research suggests that role conflict is negatively associated with
organizational identity. When team members have a strong identification with the organization,
they will perceive lower levels of role conflict. I theorized that this relationship would be shown
by the analysis based on mediating effects of TPS. Although that relationship with TPS was not
shown, the direct relationship between identity to role conflict was evaluated.
For Team Sail there was no significant correlation between relative organizational
identity and role conflict however, it showed a moderately strong, negative, correlation between
absolute organizational identity and high levels of perceived role conflict (r = -.50, p = .002).
Aero Controls also showed a weak, negative, correlation between relative organizational identity
and role conflict (r = .32, p = .037), however exhibited a moderately strong, negative, correlation
between absolute organizational identity and role conflict (r = -.55, p = .000). When combining
the data of the two companies, there was only a weak, negative correlation between relative
organizational identity and role conflict (r = -.27, p = .020). However, there was a moderately
strong, negative correlation between absolute organizational identity and role conflict (r = -.53, p
= .000). The results of the correlation analysis are shown in Table 11 (Team Sail), Table 12
(Aero Controls), and Table 13 (combined).
43
Discussion for Research Question 1
For the relationship between absolute organizational identity and role conflict, the
hypothesis is supported that higher levels of organizational identity reduce perceived role
conflict. An interesting finding here is that relative organizational identity does not have the
same effect in that relative identity does not drive improved results. These results make intuitive
sense as they demonstrate that for role conflict, it is not important that one’s organizational
identity be stronger than their other social or professional identities. People possess multiple
identities that simultaneously determine their view of the world (Ashforth & Mael, 1989)
however if these other identities have no effect on their perceived role conflict, and only their
organizational identity is affecting this characteristic, then it is only the absolute strength of their
organizational identity that may affect the level of role conflict.
Results for Research Question 2
The second question that this study attempted to answer was; how is an employee’s
perception of role ambiguity in the workplace affected by their identification with the
organization? Interpretation of the research suggests that role ambiguity is negatively associated
with organizational identity. When team members have a strong identification with the
organization, they will perceive lower levels of role ambiguity.
For Team Sail, there was no correlation between relative or absolute organizational
identity and role ambiguity. This was also true at Aero Controls for relative organizational
identity only. For absolute organizational identity, there was a moderately strong, negative,
correlation to role ambiguity (r = -.58, p = .000). When combining the data of the two
companies, there was no correlation between relative organizational identity and role ambiguity
however, there was a moderately strong, negative correlation between absolute organizational
44
identity and role ambiguity (r = -.39, p = .000). The results of the correlation analysis are shown
in Table 11 (Team Sail), Table 12 (Aero Controls), and Table 13 (combined).
Discussion for Research Question 2
These results have some of the similar patterns exhibited from role conflict where
absolute organizational identity predicts lower levels of role ambiguity but only at Aero
Controls. The same pattern between relative and absolute identity also appears. The largest
difference is that, at Team Sail, stronger absolute identification with the organization does not
predict lower levels of role ambiguity as it does at Aero Controls.
Team Psychological Safety as a Mediator
I theorized that the effect of organizational identity on role conflict and ambiguity is
mediated by TPS. This seemed to be consistent with the initial findings of moderately strong
correlations from both absolute organizational identity and TPS to both role conflict and role
ambiguity. However, the correlation from organizational identity to TPS is weak at best. The
correlations between absolute organizational identity, TPS, role conflict, and role ambiguity are
shown in Figures 2, 3, and 4 for Team Sail, Aero Controls, and combined results respectively.
Based on this poor relationship, it would not be expected that TPS would serve as a strong
mediator between identity to conflict and ambiguity. The relationship between these variables is
causal and it is not possible for the mediating variable to translate the effects of identity onto
conflict and ambiguity if TPS is not causally located between the independent and dependent
variables (Hayes, 2018).
Regression analysis was performed to evaluate what, if any, mediating effects exist for
TPS from organizational identity to role conflict and ambiguity using Process by Hayes within
SPSS; model number 4, confidence intervals at 95. Organizational identity is defined as the “x”
45
(independent) variable, role conflict or ambiguity as the “y” (dependent) variable (separately)
and TPS as the “m” (mediating) variable. Hayes’ process macro performs regression analysis to
infer the mediating effects of variables. It has the added benefit of not having to assume a normal
distribution of data (Kim & Sung, 2021). These results (provided in Tables 14, 15, and 16) show
there is no statistical significance for the indirect effect of TPS between organizational identity
(absolute) and role conflict or role ambiguity at Team Sail or Aero Controls.
Figure 2
Team Sail Correlations Between Organization Identity, Team Psychological Safety, Role
Conflict, and Role Ambiguity
46
Figure 3
Aero Controls Correlations Between Organization Identity, Team Psychological Safety, Role
Conflict, and Role Ambiguity
Figure 4
Combined Company Correlations Between Organization Identity, Team Psychological Safety,
Role Conflict, and Role Ambiguity
47
Secondary Findings
In addition to analysis in support of answering the research questions, additional findings
are reported for any significant correlations in areas of interest between variables within the
available data. First, there was no correlation found between the level of education or years in
profession and one’s identification with their profession. Considering that social identity theory
findings indicate that one’s level of investment influences their identity, it seems intuitive that
investing time, finances, and effort into a career would strengthen the identification with that
profession. This was not found to be the case.
Professional Identity
There was a moderately strong, positive, correlation between relative, profession identity
and role conflict at both Team Sail (r = .38, p = .025) and Aero Controls (r = .41, p = .007). At
Team Sail, there was a moderately strong, negative, correlation between relative, professional
identity with TPS (r = -.39, p = .019). A similar trend is seen at both companies with a negative
correlation with group collaboration (Team Sail r = -.46, p = .006; Aero Controls r = -.31, p =
.045). This suggests that when one has a significantly stronger identification with their
profession, relative to other identities, they tend to perceive more role conflict, have lower group
collaboration, and possibly experience less team psychological safety.
It is shown herein that it is not necessary to have a strong team identification relative to
other identities to experience low conflict and ambiguity. Based on this finding, to realize the
positive, team atmosphere (low conflict and ambiguity), although it is not necessary to have a
high, relative organizational identity, it may not be possible to have another identity that takes
precedence over the organizational identity in the working environment.
48
Influence of Team Psychological Safety
Analysis of the survey data showed that at Team Sail, there was no correlation between
relative, or absolute, organizational identity and TPS. At Aero Controls, there was only a weak,
positive, correlation between absolute, organizational identity and team psychological safety (r =
.31, p = .047). However, there was a moderately strong, positive, correlation between relative,
organizational identity and TPS (r = .43, p = .005). Combined company results showed a weak,
positive correlation between absolute, organizational identity and TPS (r = .25, p = .026).
There was a moderately strong, negative correlation between TPS and role conflict at
Aero Controls (r = -.45, p = .003), Team Sail (r = -.44, p = .010) and combined (r = -.41, p =
.000). There were strong, negative correlations with TPS to role ambiguity at Aero Controls (r =
-.53, p = .000), Team Sail (r = -.60, p = .000) and within the combined results (r = -.58, p =
.000). This is consistent with what is suggested by prior research on this relationship. It was
expected that within this study, the data would support a relationship where higher levels of TPS
correlates with lower role conflict and ambiguity which was supported by the results.
Group Collaboration
A strong, positive correlation was found between group collaboration and TPS at Aero
Controls (r = .50, p = .001), Team Sail (r = .77, p = .000) and combined (r = .63, p = .000).
Similarly strong, negative correlations were found between group collaboration and both role
ambiguity (Team Sail r = -.64, p = .000; Aero Controls r = -.72, p = .000) and role conflict
(Team Sail r = -.48, p = .004; Aero Controls r = -.59, p = .000). With both TPS and group
collaboration serving as strong drivers for reducing role conflict and ambiguity, prior research
suggests that the presence of TPS serves as the engine that drives group efficacy in their
collaborative efforts (Kim et al., 2020). Organizational identity does not consistently predict
49
group collaboration just as it did not consistently predict TPS. The strength of these relationships
is shown in Figures 5 and 6. Also, at Aero Controls, a strong, positive correlation was found
between group collaboration and absolute organizational identity (r = .55, p = .000).
Figure 5
Team Sail Relationship with Group Collaboration
50
Figure 6
Aero Controls Relationship with Group Collaboration
Accountability
At Team Sail, accountability does not significantly predict any other characteristics
however, at Aero Controls, it has a moderately strong impact on several, good, team
characteristics including creativity (r = .44, p = .004); autonomy (r = .64, p = .000); group
collaboration (r = .36, p = .020); and role ambiguity (r = -.41, p = .007). According to Hall et al.
(2017), it is accountability that keeps people from acting without regard for consequences. Hall
and Farris (2011) describe accountability as the condition in which a person’s decisions will be
evaluated by someone else and subsequently rewarded or sanctioned.
While accountability has been described as the act of being accountable or expected to
justify decisions, accountability gets its meaning from the adjectives that are associated with it
(Dubnick, 2014). The ontological adjectives or elements associated with accountability include
51
relationality, spatiality, temporality, ethicality, and constitutiveness (Dubnick, 2020). As
accountability requires a relationship between multiple parties, relationality characterizes the
relationship. It defines how we interact. Within a team that perceives high accountability among
its team members, it stands to reason that it would allow for people to work more autonomously.
It also supports lower ambiguity as the necessity to define responsibilities is greater when held
accountable for one’s role. It is interesting to find the relationship with improved group
effectiveness characteristics: higher creativity and group collaboration.
Summary
The quantitative survey was conducted and obtained 77 total responses from Team Sail
and Aero Controls that were used for analysis. Roughly half the participants were from each
organization with similar demographics in regard to gender and education as well as years in
their profession and current organization. In addition to the measures needed to answer the
research questions, the additional measures, for other organizational characteristics, that were
included in the survey, were reviewed for any notable findings. A t-test analysis of the
characteristics was performed to compare the results of the two organizations and showed strong
similarity except for TPS scores being notably stronger at Aero Controls. Although the mean
scores for each identity (organization, industry, profession, nationality) did not vary largely,
members of Team Sail primarily identified with the organization. At Aero Controls, in an
environment with less perceived prestige, the primary identification of team members is stronger
with that of one’s profession. The average education level at Aero Controls is also higher which
should support an increase in identity with one’s profession given the increased investment
however, no correlation between identity and education or years of experience was found to
support this.
52
Findings show that a team with a strong organizational identity is likely to perceive lower
levels of role conflict however, the results on the relationship between identity and role
ambiguity are mixed between organizations with only Aero Controls showing significance for
the lower levels of ambiguity. Higher team psychological safety is shown to consistently support
lower levels of both role conflict and ambiguity. While the relationship between organizational
identity and TPS is mixed between companies (identity predicts TPS at Aero Controls only), a
regression analysis consistently showed that TPS was not operating as a mediator between
identity and role conflict or ambiguity.
The effect of high group collaboration is a notable, secondary finding due to its
consistent, strong prediction for lower levels of both role conflict and role ambiguity. Team
psychological safety is positively correlated with group collaboration. Considering the
relationship between all of these characteristics, it appears that while TPS promotes group
collaboration which supports lower conflict and ambiguity, organization identity may reduce
conflict and/or ambiguity directly (without the need for TPS or group collaboration as a
mediator). Based on these findings, it is reasonable to consider implications for how
organizations may use identity to aid in improving the problem of employee turnover.
53
Chapter Five: Discussion
This study investigated organizational characteristics that strongly influence employee,
dysfunctional turnover and how those characteristics are affected by organizational identification
by the employee for the purpose of exploring a method to reduce turnover. The targeted
characteristics were employee role conflict and role ambiguity. The research questions asked
how these characteristics are affected by organizational identity and if there is any mediating
effect between these variables and team psychological safety (TPS). This research was
performed by analyzing secondary data from a previously performed survey of employees from
two, different companies.
In addition to the planned research items, data for other organizational characteristics was
available in the data set which was also reviewed for any significantly related findings. To
evaluate creative problem solving, measures were used based on Alge et al. (2006). For group
collaboration, measures were used from Campion et al. (1993). Measures for autonomy were
taken from Thompson and Prottas (2005). Accountability was evaluated using measures from
Hochwarter et al. (2007). See Appendix A for specific questions asked in the survey. There was
no significant difference found in the mean scores of the two companies for any measure.
Findings
Analysis of the survey results provides insight into the relationship between
organizational identity to role conflict and ambiguity as well as how team psychological safety is
involved in this relationship. Additional discoveries that were not intentionally sought after are
provided that have a connection to the target variables and/or the general topic of organizational
behavior as it relates to turnover.
54
Organizational Identity
One notable and interesting finding is the difference in the usability of the absolute and
relative identity measures. Within the survey measures for identity, respondents were asked to
rate their strength of identification among several options (absolute) and then, separately to
compare the strength of their identity with the same options which provided a relative identity
strength. The absolute identity measures merely measure the individual identity strength. It does
not imply that the identity exists in absence of the numerous other identities that people hold.
Haslam et al. (2009) believed that embracing multiple social identities is an expression of how
we have evolved to live in social groups. Such groups can improve our lives by providing
security, companionship, and collaborative learning. It has been hypothesized that people’s
identification with social groups is relative in that it aids to bound the nature of one in-group by
characterizing the differences from another out-group (Haslam et al., 2009). When discussing
organization identity at the individual level, it may help to consider that an organization itself has
an identity and the individual has an identity which is a culmination of identification with
potentially, many social groups. Figure 7 shows how these (individual and organization)
identities can be related which includes a range from fully aligned to having no common
associations (Tsuchiya, 2017).
55
Figure 7
Scaling Divergence/Convergence Between Individual and Organizational Identities
Note. From “A Critical Review Of Organizational Identification: Introducing Identity Work To
Examine Dynamic Process,” by Y. Tsuchiya, 2017, Journal of Organizational Culture,
Communications and Conflict,21(2), p. 3. Copyright 2017 by Jordan Whitney Enterprises, Inc.
The correlation of relative organizational identity to the targeted variables of role conflict
and ambiguity was weak at best. However, the correlation with absolute organizational identity
was generally much stronger. People tend to hold numerous identities and it can be important to
understand the relative strength of these identities in some situations to predict decisions. The
relative strength would not be important when the identities do not conflict with each other. For
this study, the relative strength of identity is not considered as important as one’s absolute
56
identity. Despite what other identities a person holds, this study uses the absolute strength of
one’s identity with the organization for analysis to answer the research questions.
Research Question 1
Research Question 1: How is an employee’s perception of role conflict in the workplace
affected by their identification with the organization? The first research question was answered
by showing a moderately strong negative correlation between organizational identity and role
conflict. This indicates that as one’s identity with an organization is strengthened, their perceived
role conflict is reduced. This supports the provided hypothesis although as a direct relationship
and not an indirect one. Role conflict exists when multiple role requirements exist for a person
such that the successful performance on one requirement hinders the success of another (Davis et
al., 2021). The measure of role conflict used in this study was a measure of the individual’s
perceived level of role conflict within their current job.
This correlation between identity and conflict is supported by Guan and So (2016) who
indicated that teams with strong group identification have a higher capacity for resolving
conflicts. When employees share a strong team identification, they share the desire for success of
the group goals. They also have higher self-efficacy for resolving issues along with a stronger
commitment to relationships with others in the team (Desivilya & Eizen, 2005). Whether or not a
team is exposed to the initiation of role conflicts, when they have the desire and ability to resolve
these conflicts before they become issues, the perception of role conflict in the organization is
reduced. Results from this study indicate that the presence of organization identity creates the
capacity for team members to perceive lower levels of role conflict. When teams have the self-
efficacy to resolve conflict, they are more likely to have high productivity (Alper et al., 2000). In
their study on conflict management, Desivilya and Eizen (2005) found that social self-efficacy
57
within the team was the sole predictor for the desire to manage conflict and this efficacy is
supported by group identification.
Research Question 2
Research Question 2: How is an employee’s perception of role ambiguity in the
workplace affected by their identification with the organization? This research question was
answered by showing a moderately strong negative correlation between organizational identity
and role ambiguity. This indicates that as one’s identity with an organization is strengthened,
their perceived role ambiguity is reduced. This supports the provided hypothesis although as a
direct relationship and not an indirect one. Role ambiguity is characterized by how clear and
thorough information is communicated to an employee. When information is communicated
poorly or there are gaps in the necessary information needed to successfully accomplish tasks,
the perceived role ambiguity is increased (Schmidt et al., 2014).
Role ambiguity typically results in lower job performance. When a team shares a strong
identity, they view their fate as intertwined and when a negative attribute such as role ambiguity
exists that threatens the success of the team, they are more likely to resolve it (Singh et al.,
2012). The stronger, team-efficacy that develops with strong team identification aids in this
activity. Similar to role conflict, the measure of perceived role ambiguity is related more to the
ongoing or sustained level of role ambiguity by an employee and not necessarily how often a
potential for role ambiguity develops. Results from this study indicate that when employees have
a strong identification with their organization, they possess a higher capacity for precluding or
resolving role ambiguity.
Of the demographic categories included in the survey, level of education was the only
characteristic that was considered to have a potentially significant impact on the results. A partial
58
correlation analysis was performed using SPSS. The level of education was used as a control
variable. The results showed no effect on the relationship between organizational identity and
role conflict. A negligible effect was found on the correlation between organization identity and
role ambiguity (r = -.391, with control; r = -.389, without). In addition to the analysis to answer
the research questions, other variables provided strong correlations with positive organizational
characteristics.
Group Collaboration
Another notable finding is the relationship among group collaboration. There was a
moderately strong, positive correlation between organizational identity and group collaboration.
Furthermore, group collaboration had strong correlations with reduced role conflict and role
ambiguity. There was also a strong, positive correlation between group collaboration and TPS.
Campion et al., (1993) study data showed that group collaboration supported higher employee
productivity. A study by Fried et al. (1998) showed the limited capacity for the stress-related
activity that people hold. As either role conflict or role ambiguity increases, the employee’s job
performance decreased. The findings from these studies are consistent with each other in regards
to the relationship among group collaboration, role conflict, role ambiguity, and performance.
This study provides an added benefit of providing a potential means with which to foster group
collaboration by promoting a strong organizational identification by the employee and/or team
psychological safety.
Team Psychological Safety
It has been shown in prior research that organizational identity is a strong predictor of
team psychological safety (Johnson & Avolio, 2018; Kim, 2020). It was hypothesized that the
relationship between organizational identity to role conflict and ambiguity would be mediated by
59
team psychological safety. This was not found to be the case and organizational identity only
showed a weak correlation with TPS. These results do not support the strong correlation between
identity and TPS that were found from the study by Johnson and Avolio (2018) which included
respondents that were university students in graduate programs. Kim’s (2020) study with similar
results to Johnson and Avolio was conducted on employees within five different companies that
would be similar to Aero Controls in regard to the type of personnel. Fransen (2020) also showed
strong correlations between team identity and TPS in a sports team (similar to Team Sail).
All of those studies, when evaluating identity, only measured organizational identity.
While Johnson and Avolio (2018), as well as Fransen (2020), used the same measures for TPS
(Edmondson, 1999) as this study, their measure for identity was different. Both measures used
by Kim (2020) were different than those used for this study with Kim using measures adapted
from van Knippenberg et al. (2007) to study identity. The difference in methodology for
acquiring identity may serve as the reason for the difference in magnitude of the correlation
between studies. Because the identity measures for this study included multiple identity
categories to be rated, it seems reasonable that participants biased their rating on organization
identity based on other identity ratings. If a participant felt that their identification with another
characteristic, such as nationality, was very strong and stronger than their organizational identity,
they may have selected a lower score for organizational identity than they would have in a
survey that only studied organizational identity. In this case, the participant would have been
providing a somewhat relative scoring between identities. It was found in the results that relative
identity scores did not provide results that were as consistent and robust as absolute identity
scores.
60
Analysis showed a moderately strong correlation between TPS to reduced role conflict
and role ambiguity. Although little research has been performed on the relationship between TPS
and role ambiguity, this finding is consistent with what previous research suggests about the
relationship with both conflict and ambiguity and with how this relationship was hypothesized to
exist within this study. This relationship is consistent with the study by Kostopoulos and
Bozionelos (2011) that with the presence of TPS, team members are open to understanding
others’ views and preclude the origination of conflict or can resolve conflict by viewing
conflicting opinions as an alternate, creative options. They also found a negative, moderate
correlation between TPS and conflict (r = -.38, p < .05).
Professional Identity
It was interesting to find there was no significant correlation between identification with
one’s profession and either level of education or years in profession. A higher amount of
investment and commitment, whether by effort or financial means, in one’s profession is
expected to result in a stronger identification with that profession. This position is based on
social identity theory which suggests that one’s identity converges over time with behavior and
cognitive processes (Johnson et al., 2012). This was supported by the study by Johnson et al.
(2012) which showed that cognitive identification stabilized over time. With time, there is more
opportunity for sense-making and developing the resultant identification. Vough (2012)
however, from performing a qualitative study on identities found that professional identities were
more likely to be formed based on an archetype that represented what a person wanted their
future self to be like. The investment that was spent on one’s profession was outweighed by
one’s view of the life that their profession afforded them.
61
Analysis showed there was a moderately strong correlation between the strength of one’s
professional identity, relative to other identities, and reduced TPS and group collaboration. There
was also a moderately strong correlation between the strength of one’s relative, professional
identity to increased role conflict and role ambiguity. This suggests that when there is a team
member whose professional identity is stronger than their team identification, it can be harmful
to the team. When people have a strong professional identification, their focus on the
individual’s agenda for their job can conflict with the desires of others such as teammates and
what is needed most for the team as a whole (Vough, 2012). While one’s organizational identity
does not need to be relatively stronger than their other identities to have strong organizational
qualities, it is shown here that these qualities can be affected when other identities conflict with
the team identification. The conclusions drawn by these findings are limited by the nature of the
people that participated in the study. Although all participants met the intended, selection
criteria, the characteristics of the group, as a whole, should be considered.
Limitations
There are two areas of limitation identified for this study; demographics and identity
categories. Over 90% of the survey respondents were male. The identity measures did not
include options for gender and therefore, there would be no direct effect on the results if more
respondents claimed to be female. If gender identity options were included, this should not
impact the results for absolute identity which are not impacted by alternate identities. However,
there could be an impact on the results for correlations to relative identity should gender options
be included. I did not see this as a concern as the conclusions drawn from this study primarily
consider the absolute identity correlations. Other, social identity options such as physical
impairment or ethnicity were also not included. They also, would not be expected to affect the
62
absolute identity measures but could impact relative identity measures. Given the strength of
ethnicity in social identities, it could be informative to determine the impact of this characteristic
as it relates to organizational identity and the organizational traits discussed herein.
Future Research
This study obtained data from two companies; a professional sports team and a
professional engineering organization. Both groups were strongly educated and predominately
male. The findings from this study would be strengthened with a broader set of teams from
different industries, countries, sports, educational backgrounds and disciplines. It would be
further strengthened for reliability by including a broader range of functionally (education,
experience) diverse respondents. Additionally, gender and ethnicity options within the identity
measures could help companies understand how to better improve diversity.
Companies are trying to resolve the problem of performance and job satisfaction by
hiring people of a specific race and gender that other employees can identify with (Pitts, 2009).
While organization identification is a strong predictor for strong organizational commitment and
reduced intent to leave (Riketta, 2005), relational identification is the bridge between personal
identification and organizational identification when an employee can identify with an
organizational leader or someone who embodies the company values and beliefs (Ashforth et al.,
2016). This indicates that having people that demonstrate a specific social identity, such as
gender or ethnicity, in leadership positions within the company makes it more likely that people
that share that identity will be able to create a relational identity with them. By increasing the
social identity diversity of an organization by the hiring of a larger percentage mix of genders or
ethnicities, a more salient community can exist for these people to identify with.
63
However, despite the physical appearance of a person, one may genetically be of a
different race than what is assumed. The color of skin does not necessarily define one’s genetic
or perceived identity. Regardless of the actual or assumed race, a person may identify themselves
as a different race. Ashforth and Mael (1989) indicated that social identity is based on one’s
perception of inclusion within a group and that one does not need to demonstrate any specific,
physical characteristics to identify with a race group. It is not possible to predict a person’s social
identity such as what ethnicity they identify as, based on the color of their skin.
While companies are trying to increase their diversity by intentional hiring people from
less represented groups (Koppl, 2007) such as people with black skin color, it can prove difficult
to identify what race of person they are actually hiring and difficult for the candidate to perceive
what ethnicity groups may exist in the organization that they will identify with. The U.S.
Department of Education (2016) shows that the number of people between the age of five and 17
years old with multiple ethnicities doubled from the year 2000 to 2013 and tripled for ages 18 to
24 years old. With the increasing existence of multiple ethnicities, the color of their skin
becomes less of a predictor for their self-identified ethnicity. By taking an approach of
intentionally hiring people of a specific color, a company may further perpetuate the problem of
social identity needs within the company and the need to hire people of specific races in
leadership positions to keep employee satisfaction and performance.
Schneider and Northcraft (1999) noted that functional diversity such as differing talents
and perspectives, supports creativity and innovation in organizations but social diversity does not
directly relate to functional diversity. Koppl (2007) concluded that increasing the diversity of the
social identities in their hiring process did not resolve functional performance issues. The focus
on increasing diversity within social identities within an organization does not provide the
64
substantial performance results that are gained by increasing diversity within functional
identities. Randel and Jaussi (2003) show that a person’s functional background was not only a
strong variable that related to job performance but that functional backgrounds provided a means
of creating a shared social identity with others in the company. Randel and Jaussi also showed
that a group of team members with functional similarity will often have similar problem-solving
methods. By increasing diversity within functional identities, an increased number of problem-
solving methods is available. Having a large population of a minority group in an organization
should not only promote further applicants of that group to apply to a company but it also
supports job satisfaction with shared, social identity. Increasing functional diversity in an
organization provides increased performance as well as a means for which employees to identify
within groups and a higher likelihood of identification with the organization.
Within future research, it is recommended to expand the research herein on identity
influence to include gender and ethnicity options in the identity measures. Analysis could then be
performed to understand how organizational versus gender and ethnicity identities determine job
satisfaction and if the relative identity strength among these options has a stronger impact. I have
hypothesized that creating a strong organizational identity by employees will reduce the need for
strong social identification with others within the company as a predictor for job satisfaction. It
may be possible to have the organization be the group the employees identify with instead of
social identities connected to skin color. This would be consistent with findings by Johnson and
Avolio (2018) which showed that stronger team identification moderated negative effects from
demographic diversity.
65
Implications for Practice
The objective of this study was to find characteristics within an organization that can
predict turnover intentions by employees to provide companies with an approach for reducing
turnover. The benefit of reducing turnover is the saved cost of replacing employees which have
been estimated to cost upwards of 200% of an employee’s annual salary; an amount that varies
drastically depending on the type of position and length of time in the company. Losing high-
performing employees commonly results in reduced productivity, disruptions to customer
expectations, and/or reduced team morale. Improving the conditions that result in turnover
intentions also supports higher, average employee job satisfaction, reduced relationship conflict,
improved perception of the company by potential employees, and reduced stress.
Through the review of prior literature on the matter and analysis of the survey data
obtained herein, it has been shown that when employees have a strong organizational identity,
their perception of role conflict and ambiguity is reduced which has been previously shown to
reduce turnover intentions directly (Gilani, 2020; Tongchaiprasit & Ariyabuddhiphongs, 2016)
and indirectly through job satisfaction (Mackenzie et al., 1998). Based on these findings, a
company that can develop a strong identification with the organization by the employees is
expected to have reduced turnover.
The process of employees developing a strong organizational identity is not
straightforward. How an individual’s identity is formed is not clear and little is written on the
process beyond the characteristics with which people identify (Dhalla, 2007). While some
researchers believe that an individuals’ identities are long-lasting, others believe that they can
easily change over short periods of time. However, it has been consistently noted that identities
are created as the result of sense-making within groups and during activities (Ashforth et al.,
66
2008; Johnson & Avolio, 2018; Gioia et al., 2013; Fransen et al., 2020; Saks & Gruman, 2017;
Press, 2011; Johnson et al., 2012). Gioia (2013) highlighted an important component of an
identity which is that they help define the difference. They help make sense of situations by
showing how one thing is different from another. Therefore, I do not provide tactical steps for a
company to take in an effort to force employees to identify with the organization but instead,
provide the characteristics that form an organizational identity.
With the perception that we cannot decide what individuals will identify with, the best
path for a company to take is to establish a clear, strong identity based on its values and mission.
People that identify with those values should be attracted to the company and stay while those
that do not identify with the company characteristics should not be attracted to work for the
company. The counter to this approach is to not have a clear, distinguishable, communicated
company identity which may draw any type of person who may or may not ever identify with the
company. Key indicators of an organization’s identity include its mission, goals, values, and
practices (Scott & Lane, 2000). For establishing a strong, organizational identity, it is important
that all of these characteristics be clearly communicated internally and consistent with how they
are communicated externally to the company. It is important that those characteristics be
consistent among each other such that the company goals are aligned to its mission. That its
values and practices align to its goals and that its identity/presence be differentiated from others.
One characteristic that strongly identifies a company is how it is different from others.
Organizational identity becomes salient through the company’s routines, procedures,
products, business practices, and overall decision-making (Elsbach & Kramer, 1996). Therefore,
it is important to align these characteristics, to have employees understand them, and to maintain
them as aligned with the company identity. Many of these types of characteristics of a company
67
establish the organizational culture which is the shared knowledge and rules that govern
practices. These practices are part of how employees make sense of their work and the cultural
rules and need to be consistent (Dhalla, 2007). Human resource practices play an important role
in the company culture and resultant identity. These practices such as pay, rewards, training, and
development signal what is important to a company. When a company provides rewards based
on behavior that demonstrates a membership with the organization, it promotes organizational
identification (Brickson, 2000). Grieves and Redman (1999) found that employee development is
most successful when aligned with the company’s strategic plans. Employee training should be
focused on the skills needed to accomplish the goals of the company. The company mission,
values, and how the human resource practices are aligned with these, should be communicated
during recruitment and interviews of potential employees.
By following these recommended actions, a company is more likely to increase its
population of employees that identify with the company. As the changing of company practices,
attrition of poor performing employees, and hiring of new employees can take months or years, it
is important to track the performance of how these changes affect organization traits such as
identity, conflict, and ambiguity. A common practice for companies is to perform exit interviews
where an employee who has resigned is asked why they have decided to leave the company. I
believe the response to these questions can be misleading to those looking to reduce turnover.
Employees typically leave a company for one reason; they have been offered a better, perceived
alternative (Bluedorn, 1982; Gilani & Rabbani, 2020). However, the root condition of the
turnover problem is: why did the employee start to look for another job? What personal or
organizational conditions were in place that made the employee unsatisfied or disengaged from
the job? The strength of job satisfaction is relative to what other opportunities exist. Low job
68
satisfaction is not likely to result in immediately leaving the company but to motivate the
research for, or consideration of other options which could subsequently result in resigning from
a company. By achieving employee job satisfaction and engagement, employees become more
fulfilled by their jobs and are then less likely to leave a company or consider other options
(Shuck et al., 2011).
The organizational atmosphere should be assessed before realizing the resignation of
strong performing employees. Therefore, it is recommended that an organization should
administer a survey of organizational characteristics of its active employees to establish a
baseline measure for organizational identity, role conflict, and role ambiguity. A company
employee survey is provided in Appendix B using measures based on this study. Section I
includes measures for identity. Higher scores indicate a stronger organizational identity. Section
II includes measures for role ambiguity. Higher scores indicate lower levels of ambiguity.
Section III includes measures for role conflict. Higher scores indicate lower levels of conflict.
Results should be reviewed in aggregate with the responses for each section numerically
combined and averaged. Numerical values are provided for each response option. Once a
baseline is established, periodic surveys should be performed to verify the improvements after
organizational changes are made to improve the company identity.
Conclusions
Through the lens of social identity theory, the survey results were reviewed and
confirmed the postulated hypothesis for the research questions. It was shown that a strong
organizational identity correlates with reduced, perceived role conflict and ambiguity by
employees. Counter to the predicted outcome, team psychological safety did not serve as a
mediator between these variables. However, this is counter to the findings from prior research
69
and may be due to the nature of this research including both absolute and relative identity
measures that could have influenced the results for this relationship. It was made clear that the
use of absolute (instead of relative) measures provide more robust characteristics for
understanding how identity influences employee characteristics. This is due to the nature that an
employee’s organizational characteristics are not sensitive to an individual’s other identities
unless they become in conflict with one another. In addition to the analysis performed to answer
the research questions, the remainder of the available data was reviewed for any trends of
interest.
Among the other measures within the survey, two variables had strong influences on role
ambiguity and role conflict. It was shown that group collaboration and team psychologically
safety correlates with reduced role conflict and ambiguity. Furthermore, group collaboration and
TPS had a strong correlation with each other. It is now theorized that the presence of a strong
organizational identity by an employee has a causal effect of promoting TPS and group
collaboration which in turn, promote reduced role ambiguity and role conflict. Further review of
this relationship may be considered for future research as well as any influence that may be
caused by a broader demographic set of employees, particularly race. It is now theorized that
similar results would be found with such a broader set which may be useful in resolving issues
associated with organizational diversity and identity. The relationship between organizational
identity with conflict and ambiguity provides insight for addressing the problem of employee
turnover.
The process of an employee resigning from a position is considered to begin with
turnover intentions which is the time at which a person begins to think about or consider leaving
and looking for alternatives. A strong predictor for turnover intentions is low job satisfaction by
70
the employee and two factors that strongly influence job satisfaction are role conflict and role
ambiguity. When employees have a strong identification with the organization, they are more
likely to perceive lower levels of role conflict and ambiguity. They are better able to resolve
workplace issues and operate with a more positive attitude. They develop less stress and are less
likely to burn out. The best course an organization can take to promote this identity is to create a
pronounced, valued identity for the company. Key drivers of an organization’s identity include its
mission, goals, values, and practices. These characteristics must be consistent, aligned with each
other, differentiated from other organizations, and clearly communicated both internally and
externally. It is in the best interest of any business to demonstrate such characteristics from a
business effectiveness view and similarly beneficial from an employee satisfaction view. By
using the included organizational performance survey, a company can establish and monitor
changes in employee identification, conflict, and ambiguity as it works to improve its identity.
The expected outcome of these efforts is to reduce the company’s dysfunctional turnover which
results in decreased financial and performance costs as well as a generally more prosperous
working environment.
71
References
Abelson, M. A., & Baysinger, B. D. (1984). Optimal and dysfunctional turnover: Toward an
organizational level model. The Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 331–341.
https://doi.org/10.2307/258446
Alge, B. J., Ballinger, G. A., Tangirala, S., & Oakley, J. L. (2006). Information privacy in
organizations: Empowering creative and extrarole performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 91(1), 221–232. https://doi.10.1037/0021-9010.91.1.221
Allen, D. G., Shore, L. M., & Griffeth, R. W. (2003). The role of perceived organizational
support and supportive human resource practices in the turnover process. Journal of
Management, 29(1), 99–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2063(02)00222-2
Alper, S., Tjosvold, D., & Law, K. S. (2000). Conflict management, efficacy, and performance in
organizational teams. Personnel Psychology, 53(3), 625–642. https://doi:10.1111/j.1744-
6570.2000.tb00216.x
Amason, A. C. (1996). Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on
strategic decision making: Resolving a paradox for top management teams. Academy of
Management Journal, 39(1), 123–148.
American Psychological Association. (2015, February 4). Paying with our health.
https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/stress/2014/stress-report.pdf
Anitha, J. (2013). Determinants of employee engagement and their impact on employee
performance. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management,
63(3), 308–323. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-01-2013-0008
Ashforth, B., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. The Academy of
Management Review, 14(1), 20–39. https://doi:10.5465/amr.1989.4278999
72
Ashforth, B., Harrison, S., & Corley, K. (2008). Identification in organizations: An examination
of four fundamental questions. Journal of Management, 34(3), 325–374.
https://doi:10.1177/0149206308316059
Ashforth, B., Schinoff, B., & Rogers, K. (2016) “I identify with her,” “I identify with him”:
Unpacking the dynamics of personal identification in organizations. The Academy of
Management Review, 41(1), 28–60. https://doi:10.5465/amr.2014.0033
Babakus, E., Yavas, U., & Karatepe, O. M. (2016). Work engagement and turnover intentions:
Correlates and customer orientation as a moderator. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 29(6), 1580–1598.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-11-2015-0649
Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Sanz-Vergel, A. (2014). Burnout and work engagement: The
JD-R approach. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational
Behavior, 1(3), 389–411.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi:10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 50, 248–287.
Batt, R., & Colvin, A. J. S. (2011). An employment systems approach to turnover: Human
resources practices, quits, dismissals, and performance. The Academy of Management
Journal, 54(4), 695–717. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2011.64869448
Bergmann, B., & Schaeppi, J. (2016). A data-driven approach to group creativity. Harvard
Business Review, 12th July 2016.
73
Blader, S. L., & Tyler, T. R. (2009). Testing and extending the group engagement model:
Linkages between social identity, procedural justice, economic outcomes, and extra-role
behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 445–464.
Bluedorn, A. C. (1978). A taxonomy of turnover. The Academy of Management Review, 3(3),
647–651. https://doi.org/10.2307/257553
Bluedorn, A. C. (1982). A unified model of turnover from organizations. Human Relations,
35(2), 135–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872678203500204
Brashers, D. E. (2001). Communication and uncertainty management. Journal of
Communication, 51, 477–497. https://doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2001.tb02892.x
Brickson, S. (2000). The impact of identity orientation on individual and organizational
outcomes in demographically diverse settings. The Academy of Management Review,
25(1), 82–101. https://doi:10.5465/AMR.2000.2791604
Burke, P. J. (2006). Identity Change. Social Psychology Quarterly, 69(1), 81–96.
https://doi:10.1177/019027250606900106
Cable, D. M., Gino, F., & Staats, B. R. (2013). Breaking them in or eliciting their best?
Reframing socialization around newcomers’ authentic self-expression. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 58, 1–36. https://doi:10.1177/0001839213477098
Cable, D. M., Gino, F., & Staats, B. R. (2013). Reinventing employee onboarding. MIT Sloan
Management Review, 54(3).
Cable, D. M., & Parsons, C. K. (2001). Socialization tactics and person-organization fit.
Personnel Psychology, 54(1), 1–23. https://doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2001.tb00083.x
Calvello, M. (2020, November 19). 62 recruitment statistics every HR professional needs to
know. G2. https://www.g2.com/articles/recruitment-statistics
74
Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., & Higgs, A. C. (1993). Relations between work group
characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups.
Personnel Psychology, 46(4), 823–850.
Carmeli, A., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Ziv, E. (2010). Inclusive leadership and employee
involvement in creative tasks in the workplace: The mediating role of psychological
safety. Creativity Research Journal, 22, 250–260.
Cascio, W. F. (2000). Costing human resources: The financial impact of behavior in
organizations. Southwestern.
Celik, K. (2013). The effect of role ambiguity and role conflict on performance of vice
principals: The mediating role of burnout. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 51,
195–214.
Ceri-Booms, M. (2012). How can authentic leaders create organizational identification? An
empirical study on Turkish employees. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 7(2).
Chen, G., & Tjosvold, D. (2012). Shared rewards and goal interdependence for psychological
safety among departments in China. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 29, 433–452.
https://doi:10.1007/s10490-010-9201-0
Chen, M.-F., Lin, C.-P., & Lien, G.-Y. (2011). Modeling job stress as a mediating role in
predicting turnover intention. Service Industries Journal, 31(8), 1327–1345.
https://doi:10.1080/02642060903437543
Chughtai, A. A. (2016). Servant leadership and follower outcomes: Mediating effects of
organizational identification and psychological safety. Journal of Psychology, 150(7),
866–880. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2016.1170657.
75
Cole, M. S., Walter, F., Bedeian, A. G., & O’Boyle, E. H. (2012). Job burnout and employee
engagement: A meta-analytic examination of construct proliferation. Journal of
Management, 38(5), 1550–1581. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311415252
Cooper, D., & Thatcher, S. (2010). Identification in organizations: The role of self-concept
orientations and identification motives. The Academy of Management Review, 35(4),
516–538. https://doi:10.5465/AMR.2010.53502693
Creswell, J. W. (2018). Research Design (5th ed.). Sage Publications Inc.
Dalton, D. R., Krackhardt, D. M., & Porter, L. W. (1981). Functional turnover: An empirical
assessment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66(6), 716–721.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.66.6.716
Davis, P. E., Bendickson, J. S., Muldoon, J., & McDowell, W. C. (2021). Agency theory utility
and social entrepreneurship: Issues of identity and role conflict. Review of Managerial
Science, 15, 2299–2318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-020-00423-y
Dayan, M., Di Benedetto, C. A., & Colak, M. (2009). Managerial trust in new product
development projects: Its antecedents and consequences. R&D Management, 39(1), 21–
37.
De Clercq, D., & Belausteguigoitia, I. (2016). Reducing the harmful effect of role ambiguity on
turnover intentions. Personnel Review, 46(6), 1046–1069. https://doi.10.1108/PR-08-
2015-0221
Desivilya, H. S., & Eizen, D. (2005). Conflict management in work teams: The role of social
self-efficacy and group identification. The International Journal of Conflict Management,
16(2), 183–208. https://doi:10.1108/eb022928
76
Deutsch, H., & Pawel, G. (2018, Fall). Relative identity. The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2018/entries/identity-relative
Dhalla, R. (2007). The construction of organizational identity: Key contributing external and
intra-organizational factors. Corporate Reputation Review, 10(4), 245–260.
https://doi:10.1057/palgrave.crr.1550058
Doosje, B., Ellemers, N., & Spears, R. (1995). Perceived intragroup variability as a function of
group status and identification. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 410–436.
Dukerich, J. M., Golden, B. R., & Shortell, S. M. (2002). Beauty is in the eye of the beholder:
The impact of organizational identification identity and image on the cooperative
behaviors of physicians. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 507–533.
https://doi:10.2307/3094849
Edmonson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 44(2).
Edmondson, A. C., & Lei, Z. K. (2014). Psychological safety: The history, renaissance, and
future of an interpersonal construct. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and
Organizational Behavior, 1, 23–43. https://doi:10.1146/annurevorgpsych-031413-091305
Eldor, L., & Harpaz, I. (2016). A process model of employee engagement: The learning climate
and its relationship with extra‐role performance behaviors. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 37(2), 213–235. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2037
Eldor, L., & Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2017). The nature of employee engagement: rethinking the
employee-organization relationship. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 28(3), 526–552. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2016.1180312
77
Elsbach, K. D., & Kramer, R. M. (1996). Members’ responses to organizational identity threats:
Encountering and countering the business week rankings. Administrative Science Quarterly,
41(3), 442–476. https://doi:10.2307/2393938
Farmer, S. M., & Dyne, L. V. (2010). The idealized self and the situated self as predictors of
employee work behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(3), 503–516.
Fransen, K., McEwan, D., & Sarkar, M. (2020). The impact of identity leadership on team
functioning and well-being in team sport: Is psychological safety the missing link?
Psychology of Sports and Exercise, 51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2020.101763
Frazier, M., Fainshmidt, S., Klinger, R., Pezeshkan, A., & Vracheva, V. (2017). Psychological
safety: A meta-analytic review and extension. Personnel Psychology, 70, 113–165.
https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12183
Fried, Y., Ben-David, H. A., Tiegs, R. B., Avital, N., & Yeverechyahu, U. (1998). The
interactive effect of role conflict and role ambiguity on job performance. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 71, 19–27.
Gallup. (n.d.). How to measure employee engagement with the Q12.
https://www.gallup.com/workplace/356063/gallup-q12-employee-engagement-
survey.aspx
Garman, A. N., Corbett, J., Grady, J, & Benesh, J. (2005). Ready-to-use simulation: The hidden
costs of employee turnover. Simulation & Gaming, 36(2), 274–281.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878104273254
George, J. M., & Zhou, J. (2001). When openness to experience and conscientiousness are
related to creative behavior: An interactional approach. Journal of Applied Psychology,
86(3), 513–524.
78
Gilani, S., & Rabbani, A. (2020). Role ambiguity, goal orientation, and turnover intention among
faculty members of private sector universities. Technical Social Sciences Journal, 5,
122–150.
Gilboa, S., Shirom, A., Fried, Y., & Cooper, C. (2008). A meta-analysis of work demand
stressors and job performance: Examining main and moderating effects. Personnel
Psychology, 61(2), 227–271. https://doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.00113.x
Gioia, D. A., Patvardhan, S. D., Hamilton, A. L., & Corley, K. G. (2013). Organizational
identity formation and change. The Academy of Management Annals, 7(1), 123–192.
https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2013.762225
Gioia, D. A., & Thomas, J. B. (1996). Identity, image, and issue interpretation: Sensemaking
during strategic change in academia. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(3), 370–
403. https://doi:10.2307/2393936
Grieves, J., & Redman, T. (1999). Living in the shadow of OD: HRD and the search for
identity. Human Resource Development International, 2(2), 81–102.
https://doi:10.1080/13678869900000012
Gu, Z., & Siu, R. C. S. (2008). Drivers of job satisfaction as related to work performance in
Macao casino hotels: An investigation based on employee survey. International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 21(5), 561–578.
https://doi:10.1108/09596110910967809
Guan, M., & So, J. (2016). Influence of social identity on self-efficacy beliefs through perceived
social support: A social identity theory perspective. Communication Studies, 67(5), 588–
604. https://doi:10.1080/10510974.2016.1239645
79
Hameduddin, T., & Fernandez, S. (2019). Employee engagement as administrative reform:
Testing the efficacy of the OPM’s employee engagement initiative. Public
Administration Review, 79(3), 355–369. https://doi:10.1111/puar.13033
Haq, M., Badar, K., & Abbas, S. G. (2018). The impact of negative ties on turnover intentions.
Sarhad Journal of Management Sciences, 3(2), 285–295.
https://doi:10.31529/sjms.2017.3.2.8
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between
employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 268–279. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-
9010.87.2.268
Haslam, S., & Ellemers, N. (2005). Social identity in industrial and organizational psychology:
Concepts, controversies, and contributions. International Review of Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, 20, 9–118. https://doi:10.1002/0470029307.ch2
Haslam, S. A., Jetten, J., Postmes, T., & Haslam, C. (2009). Social identity, health and well-
being: An emerging agenda for applied psychology. Applied Psychology: An
International Review, 58(1), 1–23.
Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis
(2nd ed). The Guilford Press.
Hill, K., Chenevert, D., & Poitras, J. (2014). Changes in relationship conflict as a mediator of the
longitudinal relationship between changes in role ambiguity and turnover intentions.
International Journal of Conflict Management, 26(1), 44–67.
Hochwarter, W. A., Ferris, G. R., Gavin, M. B., Perrewe, P. L., Hall, A. T., & Frink, D. D.
(2007). Political skill as neutralizer of felt accountability – job tension effects on job
80
performance ratings: A longitudinal investigation. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 102, 226–239.
Hogg, M., & Terry, D. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational
contexts. The Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 121–140.
https://doi:10.2307/259266
House, R. J., Schuler, R. S., & Levanoni, E. (1983). Role conflict and ambiguity scales: Reality
or artifacts? Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(2), 334–337.
Huang, Y., Ma, Z., & Meng, Y. (2018). High-performance work systems and employee
engagement: Empirical evidence from China. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources,
56, 341–359. https://doi:10.1111/1744-7941.12140
Huselid, M. A. (1995). The impact of human resource management practices on turnover,
productivity, and corporate financial performance. Academy of Management Journal,
38(3), 635–672.
Jackson, S. E., & Schuler, R. S. (1985). A meta-analysis and conceptual critique of research on
role ambiguity and role conflict in work settings. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 36(1), 16–78. https://doi:10.1016/0749-5978(85)90020-2
Johnson, A. A. (1995). The business case for work-family programs. Journal of Accountancy,
180(2), 53–58.
Johnson, H. H., & Avolio, B. J. (2018). Team psychological safety and conflict trajectories’
effect on individual’s team identification and satisfaction. Group & Organization
Management, 44(5), 843–873. https://doi:10.1177/1059601118767316
Johnson, M., Morgeson, F., & Hekman, D. (2012). Cognitive and affective identification:
Exploring the links between different forms of social identification and personality with
81
work attitudes and behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(8), 1142–1167.
https://doi:10.1002/job.1787
Kahn, R. L. (1964). Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. Wiley.
Kearney, E., & Gebert, D. (2009). Managing diversity and enhancing team outcomes: The
promise of transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 77–89.
https://doi:10.1037/a0013077
Kim, C., & Sung, W. (2021). A study on the effect of change management on organizational
innovation: focusing on the mediating effect of members’ innovative behavior.
Sustainability, 13(4), 1–26. https://doi:10.3390/su13042079
Kim, N. Y. (2020). Linking individuation and organizational identification: Mediation through
psychological safety. The Journal of Social Psychology, 160(2), 216–235.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2019.1644279
Kim, S., Lee, H., & Connerton, T. P. (2020). How psychological safety affects team
performance: Mediating role of efficacy and learning behavior. Frontiers in Psychology,
11, (1581), 1–15.
Kostopoulos, K. C., & Bozionelos, N. (2011). Team exploratory and exploitative learning:
Psychological safety, task conflict, and team performance. Group & Organization
Management, 36(3), 385–415. https://doi.10.1177/1059601111405985
Koppl, R. (2007). Diversity and forensics: Diversity in hiring is not enough. Medicine, Science
and the Law, 47(2), 117–124. https://doi:10.1258/rsmmsl.47.2.117
Kumar, P., Dass, M., & Topaloglu, O. (2014). Understanding the drivers of job satisfaction of
frontline service employees: Learning from “lost employees.” Journal of Service
Research , 17(4), 367–380. https://doi:10.1177/1094670514540981
82
Leonard, A., Mehra, A., & Katerberg, R. (2008). The social identity and social networks of
ethnic minority groups in organizations: A crucial test of distinctiveness theory. Journal
of organizational behavior, 29(5), 573–589. https://doi:10.1002/job.488
Lin, C.-P. (2017). Modeling corporate citizenship and turnover intention: Social identity and
expectancy theories. Review of Managerial Science, 13(4), 823–840.
https://doi:10.1007/s11846-017-0275-7
Lin, C.-P., Liu, C.-M., & Liao, W.-S. (2020). Being excellent: Predicting team performance
based on social cognitive theory and social identification theory. Total Quality
Management & Business Excellence, 31(11-12), 1363–1380.
https://doi:10.1080/14783363.2018.1485483
Liu, W., Zhang, P., Liao, J., Hao, P., & Mao, J. (2015). Abusive supervision and employee
creativity. Management Decision, 54(1), 130–147. https://doi:10.1108/MD-09-2013-0443
Lord, R. G., Brown, D. J., & Freiberg, S. J. (1999). Understanding the dynamics of leadership:
The role of follower self-concepts in the leader/follower relationship. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 78(3), 167–203.
Luthans, F., Avey, J. B., Avolio, B. J., Norman, S. M., & Combs, G. M. (2006). Psychological
capital development: Toward a micro-intervention. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
27, 387–393.
Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, 1(1), 3–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2007.0002.x
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Ahearne, M. (1998). Some possible antecedents and
consequences of in-role and extra-role salesperson performance. Journal of Marketing,
62(3), 87–98. https://doi:10.2307/1251745
83
Maertz, C. P. Jr., & Kmitta, K. R. (2012). Integrating turnover reasons and shocks with turnover
decision processes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 81(1), 26–38.
McElroy, J. C., Morrow, P. C., & Rude, S. N. (2001). Turnover and organizational performance:
A comparative analysis of the effect of voluntary, involuntary and reduction-in-force
turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1294–1299.
Mobley, W. H. (1977). Intermediate linkages in the relationship between job satisfaction and
employee turnover. Journal of Applied Technology, 62(2), 237–240.
Mohammad Hoseini, M. H., Asayesh, H., Amaniyan, S., Sharififard, F., & Elahi, S. Y. K.
(2021). Role conflict and role ambiguity as predictors of turnover intention among
nurses. Journal of Nursing and Midwifery Sciences, 8, 49–53.
Morel, D. (2021, October 7). The great resignation: Should I make a counter offer to an
employee who has resigned? Forbes. The Great Resignation: Should I Make A Counter
Offer To An Employee Who Has Resigned? (forbes.com)
Newman, A., Donohue, R., & Eva, N. (2017). Psychological safety: A systematic review of the
literature. Human Resource Management Review, 27(3), 521–535.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.01.001
Northwestern University. (2019, February). The cost of a bad hire.
https://www.northwestern.edu/hr/about/news/february-2019/the-cost-of-a-bad-hire.html
O’Driscoll, M. P., & Beehr, T. A. (2000). Moderating effects of perceived control and need for
clarity on the relationship between role stressors and employee affective reactions. The
Journal of Social Psychology, 140(2), 151–159. https://doi:10.1080/00224540009600454
84
Olaleye, F. O., & Arogundade, B. B. (2013). Conflict management strategies of university
administrators in south-west Nigeria. Kuwait Chapter of Arabian Journal of Business &
Management Review, 2(6), 96–104. https://doi:10.12816/0001212
Othman, S. A., & Mahmood, N. H. N. (2019). Linking employee engagement towards individual
work performance through human resource management practice: From high potential
employee’s perspectives. Management Science Letters, 9(7), 1083–1092.
https://doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2019.3.016
Palomino, M. N., & Frezatti, F. (2016). Role conflict, role ambiguity, and job satisfaction:
Perceptions of the Brazilian controllers. Revista de Administração (São Paulo), 51(2),
165–181.
Pearsall, M. J., & Ellis, A. P. J. (2011). Thick as thieves: The effects of ethical orientation and
psychological safety on unethical team behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96,
401–411. https://doi:10.1037/a0021503
Pfeffer, J., & Veiga, J. F. (1999). Putting people first for organizational success. Academy of
Management Perspectives, 13, 37–48.
Pitts, D. (2009). Diversity management, job satisfaction, and performance: Evidence from U.S.
federal agencies. Public Administration Review, 69(2), 328–338.
https://doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2008.01977.x
Press, M., & Arnould, E. J. (2011). How does organizational identification form? A consumer
behavior perspective. The Journal of Consumer Research, 38(4), 650–666.
https://doi:10.1086/660699
85
Randel, A., & Jaussi, K. (2003). Functional background identity, diversity, and individual
performance in cross-functional teams. The Academy of Management Journal, 46(6),
763–774. https://doi:10.2307/30040667
Reigle, D. A. (2014). Hiring the right employees. The Journal of Medical Practice Management,
30(3), 183–186.
Reinholz, D. L., & Andrews, T. C. (2020). Change theory and theory of change: What’s the
difference anyway? International Journal of STEM Education, 7(1), 1–12.
https://doi:10.1186/s40594-020-0202-3
Riketta, M. (2005). Organizational identification: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 66(2), 358–384. https://doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2004.05.005
Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. I. (1970). Role conflict and ambiguity in complex
organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15(2), 150–163.
Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A
cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393–404.
Ryba, K. (2021, March 2). What is employee engagement? What, why and how to improve it.
Quantum Workplace. https://www.quantumworkplace.com/future-of-work/what-is-
employee-engagement-definition
Saks, A. M., & Gruman, J. A. (2017). Socialization resources theory and newcomers’ work
engagement. Career Development International, 23(1), 12–32. https://doi:10.1108/CDI-
12-2016-0214
Scanlan, J. S., & Hazelton, T. (2019). Relationships between job satisfaction, burnout,
professional identity, and meaningfulness of work activities for occupational therapists
86
working in mental health. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 66, 581–590.
https://doi:10.1111/1440-1630.12596
Schein, E. H., & Bennis, W. (1965). Personal and organizational change through group methods.
New York: Wiley.
Schmidt, S., Roesler, U., Kusserow, T., & Rau, R. (2014). Uncertainty in the workplace:
Examining role ambiguity and role conflict, and their link to depression-a meta-analysis.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23(1), 91–106.
https://doi:10.1080/1359432X.2012.711523
Schwab, R. L., & Iwanicki, E. F. (1982). Perceived role conflict, role ambiguity, and teacher
burnout. Educational Administration Quarterly, 18(1), 60–74.
Scott, S. G., & Lane, V. R. (2000). A stakeholder approach to organizational identity. The
Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 43–62. https://doi:10.5465/AMR.2000.2791602
Senatra, P. T. (1980). Role conflict, role ambiguity, and organizational climate in a public
accounting firm. Accounting Review, 55(4), 594–603.
Shamir, B. (1991). Meaning, self, and motivation in organizations. Organization Studies, 12(3),
405–424.
Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic
leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organizational Science, 4(4), 577–594.
Shaukat, R., Yousaf, A., & Sanders, K. (2016). Examining the linkages between relationship
conflict, performance, and turnover intentions. International Journal of Conflict
Management, 28(1), 4–23. https://doi.10.1108/IJCMA-08-2015-0051
87
Smith, G. (2021, September 17). Employee retention: the real cost of losing an employee.
PeopleKeep. https://www.peoplekeep.com/blog/employee-retention-the-real-cost-of-
losing-an-employee
Shaw, J., Delery, J., Jenkins, G. D., Jr., & Gupta, N. (1998). An organization-level analysis of
voluntary and involuntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 41(5), 511–525.
Shin, Y., Hur, W.-M., Park, K., & Hwang, H. (2020). How managers’ job crafting reduces
turnover intention: The mediating roles of role ambiguity and emotional exhaustion.
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17.
https://doi:10.3390/ijerph17113972
Showail, S. J., McClean Parks, J., & Smith, F. L. (2013). Foreign workers in Saudi Arabia: A
field study of role ambiguity, identification, information-seeking, organizational support,
and performance. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(21), 3957–
3979. https://doi:10.1080/09585192.2013.781521
Shuck, B., Nimon, K., & Zigarmi, D. (2017). Untangling the predictive nomological validity of
employee engagement: Partitioning variance in employee engagement using job attitude
measures. Group & Organization Management, 42(1), 79–112.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601116642364
Shuck, B, Reio, T. G. Jr., & Rocco, T. S. (2011). Employee engagement: An examination of
antecedent and outcome variables. Human Resource Development International 14(4),
427–445. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2011.601587
Singh, J. (2000). Performance productivity and quality of frontline employees in service
organizations. Journal of Marketing, 64(2), 15–34.
https://doi:10.1509/jmkg.64.2.15.17998
88
Singh, P., Suar, D., & Leiter, M. P. (2012). Antecedents, work-related consequences, and buffers
of job burnout among Indian software developers. Journal of Leadership &
Organizational Studies, 19(1), 83–104.
Smidts, A., Pruyn, A. T. H., & Van Riel, C. B. M. (2001). The impact of employee
communication and perceived external prestige on organizational identification. Academy
of Management Journal, 44, 1051–1062. https://doi:10.2307/3069448
Schneider, S., & Northcraft, G. (1999). Three social dilemmas of workforce diversity in
organizations: A social identity perspective. Human Relations, 52(11), 1445–1467.
https://doi:10.1177/001872679905201105
Solinger, O. N., Van Olffen, W., Roe, R. A., & Hofmans, J. (2013). On becoming
(un)committed: A taxonomy and test of newcomer onboarding scenarios. Organization
Science, 24(6), 1640–1661. https://doi:10.1287/orsc.1120.0818
Tajfel, H. (1974). Social identity and intergroup behaviour. Social Science Information, 13(2),
65-93. https://doi:10.1177/053901847401300204
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin,
& S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks-
Cole.
Thompson, C. A., & Prottas, D. J. (2005). Relationships among organizational family support,
job autonomy, perceived control, and employee well-being. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 10(4), 100–118. https://doi:10.1037/1076-8998.10.4.100
Tongchaiprasit, P., & Ariyabuddhiphongs, V. (2016). Creativity and turnover intention among
hotel chefs: The mediating effects of job satisfaction and job stress. International Journal
of Hospitality Management, 55, 33–40. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2016.02.009
89
Trice, H. M., & Beyer, J. M. (1993). The cultures of work organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Tsuchiya, Y. (2017). A critical review of organizational identification: Introducing identity work
to examine dynamic process. Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and
Conflict, 21(2), 1–10.
Tubre, T. C., & Collins, J. M. (2000). Jackson and Schuler (1985) revisited: A meta-analysis of
the relationships between role ambiguity, role conflict, and job performance. Journal of
Management, 26(1), 155–169.
Tziner, A., & Birati, A. (1996). Assessing employee turnover costs: A revised approach. Human
Resource Management Review, 6(2), 113–122. http://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-
4822(96)90015-7
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (n.d.). Annual total separations rates by industry and region, not
seasonally adjusted. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/jolts.t16.htm
U.S. Department of Education (2016). Status and trends in the education of racial and ethnic
groups 2016.
Van der Vegt, G. S., Van de Vliert, E., & Oosterhof, A. (2003). Informational dissimilarity and
organizational citizenship behavior: The role of intrateam interdependence and team
identification. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 715–727.
https://doi:10.2307/30040663
Van Dick, R. (2001). Identification in organizational contexts: Linking theory and research from
social and organizational psychology. International Journal of Management Reviews,
3(4), 265–283.
90
Van Knippenberg, D. (2000). Work motivation and performance: a social identity perspective.
Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49(3), 357–371.
van Knippenberg, D., Haslam S. A., & Platow, M. J. (2007). Unity through diversity: Value-in-
diversity beliefs, work group diversity, and group identification. Group dynamics, 11(3),
207–222. https://doi:10.1037/1089-2699.11.3.207
Vough, H. (2012). Not all identifications are created equal: Exploring employee accounts for
workgroup, organizational, and professional identification. Organization Science, 23(3),
778–800. https://doi:10.1287/orsc.1110.0654
De Winne, S., Marescaux, E., Sels, L., Van Beveren, I., & Vanormelingen, S. (2018). The impact
of employee turnover and turnover volatility on labor productivity: A flexible non-linear
approach. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 30(21), 3049–3079.
https://doi:10.1080/09585192.2018.1449129
Wu, K. (2017, February 14). Love, actually: The science behind lust, attraction, and
companionship. Harvard University. https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/love-
actually-science-behind-lust-attraction-companionship/
Wyant, B. E. (2021). Treatment of limerence using cognitive behavioral approach: A case study.
Journal of Patient Experience, 8, 1–7. https://doi:10.1177/23743735211060812
91
Tables
Table 2
Correlation Analysis Data for Team Sail Demographics
Measure Parameter Age Gender Education
Years in
profession
Years in
organization
Age Pearson Corr.
Sig. (2-tailed) ---
Gender Pearson Corr. -0.053
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.763 ---
Education Pearson Corr. 0.027 0.199
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.876 0.252 ---
Years in
prof.
Pearson Corr. 0.812** -0.036 -0.079
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.838 0.651 ---
Years in
org.
Pearson Corr. 0.275 -0.169 -0.273 0.139
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.333 0.112 0.425 ---
Absolute
identity
– org.
Pearson Corr. 0.276 0.069 0.034 0.114 0.119
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.108 0.696 0.846 0.513 0.495
Absolute
identity
– society
Pearson Corr. 0.322 0.181 -0.014 0.206 0.270
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.059 0.299 0.936 0.235 0.117
Absolute
identity
– prof.
Pearson Corr. 0.316 -0.053 0.009 0.264 0.041
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.065 0.762 0.957 0.125 0.814
Absolute
identity
– nat.
Pearson Corr. 0.104 -0.171 -0.120 0.045 0.009
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.553 0.327 0.492 0.795 0.959
Relative
identity
– org.
Pearson Corr. -0.061 0.179 0.120 -0.153 0.009
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.727 0.304 0.493 0.382 0.958
Relative
identity
– society
Pearson Corr. -0.122 0.132 0.151 -0.100 0.204
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.486 0.449 0.387 0.566 0.241
92
Measure Parameter Age Gender Education
Years in
profession
Years in
organization
Relative
identity
– prof.
Pearson Corr. -0.044 -0.089 -0.183 0.065 -0.334**
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.804 0.612 0.293 0.711 0.050
Relative
identity
– nat.
Pearson Corr. -0.153 -0.175 -0.078 -0.216 -.344*
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.381 0.314 0.657 0.212 0.043
Creativity Pearson Corr. 0.135 -.371* 0.060 -0.015 -0.098
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.441 0.028 0.732 0.933 0.576
Auton-
omy
Pearson Corr. 0.068 -.356* .381* -0.042 -0.137
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.698 0.036 0.024 0.813 0.433
Accounta-
bility
Pearson Corr. 0.090 -0.073 0.025 -0.116 -0.264
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.609 0.675 0.886 0.507 0.126
TPS Pearson Corr. 0.185 -.336* 0.109 0.075 -0.003
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.287 0.048 0.534 0.669 0.986
Group
collab.
Pearson Corr. 0.192 -0.269 0.086 0.147 0.036
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.269 0.118 0.621 0.398 0.836
Role
ambi-
guity
Pearson Corr. -0.150 0.185 0.055 -0.194 0.132
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.390 0.288 0.754 0.265 0.451
Role
conflict
Pearson Corr. -0.120 0.194 0.096 -0.077 -0.081
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.492 0.264 0.583 0.661 0.644
Note. N = 35 for all measures. Prof. = profession; Org. = organization; Nat. = nationality; TPS =
team psychological safety; Collab. = collaboration.
*Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).
** Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed).
93
Table 3
Correlation Analysis Data for Aero Controls Demographics
Measure Parameter Age Gender Education
Years in
profession
Years in
organization
Gender Pearson Corr. -0.218
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.183 ---
N 39
Education Pearson Corr. 0.055 -0.289
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.745 0.070 ---
N 38 40
Years in
prof.
Pearson Corr. .930** -0.180 -0.104
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.266 0.521 ---
N 39 40 40
Years in
org.
Pearson Corr. 0.270 0.135 0.230 0.293
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.097 0.408 0.154 0.063 ---
N 39 40 40 41
Absolute
identity
– org.
Pearson Corr. -0.078 -0.095 0.101 -0.098 -0.031
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.637 0.557 0.529 0.541 0.846
N 39 41 41 41 41
Absolute
identity
– society
Pearson Corr. 0.012 -0.125 -0.018 0.062 -0.280
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.940 0.435 0.912 0.702 0.076
N 39 41 41 41 41
Absolute
identity
– prof.
Pearson Corr. 0.084 -0.060 0.015 0.112748 -0.293
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.613 0.711 0.926 0.483 0.063
N 39 41 41 41 41
Absolute
identity
– nat.
Pearson Corr. -0.269 0.032 0.079 -0.268 -0.220
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.098 0.845 0.622 0.090 0.167
N 39 41 41 41 41
Relative
identity
– org.
Pearson Corr. .361* -0.141 0.004 .366* .381*
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.024 0.381 0.981 0.019 0.014
N 39 41 41 41 41
Relative
identity
– society
Pearson Corr. 0.120 -.310* 0.063 -0.110 -.401**
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.467 0.049 0.698 0.494 0.009
N 39 41 41 41 41
94
Measure Parameter Age Gender Education
Years in
profession
Years in
organization
Relative
identity
– prof.
Pearson Corr. 0.196 0.248 -0.076 0.234 .368*
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.233 0.118 0.636 0.141 0.018
N 39 41 41 41 41
Relative
identity
– nat.
Pearson Corr. -.358* 0.202 -0.024 -.395* -0.147
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.025 0.205 0.880 0.011 0.357
N 39 41 41 41 41
Creativity Pearson Corr. 0.183 -.309* 0.178 0.127 0.015
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.266 0.049 0.267 0.429 0.924
N 39 41 41 41 41
Auton-
omy
Pearson Corr. -0.024 -0.094 0.002 0.092 0.201
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.884 0.560 0.988 0.568 0.208
N 39 41 41 41 41
Accounta-
bility
Pearson Corr. 0.047 -0.104 0.164 0.049 .339*
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.777 0.518 0.307 0.762 0.030
N 39 41 41 41 41
TPS Pearson Corr. 0.210 -0.059 0.052 0.153 .320*
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.199 0.714 0.748 0.339 0.041
N 39 41 41 41 41
Group
collab.
Pearson Corr. -0.024 -0.055 0.165 -0.162 0.098
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.886 0.733 0.304 0.312 0.540
N 39 41 41 41 41
Role
ambig-
uity
Pearson Corr. -0.011 -0.013 0.019 0.063 -0.103
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.946 0.938 0.905 0.694 0.522
N 39 41 41 41 41
Role
conflict
Pearson Corr. -0.127 0.089 -0.150 -0.049 0.077
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.440 0.580 0.348 0.760 0.632
N 39 41 41 41 41
Note. Prof. = profession; Org. = organization; Nat. = nationality.
*Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).
** Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed).
95
Table 4
Correlation Analysis Data for Company Combined Demographics
Measure Parameter Age Gender Education
Years in
profession
Years in
organization
Gender Pearson Corr. -0.139
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.239 ---
N 74
Education Pearson Corr. 0.136 0.057
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.250 0.627 ---
N 73 75
Years in
profession
Pearson Corr. .884** -0.114 0.012
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.328 0.920 ---
N 74 75 75
Years in
org.
Pearson Corr. .299** 0.054 0.090 .260*
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.010 0.646 0.442 0.023 ---
N 74 75 75 76
Absolute
identity –
org.
Pearson Corr. 0.056 -0.031 -0.017 -0.012 0.010
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.639 0.792 0.885 0.918 0.931
N 74 76 76 76 76
Absolute
identity –
society
Pearson Corr. 0.220 0.049 0.217 0.174 0.048
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.060 0.676 0.060 0.133 0.679
N 74 76 76 76 76
Absolute
identity –
profession
Pearson Corr. .243* -0.027 0.187 0.219367 -0.039
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.037 0.816 0.107 0.057 0.739
N 74 76 76 76 76
Absolute
identity –
nationality
Pearson Corr. -0.054 -0.045 0.082 -0.084 -0.076
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.650 0.701 0.484 0.469 0.515
N 74 76 76 76 76
Relative
identity –
org.
Pearson Corr. 0.133 -0.053 -0.136 0.124 0.187
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.259 0.649 0.243 0.287 0.106
N 74 76 76 76 76
Relative
identity –
society
Pearson Corr. 0.107 -0.096 0.336** 0.080 -0.080
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.363 0.411 0.003 0.492 0.493
N 74 76 76 76 76
96
Measure Parameter Age Gender Education
Years in
profession
Years in
organization
Relative
identity –
profession
Pearson Corr. -0.040 0.155 -0.209 0.021 -0.010
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.736 0.182 0.070 0.855 0.934
N 74 76 76 76 76
Relative
identity –
nationality
Pearson Corr. -.277* 0.077 -0.026 -.324** -0.198
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.017 0.507 0.824 0.004 0.087
N 74 76 76 76 76
Creativity Pearson Corr. 0.196 -.311** 0.185 0.095 0.020
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.093 0.006 0.109 0.416 0.862
N 74 76 76 76 76
Autonomy Pearson Corr. 0.024 -0.189 0.217 0.045 0.093
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.842 0.103 0.059 0.698 0.423
N 74 76 76 76 76
Accounta-
bility
Pearson Corr. 0.067 -0.090 0.074 -0.010 0.146
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.571 0.440 0.522 0.929 0.210
N 74 76 76 76 76
TPS Pearson Corr. .236* -0.149 0.201 0.148 .235*
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.043 0.200 0.082 0.203 0.041
N 74 76 76 76 76
Group
collab.
Pearson Corr. 0.086 -0.135 0.149 -0.006 0.093
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.464 0.246 0.200 0.960 0.425
N 74 76 76 76 76
Role
ambiguity
Pearson Corr. -0.097 0.057 -0.057 -0.071 -0.043
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.410 0.622 0.625 0.541 0.715
N 74 76 76 76 76
Role
conflict
Pearson Corr. -0.098 0.137 0.071 -0.048 0.030
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.408 0.236 0.542 0.680 0.799
N 74 76 76 76 76
Note. Org. = organization; Collab. = collaboration; Soc. = society.
*Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).
** Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed).
97
Table 5
Group Values for Identity Measures
Parameter Team Sail Aero Controls
# Respondents Mean # Respondents Mean
Absolute identity with team 33 5.8 41 5.3
Absolute identity with society 31 4.9 41 5.9
Absolute identity with job 31 5.5 41 6.0
Absolute identity with nationality 31 5.1 40 5.6
Relative identity with organization 34 2.4 41 1.8
Relative identity with society 34 1.1 41 2.0
Relative identity with job 34 1.0 41 1.6
Relative identity with nationality 34 0.6 41 0.6
Note. The range for absolute identity measures is one to seven. The range for relative identity
measures is zero to three.
98
Table 6
Correlation Analysis Data for Team Sail Absolute Identity
Measure Parameter Absolute identity
Organization Society Profession Nationality
Age Pearson Corr. 0.276 0.322 0.316 0.104
Sig. (2-tail) 0.108 0.059 0.065 0.553
Gender Pearson Corr. 0.069 0.181 -0.053 -0.171
Sig. (2-tail) 0.696 0.299 0.762 0.327
Education Pearson Corr. 0.034 -0.014 0.009 -0.120
Sig. (2-tail) 0.846 0.936 0.957 0.492
Years in
profession
Pearson Corr. 0.114 0.206 0.264 0.045
Sig. (2-tail) 0.513 0.235 0.125 0.795
Years in
organization
Pearson Corr. 0.119 0.270 0.041 0.009
Sig. (2-tail) 0.495 0.117 0.814 0.959
Absolute
identity –
organization
Pearson Corr. .543** .500** .411*
Sig. (2-tail) --- 0.001 0.002 0.014
Absolute
identity –
society
Pearson Corr. .794** .598**
Sig. (2-tail) --- 0.000 0.000
Absolute
identity –
profession
Pearson Corr. .848**
Sig. (2-tail) --- 0.000
Note. N = 35 for all measures.
*Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).
** Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed).
99
Table 7
Correlation Analysis Data for Team Sail Relative Identity
Measure Parameter
Relative identity
Organization Society Profession Nationality
Age Pearson Corr. -0.061 -0.122 -0.044 -0.153
Sig. (2-tail) 0.727 0.486 0.804 0.381
Gender Pearson Corr. 0.179 0.132 -0.089 -0.175
Sig. (2-tail) 0.304 0.449 0.612 0.314
Education Pearson Corr. 0.120 0.151 -0.183 -0.078
Sig. (2-tail) 0.493 0.387 0.293 0.657
Years in
profession
Pearson Corr. -0.153 -0.100 0.065 -0.216
Sig. (2-tail) 0.382 0.566 0.711 0.212
Years in
organization
Pearson Corr. 0.009 0.204 -.334** -.344*
Sig. (2-tail) 0.958 0.241 0.050 0.043
Absolute ID –
organization
Pearson Corr. 0.255 0.009 -.387** 0.012
Sig. (2-tail) 0.139 0.959 0.022 0.945
Absolute ID –
society
Pearson Corr. -0.075 0.098 -0.301 0.075
Sig. (2-tail) 0.668 0.573 0.079 0.670
Absolute ID –
profession
Pearson Corr. -0.244 -0.245 -0.012 0.324
Sig. (2-tail) 0.158 0.156 0.947 0.057
Absolute ID –
nationality
Pearson Corr. -0.281 -0.302 -0.012 .434**
Sig. (2-tail) 0.102 0.078 0.944 0.009
Relative ID –
organization
Pearson Corr. 0.174 -0.305 -0.306
Sig. (2-tail) --- 0.317 0.075 0.074
Relative ID –
society
Pearson Corr. -.456** -.469**
Sig. (2-tail) --- 0.006 0.004
Relative ID –
profession
Pearson Corr. -0.005
Sig. (2-tail) --- 0.977
Note. N = 35 for all measures. ID = identity.
100
*Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).
** Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed).
Table 8
Correlation Analysis Data for Aero Controls Absolute Identity
Measure Parameter Absolute identity
Organization Society Profession Nationality
Age Pearson Corr. -0.078 0.012 0.084 -0.269
Sig. (2-tail) 0.637 0.940 0.613 0.098
N 39 39 39 39
Gender Pearson Corr. -0.095 -0.125 -0.060 0.032
Sig. (2-tail) 0.557 0.435 0.711 0.845
N 41 41 41 41
Education Pearson Corr. 0.101 -0.018 0.015 0.079
Sig. (2-tail) 0.529 0.912 0.926 0.622
N 41 41 41 41
Years in
profession
Pearson Corr. -0.098 0.062 0.1128 -0.268
Sig. (2-tail) 0.541 0.702 0.483 0.090
N 41 41 41 41
Years in
organization
Pearson Corr. -0.031 -0.280 -0.293 -0.220
Sig. (2-tail) 0.846 0.076 0.063 0.167
N 41 41 41 41
Absolute ID –
organization
Pearson Corr. .624** .490** .483**
Sig. (2-tail) --- 0.000 0.001 0.001
Absolute ID –
society
Pearson Corr. .703** .431**
Sig. (2-tail) --- 0.000 0.004
Absolute ID –
profession
Pearson Corr. .449**
Sig. (2-tail) --- 0.003
101
Note. N = 42 for all measures unless otherwise noted. ID = identity.
*Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).
** Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed).
Table 9
Correlation Analysis Data for Aero Controls Relative Identity
Measure Parameter Relative identity
Organization Society Profession Nationality
Age Pearson Corr. .361* 0.120 0.021 -.358*
Sig. (2-tail) 0.024 0.467 0.900 0.025
N 39 39 39 39
Gender Pearson Corr. -0.141 -0.310* .403** 0.202
Sig. (2-tail) 0.381 0.049 0.009 0.205
N 41 41 41 41
Education Pearson Corr. 0.004 0.063 -0.038 -0.024
Sig. (2-tail) 0.981 0.698 0.812 0.880
N 41 41 41 41
Years in
profession
Pearson Corr. .366* 0.110 0.029 -.395*
Sig. (2-tail) 0.019 0.494 0.859 0.011
N 41 41 41 41
Years in
organization
Pearson Corr. .381* -.401** .296 -0.147
Sig. (2-tail) 0.014 0.009 0.061 0.357
N 41 41 41 41
Absolute ID –
organization
Pearson Corr. .476** -0.038 -.589** -0.072
Sig. (2-tail) 0.001 0.810 0.000 0.652
Absolute ID –
society
Pearson Corr. 0.117 .413** -.547** -0.163
Sig. (2-tail) 0.461 0.007 0.000 0.303
102
Measure Parameter Relative identity
Organization Society Profession Nationality
Absolute ID –
profession
Pearson Corr. 0.031 0.296 -0.330* 0.014
Sig. (2-tail) 0.846 0.057 0.033 0.928
Absolute ID –
nationality
Pearson Corr. 0.022 0.014 -.400** .307*
Sig. (2-tail) 0.892 0.929 0.009 0.048
Relative ID –
organization
Pearson Corr. -0.137 -0.252 -.508**
Sig. (2-tail) --- 0.388 0.108 0.001
Relative ID –
society
Pearson Corr. -.396**
Sig. (2-tail) 0.009 ---
Relative ID –
profession
Pearson Corr. -0.008 -0.258
Sig. (2-tail) 0.959 0.099 ---
Relative ID –
nationality
Pearson Corr. -.508** -.414** 0.009
Sig. (2-tail) 0.001 0.006 0.955 ---
Note. N = 42 for all measures unless otherwise noted. ID = identity.
*Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).
** Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed).
103
Table 10
Correlation Analysis Data for Company Combined Absolute Identity
Measure Parameter Absolute identity
Organization Society Profession Nationality
Age Pearson Corr. 0.056 0.220 .243* -0.054
Sig. (2-tail) 0.639 0.060 0.037 0.650
N 74 74 74 74
Gender Pearson Corr. -0.031 0.049 -0.027 -0.045
Sig. (2-tail) 0.792 0.676 0.816 0.701
N 76 76 76 76
Education Pearson Corr. -0.017 0.217 0.187 0.082
Sig. (2-tail) 0.885 0.060 0.107 0.484
N 76 76 76 76
Years in
profession
Pearson Corr. -0.012 0.174 0.2193 -0.084
Sig. (2-tail) 0.918 0.133 0.057 0.469
N 76 76 76 76
Years in
organization
Pearson Corr. 0.010 0.048 -0.039 -0.076
Sig. (2-tail) 0.931 0.679 0.739 0.515
N 76 76 76 76
Absolute ID –
organization
Pearson Corr. .498** .433** .417**
Sig. (2-tail) --- 0.000 0.000 0.000
Absolute ID –
society
Pearson Corr. .784** .554**
Sig. (2-tail) --- 0.000 0.000
Absolute ID –
profession
Pearson Corr. .715**
Sig. (2-tail) --- 0.000
Note. N = 77 unless otherwise noted. ID = identity.
*Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).
** Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed).
104
Table 11
Correlation Analysis Data for Company Combined Relative Identity
Measure Parameter Relative identity
Organization Society Profession Nationality
Age Pearson Corr. 0.133 0.107 -0.040 -.277*
Sig. (2-tail) 0.259 0.363 0.736 0.017
N 74 74 74 74
Gender Pearson Corr. -0.053 -0.096 0.155 0.077
Sig. (2-tail) 0.649 0.411 0.182 0.507
N 76 76 76 76
Education Pearson Corr. -0.136 .336** -0.209 -0.026
Sig. (2-tail) 0.243 0.003 0.070 0.824
N 76 76 76 76
Years in
profession
Pearson Corr. 0.124 0.080 0.021 -.324**
Sig. (2-tail) 0.287 0.492 0.855 0.004
N 76 76 76 76
Years in
organization
Pearson Corr. 0.187 -0.080 -0.010 -0.198
Sig. (2-tail) 0.106 0.493 0.934 0.087
N 76 76 76 76
Absolute ID –
organization
Pearson Corr. .383** -0.051 -.452** -0.037
Sig. (2-tail) 0.001 0.657 0.000 0.750
Absolute ID –
society
Pearson Corr. -0.091 .364** -.428** -0.040
Sig. (2-tail) 0.430 0.001 0.000 0.729
Absolute ID –
profession
Pearson Corr. -0.188 0.107 -0.160 0.161
Sig. (2-tail) 0.102 0.352 0.166 0.163
Absolute ID –
nationality
Pearson Corr. -0.161 -0.044 -0.202 .347**
Sig. (2-tail) 0.162 0.701 0.078 0.002
Relative ID –
organization
Pearson Corr. -0.146 -0.199 -.425**
Sig. (2-tail) --- 0.207 0.082 0.000
105
Measure Parameter Relative identity
Organization Society Profession Nationality
Relative ID –
society
Pearson Corr. -.388** -.385**
Sig. (2-tail) --- 0.000 0.001
Relative ID –
profession
Pearson Corr. 0.000
Sig. (2-tail) --- 0.997
Relative ID –
nationality
Pearson Corr.
Sig. (2-tail) ---
Note. N = 77 unless otherwise noted. ID = identity.
*Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).
** Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed).
106
Table 12
Group Statistics for Dependent Variable Measures
Measure Organization N Mean Standard
deviation
Standard error
mean
Creativity TS 35 5.35 .7778 .1315
AC 42 5.67 .8057 .1243
Autonomy TS 35 3.59 .7672 .1297
AC 42 3.68 .8228 .1297
Accountability TS 35 3.51 .6872 .1162
AC 42 3.57 .8148 .1257
Team psychological
safety
TS 35 4.66 .9665 .1634
AC 42 5.11 .9262 .1429
Group collaboration TS 35 3.66 .8011 .1354
AC 42 3.83 .7185 .1109
Role ambiguity TS 35 3.42 .6732 .1138
AC 42 2.23 .6158 .0950
Role conflict TS 35 2.56 .8913 .1507
AC 42 2.69 .7347 .1134
107
Table 13
t-Test of Dependent Variables Between Organizations
Measure Assumption
Levene’s test
for equality
of variances
Sig.
95%
Confidence
interval of the
difference
F Sig. t df
2-
Sided
p
Mean
diff.
Lower Upper
Creativity Equal var.
assumed
0.252 .617 -1.721 75.00 .089 -.312 -.674 .049
Equal var.
not assumed
-1.726 73.35 .088 -.312 -.673 .048
Autonomy Equal var.
assumed
0.138 .711 -0.502 75.00 .617 -.092 -.455 .272
Equal var.
not assumed
-0.505 74.02 .615 -.092 -.453 .269
Account-
ability
Equal var.
assumed
0.000 .986 -0.346 75.00 .730 -.060 -.406 .286
Equal var.
not assumed
-0.351 74.99 .726 -.060 -.401 .280
TPS Equal var.
assumed
0.760 .386 -2.089 75.00 .040 -.452 -.882 -.020
Equal var.
not assumed
-2.081 71.32 .041 -.452 -.884 -.018
Group
collab-
oration
Equal var.
assumed
1.808 .183 -0.956 75.00 .342 -.166 -.510 .179
Equal var.
not assumed
-0.947 69.11 .347 -.166 -.514 .183
Role
ambiguity
Equal var.
assumed
0.897 .347 1.312 75.00 .194 .193 -.100 .485
Equal var.
not assumed
1.301 69.80 .198 .193 -.102 .488
Role
conflict
Equal var.
assumed
1.548 .217 -0.688 75.00 .494 -.127 -.496 .241
Equal var.
not
assumed
-0.676 65.89 .502 -.127 -.503 .249
Note. TPS = team psychological safety.
108
Table 14
Correlation Analysis Data for Team Sail Dependent Variables
Measure Parameter
Creat-
ivity
Auton
-omy
Accoun
-tability
TPS
Group
collab.
Role
amb.
Role
conflict
Age Pearson Corr. 0.135 0.068 0.090 0.185 0.192 -0.150 -0.120
Sig. (2-tail) 0.441 0.698 0.609 0.287 0.269 0.390 0.492
Gender Pearson Corr. -.371* -.356* -0.073 -.336* -0.269 0.185 0.194
Sig. (2-tail) 0.028 0.036 0.675 0.048 0.118 0.288 0.264
Edu-
cation
Pearson Corr. 0.060 .381* 0.025 0.109 0.086 0.055 0.096
Sig. (2-tail) 0.732 0.024 0.886 0.534 0.621 0.754 0.583
Years in
prof.
Pearson Corr. -0.015 -0.042 -0.116 0.075 0.147 -0.194 -0.077
Sig. (2-tail) 0.933 0.813 0.507 0.669 0.398 0.265 0.661
Years in
org.
Pearson Corr. -0.098 -0.137 -0.264 -0.003 0.036 0.132 -0.081
Sig. (2-tail) 0.576 0.433 0.126 0.986 0.836 0.451 0.644
Abs. ID
– org.
Pearson Corr. 0.115 -0.115 -0.285 0.257 0.280 -0.247 -.501**
Sig. (2-tail) 0.511 0.510 0.097 0.136 0.104 0.153 0.002
Abs. ID
–
society
Pearson Corr. -0.032 -0.296 -.345* 0.072 -0.077 0.187 -0.226
Sig. (2-tail) 0.854 0.085 0.043 0.680 0.659 0.283 0.192
Abs. ID
– prof.
Pearson Corr. 0.191 -0.007 -.380* 0.128 -0.038 0.238 -0.125
Sig. (2-tail) 0.272 0.969 0.024 0.465 0.827 0.168 0.474
Abs. ID
– nat.
Pearson Corr. 0.179 0.015 -0.2993 0.169 0.032 0.221 -0.151
Sig. (2-tail) 0.304 0.933 0.081 0.332 0.854 0.203 0.388
Rel. ID
– org.
Pearson Corr. -.492*
*
-0.228 0.180 0.155 0.167 -0.205 -0.178
Sig. (2-tail) 0.003 0.189 0.301 0.375 0.339 0.238 0.305
Rel. ID
–
society
Pearson Corr. -0.151 0.028 0.125 0.109 0.022 -0.151 0.007
Sig. (2-tail) 0.387 0.872 0.473 0.532 0.900 0.385 0.968
Rel. ID
– prof.
Pearson Corr. 0.142 -0.040 0.184 -.394* -.456** 0.265 .379*
Sig. (2-tail) 0.416 0.822 0.290 0.019 0.006 0.124 0.025
Rel. ID
– nat.
Pearson Corr. 0.284 0.077 0.038 0.155 0.106 0.033 0.035
Sig. (2-tail) 0.099 0.659 0.831 0.375 0.546 0.850 0.843
109
Measure Parameter
Creat-
ivity
Auton
-omy
Accoun
-tability
TPS
Group
collab.
Role
amb.
Role
conflict
Creat-
ivity
Pearson Corr. .416* 0.008 0.040 -0.012 0.075 -0.136
Sig. (2-tail) --- 0.013 0.963 0.819 0.944 0.668 0.436
Auton-
omy
Pearson Corr. 0.149 .413* 0.275 -0.120 0.059
Sig. (2-tail) --- 0.393 0.014 0.110 0.491 0.735
Account
-ability
Pearson Corr. 0.130 0.104 -0.248 0.233
Sig. (2-tail) --- 0.456 0.553 0.151 0.179
TPS Pearson Corr. .770** -.601** -.428*
Sig. (2-tail) --- 0.000 0.000 0.010
Group
collab.
Pearson Corr. -.637** -.477**
Sig. (2-tail) --- 0.000 0.004
Role
ambi-
guity
Pearson Corr. .459**
Sig. (2-tail) --- 0.006
Role
conflict
Pearson Corr.
Sig. (2-tail) ---
Note. N = 35 for all measures. Prof. = profession; Org. = organization; Nat. = nationality; TPS =
team psychological safety; Collab. = collaboration; Soc. = society; Abs. = absolute; Rel. =
relative; ID = identity; Amb. = Ambiguity.
*Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).
** Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed).
110
Table 15
Correlation Analysis Data for Aero Controls Dependent Variables
Measure Parameter
Creat-
ivity
Auton-
omy
Accoun
-tability
TPS
Group
collab.
Role
amb.
Role
conflict
Age Pearson Corr. 0.183 -0.024 0.047 0.210 -0.024 -0.011 -0.127
Sig. (2-tail) 0.266 0.884 0.777 0.199 0.886 0.946 0.440
N 39 39 39 39 39 39 39
Gender Pearson Corr. -.309* -0.094 -0.104 -0.059 -0.055 -0.013 0.089
Sig. (2-tail) 0.049 0.560 0.518 0.714 0.733 0.938 0.580
N 41 41 41 41 41 41 41
Edu-
cation
Pearson Corr. 0.178 0.002 0.164 0.052 0.165 0.019 -0.150
Sig. (2-tail) 0.267 0.988 0.307 0.748 0.304 0.905 0.348
N 41 41 41 41 41 41 41
Years in
prof.
Pearson Corr. 0.127 0.092 0.049 0.153 -0.162 0.063 -0.049
Sig. (2-tail) 0.429 0.568 0.762 0.339 0.312 0.694 0.760
N 41 41 41 41 41 41 41
Years in
org.
Pearson Corr. 0.015 0.201 .339* .320* 0.098 -0.103 0.077
Sig. (2-tail) 0.924 0.208 0.030 0.041 0.540 0.522 0.632
N 41 41 41 41 41 41 41
Abs. ID
– org.
Pearson Corr. 0.300 0.154 0.288 .308* .546** -.580** -.549**
Sig. (2-tail) 0.054 0.331 0.064 0.047 0.000 0.000 0.000
Abs. ID
– soc.
Pearson Corr. .414** 0.060 0.162 0.018 0.144 -0.177 -0.275
Sig. (2-tail) 0.006 0.707 0.304 0.908 0.361 0.263 0.078
Abs. ID
– prof.
Pearson Corr. .432** 0.145 0.110 0.019 0.265 -0.165 -0.250
Sig. (2-tail) 0.004 0.361 0.489 0.904 0.090 0.297 0.110
Abs. ID
– nat.
Pearson Corr. 0.262 0.263 0.2907 0.081 .388* -.426** -.460**
Sig. (2-tail) 0.093 0.092 0.062 0.612 0.011 0.005 0.002
Rel. ID
– org.
Pearson Corr. 0.122 0.040 0.161 .425*
*
0.262 -0.293 -.323*
Sig. (2-tail) 0.443 0.800 0.308 0.005 0.093 0.060 0.037
Rel. ID
– soc.
Pearson Corr. 0.185 -0.008 -0.104 0.051 -0.053 0.017 0.000
Sig. (2-tail) 0.240 0.959 0.512 0.747 0.741 0.916 0.998
111
Measure Parameter
Creat-
ivity
Auton-
omy
Accoun
-tability
TPS
Group
collab.
Role
amb.
Role
conflict
Rel. ID
– prof.
Pearson Corr. -.382* -0.086 -0.159 -0.129 -.311* 0.195 .409*
Sig. (2-tail) 0.013 0.587 0.316 0.414 0.045 0.216 0.007
Rel. ID
– nat.
Pearson Corr. -0.086 -0.051 0.059 -0.222 0.153 -0.018 -0.042
Sig. (2-tail) 0.589 0.749 0.710 0.157 0.333 0.911 0.793
Creat-
ivity
Pearson Corr. .437** .437** 0.170 .369* -0.157 -0.174
Sig. (2-tail) --- 0.004 0.004 0.281 0.016 0.320 0.271
Auton-
omy
Pearson Corr. .643** 0.191 0.133 -0.219 -0.123
Sig. (2-tail) --- 0.000 0.225 0.400 0.164 0.437
Account
-ability
Pearson Corr. 0.252 .357* -.407** -0.268
Sig. (2-tail) --- 0.108 0.020 0.007 0.086
TPS Pearson Corr. .495** -.531** -.454**
Sig. (2-tail) --- 0.001 0.000 0.003
Group
collab.
Pearson Corr. -.722** -.592**
Sig. (2-tail) --- 0.000 0.000
Role
ambi-
guity
Pearson Corr. .584**
Sig. (2-tail) --- 0.000
Role
conflict
Pearson Corr.
Sig. (2-tail) ---
Note. N = 42 for all measures unless otherwise noted. Prof. = profession; Org. = organization;
Nat. = nationality; TPS = team psychological safety; Collab. = collaboration; Soc. = society;
Abs. = absolute; Rel. = relative; ID = identity; Amb. = Ambiguity.
*Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).
** Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed).
112
Table 16
Correlation Analysis Data for Company Combined Dependent Variables
Measure Parameter
Creat-
ivity
Auton
-omy
Accoun
-tability
TPS
Group
collab.
Role
amb.
Role
conflict
Age Pearson Corr. 0.196 0.024 0.067 .236* 0.086 -0.097 -0.098
Sig. (2-tail) 0.093 0.842 0.571 0.043 0.464 0.410 0.408
N 74 74 74 74 74 74 74
Gender Pearson Corr. -.311** -0.189 -0.090 -0.149 -0.135 0.057 0.137
Sig. (2-tail) 0.006 0.103 0.440 0.200 0.246 0.622 0.236
N 76 76 76 76 76 76 76
Edu-
cation
Pearson Corr. 0.185 0.217 0.074 0.201 0.149 -0.057 0.071
Sig. (2-tail) 0.109 0.059 0.522 0.082 0.200 0.625 0.542
N 76 76 76 76 76 76 76
Years in
prof.
Pearson Corr. 0.095 0.045 -0.010 0.148 -0.006 -0.071 -0.048
Sig. (2-tail) 0.416 0.698 0.929 0.203 0.960 0.541 0.680
N 76 76 76 76 76 76 76
Years in
org.
Pearson Corr. 0.020 0.093 0.146 .235* 0.093 -0.043 0.030
Sig. (2-tail) 0.862 0.423 0.210 0.041 0.425 0.715 0.799
N 76 76 76 76 76 76 76
Abs. ID
– org.
Pearson Corr. 0.189 0.022 0.030 .254* .396** -.391*
*
-.526**
Sig. (2-tail) 0.099 0.846 0.798 0.026 0.000 0.000 0.000
Abs. ID
– soc.
Pearson Corr. .230* -0.093 -0.067 0.131 0.058 -0.030 -0.197
Sig. (2-tail) 0.044 0.420 0.564 0.256 0.618 0.794 0.087
Abs. ID
– prof.
Pearson Corr. .313** 0.066 -0.137 0.146 0.099 0.037 -0.133
Sig. (2-tail) 0.006 0.566 0.234 0.204 0.392 0.748 0.248
Abs. ID
– nat.
Pearson Corr. .246* 0.146 0.019 0.165 0.211 -0.104 -.265*
Sig. (2-tail) 0.031 0.206 0.873 0.152 0.066 0.370 0.020
Rel. ID
– org.
Pearson Corr. -0.164 -0.075 0.148 0.2205 0.175 -0.194 -.265*
Sig. (2-tail) 0.154 0.519 0.199 0.054 0.128 0.091 0.020
Rel. ID
– soc.
Pearson Corr. 0.121 0.031 0.005 0.168 0.031 -0.118 0.037
Sig. (2-tail) 0.295 0.787 0.966 0.143 0.789 0.307 0.750
113
Measure Parameter
Creat-
ivity
Auton
-omy
Accoun
-tability
TPS
Group
collab.
Role
amb.
Role
conflict
Rel. ID
– job
Pearson Corr. -0.143 -0.071 -0.002 -.297** -.400** .252* .371**
Sig. (2-tail) 0.214 0.540 0.984 0.009 0.000 0.027 0.001
Rel. ID
– nat.
Pearson Corr. 0.054 -0.003 0.052 -0.068 0.132 0.001 -0.008
Sig. (2-tail) 0.640 0.979 0.653 0.558 0.254 0.994 0.948
Crea-
tivity
Pearson Corr. .431*
*
.266* 0.151 0.205 -0.076 -0.135
Sig. (2-tail) --- 0.000 0.019 0.189 0.073 0.509 0.241
Auton-
omy
Pearson Corr. .449** .295** 0.203 -0.180 -0.030
Sig. (2-tail) --- 0.000 0.009 0.077 0.118 0.796
Account
-ability
Pearson Corr. 0.203 .246* -.337*
*
-0.034
Sig. (2-tail) --- 0.077 0.031 0.003 0.768
TPS Pearson Corr. .634** -.578*
*
-.407**
Sig. (2-tail) --- 0.000 0.000 0.000
Group
collab.
Pearson Corr. -.684*
*
-.517**
Sig. (2-tail) --- 0.000 0.000
Role
ambi-
guity
Pearson Corr. .499**
Sig. (2-tail) --- 0.000
Role
conflict
Pearson Corr.
Sig. (2-tail) ---
Note. N = 77 unless otherwise noted. Prof. = profession; Org. = organization; Nat. = nationality;
TPS = team psychological safety; Collab. = collaboration; Soc. = society; Abs. = absolute; Rel. =
relative; ID = identity; Amb. = Ambiguity.
*Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).
** Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed).
114
Table 17
Mediation Analysis for Team Psychological Safety at Team Sail
Antecedent Consequent
TPS Conflict
Coeff. SE p Coeff. SE p
Organizational
identity
a .1385 .0905 .1355 c’ -.2077 .0734 .0080
TPS --- --- --- b -.2951 .1364 .0380
Constant iM 3.8943 .5236 .0000 iY 5.0752 .6711 .0000
R
2
= .0663 R
2
= .3456
F(1, 33) = 2.3415, p = .1355 F(2, 32) = 8.4842, p = .0011
TPS Ambiguity
Coeff. SE p Coeff. SE p
Organizational
identity
a .1385 .0905 .1355 c’ -.0369 .0544 .5020
TPS --- --- --- b -.4012 .1011 .0004
Constant iM 3.8943 .5236 .0000 iY 4.4909 .4974 .0000
R
2
= .0663 R
2
= .3707
F(1, 33) = 2.3415, p = .1355 F(2, 32) = 9.4261, p = .0006
115
Table 18
Mediation Analysis for Team Psychological Safety at Aero Controls
Antecedent Consequent
TPS Conflict
Coeff. SE p Coeff. SE p
Organizational
identity
a .1812 .0885 .0472 c’ -.2107 .0613 .0014
TPS --- --- --- b -.2497 .1042 .0215
Constant iM 4.1628 .4820 .0000 iY 5.0602 .5378 .0000
R
2
= .0949 R
2
= .3906
F(1, 40) = 4.1945, p = .0472 F(2, 39) = 12.4991, p = .0001
TPS Ambiguity
Coeff. SE p Coeff. SE p
Organizational
identity
a .1812 .0885 .0472 c’ -.2107 .0613 .0014
TPS --- --- --- b -.2497 .1042 .0215
Constant iM 4.1628 .4820 .0000 iY 5.0602 .5378 .0000
R
2
= .0949 R
2
= .3906
F(1, 40) = 4.1945, p = .0472 F(2, 39) = 12.4991, p = .0001
116
Table 19
Mediation Analysis for Team Psychological Safety for Companies Combined
Antecedent Consequent
TPS Conflict
Coeff. SE p Coeff. SE p
Organizational
identity
a .1463 .0644 .0261 c’ -.2178 .0464 .0000
TPS --- --- --- b -.2444 .0805 -.0033
Constant iM 4.1209 .3610 .0000 iY 4.9905 .4165 .0000
R
2
= .0643 R
2
= .3568
F(1, 75) = 5.1540, p = .0261 F(2, 74) = 20.5271, p = .0000
TPS Ambiguity
Coeff. SE p Coeff. SE p
Organizational
identity
a .1463 .0644 .0261 c’ -.1009 .0359 .0064
TPS --- --- --- b -.3422 .0623 .0000
Constant iM 4.1209 .3610 .0000 iY 4.5318 .3224 .0000
R
2
= .0643 R
2
= .3984
F(1, 75) = 5.1540, p = .0261 F(2, 74) = 24.4981, p = .0000
117
Appendix A: Research Survey
In this copy of the survey, the name of the company has been blacked out on the survey
to maintain anonymity. Labels “A” through “J” are added to reference different measurements
within the survey. See legend added after survey for definitions.
A
118
B
C
E
D
119
Legend: Section labeled A = measures for identity; B = measures for creative problem-solving;
C = measure for autonomy; D = measures for accountability; E = measures for Big 5 personality
F
G
J
H
I
120
traits (not evaluated in this paper); F = measures for team psychological safety; G = measures for
group collaboration; H = measures for role ambiguity; I = measures for role conflict; J =
measures for demographic information.
121
Appendix B: Organizational Performance Survey
Section
Disagree
strongly
Disagree Neutral Agree
Agree
strongly
I
I see myself as a member of
[insert organization name].
1 2 3 4 5
I identify with [insert
organization name].
1 2 3 4 5
When I talk about [insert
organization name], I usually
say ‘we’ rather than ‘they’.
1 2 3 4 5
I am glad to be a member of
[insert organization name].
1 2 3 4 5
I feel strong ties with [insert
organization name].
1 2 3 4 5
II
I feel certain about how much
authority I have on my team.
1 2 3 4 5
I have clear, planned goals and
objectives for my team.
1 2 3 4 5
I know what my team's
responsibilities are.
1 2 3 4 5
I know exactly what is expected
of me and my team.
1 2 3 4 5
I receive a clear explanation of
what has to be done for my
team.
1 2 3 4 5
I have to work under vague
directions or orders.
5 4 3 2 1
III
I work under incompatible
policies and guidelines.
5 4 3 2 1
I must do things that I think
should be done differently on
my team.
5 4 3 2 1
I receive incompatible requests
from two or more people.
5 4 3 2 1
I have to oppose a rule or policy
in order to carry out an
assignment.
5 4 3 2 1
122
Note: “Section” column and numerical values under scales to be removed when conducting the
survey. Respondents should be asked to rate the degree to which they agree with each of these
statements.
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
This study sought to understand characteristics that have a strong influence on an employee’s intentions for resignation from an organization. All of the drivers for turnover intentions may be grouped into one of two areas; employee engagement and satisfaction. Among the drivers for satisfaction, this study pursued role conflict and role ambiguity as strong influencers. Social identity theory explains how the nature of one’s identity with a team has strong impacts on their interactions with other members and their ability to resolve issues. It was theorized that the existence of a strong organizational identification by team members is positively associated with reducing role conflict and role ambiguity. Data obtained via surveys from two organizations were analyzed to investigate these relationships. Results show a moderate and significant, negative relationship for both variables (role conflict: r = -.526, p < .01; role ambiguity: r = -.391, p < .01). This indicates that an employee with a strong organizational identification is more likely to experience lower levels of perceived role conflict and role ambiguity. With a focus on developing a strong organizational identity among its employees, a company may be able to reduce its realized, dysfunctional turnover. Methods for improving company identity and measuring employee identification are provided.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Examining felt accountability and uneven practice in dual organizational systems: a bioecological study toward improving organizational accountability
PDF
Employee satisfaction factors and influences: an evaluation study
PDF
Labor versus management perspectives on remote, in-person, and hybrid work: an examination of incongruences, challenges, and strategies for optimal workplace collaboration, motivation, and performance
PDF
Organizational model of individuation and employee retention
PDF
Why are they still here: a look at employee retention amidst the COVID-19 pandemic
PDF
The impact of high turnover and burnout among behavioral health's clinical workforce (clinicians)
PDF
The effects social determinants of health have on the higher prevalence of diabetes in low socioeconomic status Hispanics compared to non-Hispanic Whites
PDF
The moderating role of knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on employee turnover: A gap analysis
PDF
Development of employee well-being initiatives to improve engagement and performance: an innovative study
PDF
Building employee engagement through human resources transition planning in mergers and acquisitions
PDF
Stop the revolving door: the influence of emotionally intelligent leadership practices on employee retention in non‐profit human service organizations
PDF
Middle management’s struggle to sustain change: perspectives of the middle management team in nursing
PDF
Employee churn in afterschool care: an evaluation study of manager influences on employee retention and turnover
PDF
The influence of preparation, mentoring, evaluation, and district infrastructure on secondary assistant principal job satisfaction and outcomes
PDF
Addressing the challenges of employee retention: a qualitative analysis of job satisfaction and perceptions of advancement by marginalized women in the insurance industry
PDF
Representation matters: a study on the impact of mirrored ethnoracial identity on the motivation of clergy candidates to complete the ordination process in the United Methodist Church
PDF
Evaluating emergency nurse leader capacity to reduce first-year employee turnover
PDF
The role of organizational leaders in creating sustainable diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives in the workplace
PDF
Increasing organizational trust within financial services during times of change: an improvement study
PDF
Emotional intelligence self-perceptions in non-clinical leaders: an examination into a healthcare organization
Asset Metadata
Creator
Meurer, Stuart
(author)
Core Title
Reducing employee turnover through organizational identity
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)
Degree Conferral Date
2022-05
Publication Date
04/22/2022
Defense Date
04/04/2022
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
accountability,Burnout,employee satisfaction,group collaboration,identity,OAI-PMH Harvest,organizational identity,role ambiguity,role conflict,social identity theory,team psychological safety,turnover
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Spann, Rufus (
committee chair
), Andres, Mary (
committee member
), Canny, Eric (
committee member
)
Creator Email
smeurer@usc.edu,stuartverse@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC111099211
Unique identifier
UC111099211
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Meurer, Stuart
Type
texts
Source
20220425-usctheses-batch-932
(batch),
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
accountability
employee satisfaction
group collaboration
organizational identity
role ambiguity
role conflict
social identity theory
team psychological safety
turnover