Original Article

Perceived Organizational Support, Organizational Identication, and Employee Outcomes

Testing a Simultaneous Multifoci Model
Martin R. Edwards and Riccardo Peccei
Kings College London, UK
Abstract. This study involves a multifoci analysis of antecedents and outcomes of organizational identication (OID), within a dualorganizational identity context. We investigate links between perceived organizational support (POS), OID, organizational involvement, and turnover intention with 736 employees from a UK National Health Service (NHS) Trust. Using Structural Equation Models (SEM), we analyzed models using the Trust and the NHS as organizational foci. With both Trust and NHS foci, POS had a positive effect on identication which, in turn, predicted both outcomes. Organizational support showed a direct and an indirect effect on outcomes through OID. Generally the effects were foci specic, though limited downward crossfoci effects were found. Keywords: organizational identication, multifoci models, perceived organizational support, dual identication

Organizational identication (OID) is now one of the main concepts used in the organizational behavior literature to explore employees psychological attachment to their employing organization (Ashforth, Harrison, & Corley, 2008). OID has been dened in a number of ways in the literature (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Edwards, 2005; Mael & Ashforth, 1992; Meyer, Becker, & Van Dick, 2006). Broadly speaking, OID can be said to refer to a psychological linkage between the individual and the organization. OID is seen as having a positive effect on a variety of important work-related attitudinal and behavioral outcomes including, for example, job satisfaction (Abrams & De Moura, 2001), intention to stay in the organization, organizational citizenship behavior (Van Dick, 2001), and various forms of desirable team behavior (Riketta & Van Dick, 2005). The last few years have witnessed considerable development in the OID literature. Here we aim to contribute to two emerging areas of debate. The rst relates to the antecedents and outcomes of OID. Specically, the focus here is on the role played by perceived organizational support (POS) dened as the extent to which individuals believe that their employing organization values their contribution and cares for their well-being (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchinson, & Sowa, 1986) in the development of OID. Organization support theory suggests that, where employees perceive that the organization values and supports them, they will develop a greater psychological attachment to the organization (Rhoades, Eisenberger, & Armeli, 2001).
2010 Hogrefe Publishing

In terms of the consequences of organizational identication, we focus on two outcomes that existing theoretical and empirical work suggests are related to both OID and POS. These are employee intentions to leave the organization and organizational involvement, dened as the extent to which individuals are willing to exert effort for the good of the organization. The reason for extending the analysis to these two outcomes is related to the second aim of the study. This is to explore the extent to which the link between key antecedents and outcomes of OID reproduces when examined in relation to separate organizational entities as targets or foci of analysis. Specically, we will test our models within the UK National Health Service where staff are employed by substructure organizations: NHS Trusts. The focus here relates to a growing debate in the OID literature concerning the nature and implications of multiple foci of workplace identication. It is increasingly being recognized by researchers in the area that attachments in organizations will operate at more than one level within its structure (Ashforth et al., 2008; Lavelle, Rupp, & Brockner, 2007). Multiple foci of identication are likely to be common in complex organizations characterized by diversied structures with multiple units and levels of operation (Reade, 2001; Vora & Kostova, 2007). In such complex contexts, it is of particular interest to explore two key issues relating to OID which, although widely recognized in the literature, have received little systematic research attention to date (Lavelle et al., 2007;
Journal of Personnel Psychology 2010; Vol. 9(1):1726 DOI: 10.1027/1866-5888/a000007

18

M. R. Edwards & R. Peccei: Testing a Multifoci Model of OID

Vora & Kostova, 2007). First, assuming employees have multiple foci of identication, is whether nomological networks involving specic antecedents and consequences of identication reproduce when linked to different organizational entities as foci. Specically, to what extent do the links in the proposed POS-OID-Outcomes model hold with both the NHS and Trust as foci? Second, are the antecedents and outcomes included in the model foci specic, or are there crossfoci effects in operation? Although, as discussed below, some research exists that shows a link between POS and OID and there is also research showing a link between OID and outcomes such as turnover intentions, to our knowledge no research exists that simultaneously tests a POS-OID-Outcomes model with two separate levels of organizational identity foci. A systematic consideration of these issues will contribute to a more detailed understanding of the multifoci nature of identication, and of its antecedents and consequences, in complex organizations. We start by discussing POS-based explanations of OID. We then present the main model of the links between POS, OID, and selected outcomes to be tested at both NHS and Trust foci using a sample of employees from a local NHS Trust in the UK.

Theory and Hypotheses

The Role of POS in Fostering OID and Positive Employee Behaviors
In recent years Social Identity Theory (SIT) (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Tajfel & Turner, 1979) has emerged as the dominant approach for explaining the development of OID (Van Dick, 2001). SIT seeks to explain why people form linkages with social groups. Central to SIT is the idea that part of peoples self-concept is dened through group afliations; when assigned to a group, people will naturally dene themselves as members. A key tenet of SIT, however, is that people are motivated to maintain or enhance their self-image. Recently, Tyler and Blader (2003) presented a group engagement model which suggests that the degree to which individuals identify with their employer will be inuenced by the degree to which it treats employees fairly. They argue that organizations operating in a procedurally just manner provide information to employees that they are valued and respected. Consistent with SIT, Tyler and Blader (2003) argue that when an organization acts in such a way, this has a positive impact on employees self-concepts through an increased sense of self-regard, thus increasing the likelihood of employee identication. Similar arguments have been

presented in connection with the degree to which an organization is seen to be supportive of its employees (Edwards, 2009; Fuller, Barnett, Hester, & Relyea, 2003; Riketta, Van Dick, & Rousseau, 2006; Sluss, Klimchak, & Holmes, 2008) in that perceptions of organizational support should increase individuals sense of self-regard and increase the likelihood of employee identication. Although the notion of organizational support is different from that of procedural justice which focuses on the perceived fairness of the organizations procedures and is often treated as an antecedent of POS (Lavelle et al., 2007; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002), we propose that supportive organizations, in showing concern for employees well-being, will convey important information that they are valued. And this, in turn, according to Tyler (1999) and Fuller et al. (2003), should increase their bond with the organization through the process of selfenhancement. On this basis, therefore, we theorize a positive link between POS and OID. Such a link is further supported by arguments associated specically with organizational support theory (Eisenberger et al., 1986) which suggests that employees who perceive that the organization is concerned for their well-being are likely to reciprocate by investing psychologically in the organization and developing a stronger sense of attachment to and identication with the organization itself (Eisenberger et al., 2001). Additionally, organizational support can help to fulll important socio-emotional needs for positive selfesteem, approval, and afliation (Lee & Peccei, 2007) which enhance employees affective attachment to and identication with the organization, leading workers to incorporate organizational membership and role status into their social identity (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002, p. 699). Based on the above arguments, we expect that POS will increase employees sense of self-regard, thus increasing the likelihood of identication.1 Organizational identication can, in turn, be expected to be positively related to a range of employee behaviors (see Riketta, 2005), including intention to stay with the organization and various forms of organizational involvement. Such a proposition is in line with arguments presented by Lavelle et al. (2007) who suggest that POS predicts commitment and identication which, in turn, predict organizational citizenship behaviors. Ultimately, therefore, POS can be expected to have an indirect impact on organizational involvement and turnover intentions via its effect on organizational identication. These arguments are captured in the following overall mediation hypothesis. Hypothesis 1: Organizational identication will mediate the relationship between POS and both organizational involvement and intention to leave. Specically,

In this context it is worth noting that recent research by Van Knippenberg, Van Dick, and Tavares (2007) shows some empirical support for the proposition that OID moderates, rather than mediates, the relationship between perceived organizational support and specic outcomes. Treating OID as a mediator does not preclude the possibility that identication may also act as a moderator of the perceived organizational support-outcomes relationship. Our aim here, however, is not to replicate Van Knippenberg et al.s (2007) moderator results. Rather, our objective is to contribute to the understanding of OID by explicitly exploring the role played by perceived organizational support as a possible antecedent of identication and, in the process, examine the extent to which OID mediates the effect of perceived organizational support on key outcomes of interest.
2010 Hogrefe Publishing

Journal of Personnel Psychology 2010; Vol. 9(1):1726

M. R. Edwards & R. Peccei: Testing a Multifoci Model of OID

19

(a) POS will be positively related to organizational identication, (b) Organizational identication will be (i) positively related to organizational involvement, and (ii) negatively related to intention to leave, (c) POS will have an indirect effect on (i) organizational involvement and (ii) intention to leave the organization via organizational identication. Some research exists that has specically investigated the link between POS and OID (e.g., Edwards, 2009; Sluss et al., 2008); however, very few studies have systematically examined the mediating role that OID might play in the relationship between POS and employee outcomes. While Fuller et al. (2006) have shown that affective commitment mediates the relationship between POS and voice behavior, no studies have systematically examined whether OID mediates the relationship between POS and outcomes such as turnover intention and employees willingness to put themselves out for the good of the organization. The present study therefore contributes to the literature by examining such propositions. Importantly, however, this study also contributes to the literature by examining the proposed POS-OID-Outcomes model simultaneously across two different organizational foci.

Multifoci Models of OID

As noted by a number of researchers (Ashforth & Johnson, 2001; Ashforth et al., 2008; Lavelle et al., 2007; Van Knippenberg, van Knippenberg, Monden & de Lima, 2002), organizations are complex and there will often be multiple structures acting as sources or targets of identication. Furthermore there is mounting evidence that employees in complex organizations can have multiple identications and can form psychological links with a number of organizational structures. That is, employees are capable of identifying with two or more organizational targets or entities, either separately (Reade, 2001) or simultaneously (Ashforth & Johnson, 2001; George & Chattopadhyay, 2005). Our focus here is on individuals identication with two main targets within the UKs National Health Service, namely with a local healthcare organization (NHS Trust) in which they are employed and with the NHS as a whole. As the primary publicly funded national entity responsible for healthcare provision in the UK, the NHS is divided into numerous self-governing units at local level: NHS Trusts. Each Trust has its own name, each is able to employ staff, and own and dispose of the assets. Specically, our interest is to examine the extent to which the hypothesized POS-OID-Outcomes model applies at both the Trust and the NHS foci of analysis. The mediation model hypothesized above will, therefore, be tested across the two organizational targets simultaneously. In order to gain a better understanding of OID in complex multifoci organizations such as the NHS, however, it is also important to examine whether there are links between the variables in the model across different organizational entities. To what extent is identication with the local Trust, for example, affected not only by perceived support from the
2010 Hogrefe Publishing

Trust, but also by perceived support from the NHS, as well as by identication with the higher-order entity? Knowing whether crossfoci causal effects of this kind are in operation is important since it allows for a fuller understanding of the factors that affect particular phenomena of interest at a given level or focus of analysis. In this regard, Lavelle et al. (2007) recently presented a multifoci social exchange-based theoretical model that included POS as a predictor of organizational commitment and identication which, in turn, predicted outcomes, such as organizational citizenship behavior. In their model, all of these predictions operated at a matched foci-specic level, while taking into account similar processes occurring concurrently at a number of different foci within the organization. Although there is some recent evidence of focispecic effects of justice on OID (Olkkonen & Lipponen, 2006), to our knowledge, there are no studies that have systematically tested a POS-OID-Outcomes model while simultaneously examining relationships across different organizational foci and investigating potential crossfoci effects. Within the current context, given the type of parent-subsidiary nature of the relationship between the Trust and the NHS, it is likely that the main variables in our model with different foci will not be completely independent from each other. However, in terms of both the SIT and organizational support theory arguments outlined above, as well as in accordance with specic arguments presented by a number of researchers (Lavelle et al., 2007; Olkkonen & Lipponen, 2006; Ullrich, Wieseke, Christ, Schulze, & Van Dick, 2007; Van Dick et al., 2004; Van Knippenberg & van Schie, 2000), we would expect that within a multientity context, any relationships found between POS, OID, involvement, and intention to leave would mainly follow a target similarity (Lavelle et al., 2007) or identity-matched (Ullrich et al., 2007) principle, with minimal crossfoci effects in operation. Hence, our nal hypothesis: Hypothesis 2: The relationships found in the simultaneous multifoci Trust and NHS POS-OID-Outcomes models will exhibit target similarity rather than focicrossing effects.

Method
Sample and Procedures
The study was conducted in a healthcare Trust in the UK National Health Service. All staff at the Trust (2,399 employees) were sent questionnaires with prepaid return envelopes and respondents were guaranteed anonymity. In total, 832 questionnaires were returned, 736 of which had responses to all relevant questions, making for a 31% useable response rate. The sample comprised a number of occupational groups, including nurses (53.3%), doctors and other professional staff (17.8%), administrative and ancillary staff (18.7%), and managerial staff (10.2%). Seventy-three percent of respondents were female and the average job tenure of those responding was 5.6 years.
Journal of Personnel Psychology 2010; Vol. 9(1):1726

20

M. R. Edwards & R. Peccei: Testing a Multifoci Model of OID

Table 1. Descriptive statistics and correlations

1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. NHS org support Trust org support NHS identication Trust identication NHS involvement Trust involvement NHS intent to leave Trust intent to leave 0.64*** 0.26*** 0.37*** 0.26*** 0.26*** 0.33*** 0.39*** 2 3 4 5 6 7  X 2.81 2.81 3.47 3.02 3.80 3.63 2.32 2.50 SD 0.69 0.83 0.84 0.82 0.67 0.73 1.00 1.02 a .76 .86 .93 .94 .79 .75 .95 .95

0.20*** 0.54*** 0.22*** 0.36*** 0.30*** 0.58***

0.55*** 0.61*** 0.42*** 0.50*** 0.28***

0.39*** 0.54*** 0.38*** 0.57***

0.66*** 0.36*** 0.22***

0.27*** 0.31***

0.59***

N = 736. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Measures
All responses to the questionnaire items outlined below were based on a 5-point strongly agree-strongly disagree Likert scale. With all measures, two versions were presented, one with the NHS and the other with the Trust, as the point of reference. Perceived Organizational Support: This was measured with the three highest loading items from Eisenberger et al.s (1986) POS scale. The items were: The [org] shows very little concern for me, The [org] cares about my general satisfaction at work, and The [org] really cares about my well-being. Organizational Identication: Edwards and Pecceis (2007) six-item measure of OID was used in the study (e.g., My employment in [org] is a big part of who I am). Organizational Involvement: The extent to which respondents were willing to make an effort for the good of the organization was measured with Cook and Walls (1980) three-item organizational involvement scale (e.g., In my work I like to feel that I am making some effort not just for myself but for [org] as well). Intention to Leave the Organization: This was measured with three items adapted from Price, Mueller and Currivan, 1992 (e.g., I would like to leave [org]).

approaching acceptability (Steiger, 2000). Combined with these t indices, the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) will be considered to indicate a good t with values > 0.95. Where nested models are compared the Satorra-Bentler Scaled v2 difference test will be used, where nonhierarchical models are compared the AIC will be considered (where lower values indicate better tting models, Kline, 2005).

Results
Descriptive Results
Table 1 shows descriptive statistics and correlations for all the variables used in the analysis. All relationships were in the expected direction and signicant (p < .001). The results were in line with the hypotheses for both the NHS and Trust foci, with positive correlations across foci between POS and OID, and between OID and involvement; and negative relationships between identication and intention to leave. The NHS attracted more identication (M = 3.47) from employees than did the Trust (M = 3.02), this difference is signicant [t(736) = 15.21, p < .001)]. This nding remains consistent across categories of age, tenure, and broad occupational groups (managers, professionals, nurses, and administrative and ancillary staff).

Analyses
The study hypotheses were tested in two steps using Lisrel 8.80 (Joreskog & Sorbom, 2006). First, we examined measurement models using Conrmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and then tested a range of full Structural Equation Models (SEM). In accordance with Joreskog (2005), the correlation matrices used in these analyses were weighted with an asymptotic covariance matrix to adjust for bias due to non normality. Robust ML was used as an estimation method. The CFA and SEM models examined are discussed more fully below. A number of t indices are used to assess the adequacy of the models tested. These include the RMSEA and SRMR indicators where values between 0.05 and 0.08 for both these indices are viewed as indicative of good to acceptable model t, and values between 0.08 and 0.10 as indicative of t levels
Journal of Personnel Psychology 2010; Vol. 9(1):1726

Testing Measurement Models

To test whether the four pairs of constructs in our model were separate across the Trust and NHS foci, we compared two CFA measurement models. First, a fourfactor composite-foci model was tested where POS, OID, involvement, and turnover intention items were loaded onto their respective latent factors, irrespective of whether their point of reference was the Trust or the NHS (v2 = 6477.01, df = 399, RMSEA = 0.14). Second, an eightfactor dual-focus model was tested which loaded POS, OID, involvement, and turnover intention items onto latent constructs separately for each of the two targets (v2 = 1294.91, df = 377, RMSEA = 0.058). The Satorra
2010 Hogrefe Publishing

M. R. Edwards & R. Peccei: Testing a Multifoci Model of OID

21

and Bentler (2001) scaled chi-square difference test (SBv2) was used to compare the two models. The eightfactor model outperformed the four-factor model (SBDv2 = 4756.78, p < .001), indicating that the four constructs were separate from each other across the two foci. All eight measures showed good reliability (Table 1) with Cronbachs alphas above 0.75 (NHS POS = 0.75, Trust POS = 0.86, NHS OID = 0.93, Trust OID = 0.94, NHS involvement = 0.79, Trust involvement = 0.75, intent to leave the NHS = 0.95, and intent to leave the Trust = 0.95). Additionally, all indicators had statistically signicant (p < .001) loadings on their constructs (results available from the authors).

Tests of the Mediation Hypothesis

Full structural models were examined to test our main mediation hypothesis (H1). Specically, to test for mediation (Baron & Kenny, 1986; Mathieu & Taylor, 2006), three models were analyzed (that simultaneously examined the models at both the NHS and Trust targets of analysis). The rst of these was a direct effects model that only included direct paths between the two exogenous POS measures and organizational involvement and intentions to leave for both the NHS and the Trust as foci simultaneously. Although in accordance with the requirements of mediated models there were signicant paths between POS and the outcomes at both the Trust and NHS foci of analysis, this direct effects model did not t the data well (v2 = 2354.83, df = 400, RMSEA = 0.082, CFI = 0.97, AIC = 2484.83, SRMR = 0.31).

The second model was a full mediation model that only included POS!OID!Outcomes paths at both the Trust and NHS foci simultaneously. This model outperformed the direct effects model (SBDv2 = 53.77, p < .001) and approached a good level of t on most indices (v2 = 1770.59, df = 398, RMSEA = 0.068, CFI = 0.98, AIC = 1904.59), although the SRMR was high (SRMR = 0.20). The third model was a partial mediation model that, at both the Trust and the NHS level of analysis, combined the direct POS-outcomes paths from the direct effects model with the indirect POS!OID!Outcomes paths from the full mediation model. This partial mediation model, shown in Figure 1 (with nonsignicant paths removed for parsimony), t the data quite well (v2 = 1700.58, df = 394, RMSEA = 0.067, CFI = 0.98, AIC = 1842.58, SRMR = 0.18) and showed an improved t (SBDv2 = 719.72, p < .001) when compared to the fully mediated model. As can be seen from Figure 1, the results for the partial mediation model show that NHS POS was directly related to both NHS turnover intention (b = 0.25, p < .001) and NHS involvement (b = 0.12, p < .01), while Trust POS was directly related to Trust turnover intentions (b = 0.36, p < .001). More importantly, the results provide clear support for our main mediation hypothesis. Thus, consistent with Hypothesis 1(a), POS was signicantly positively related to OID at both the Trust (b = 0.57, p < .001) and the NHS (b = 0.29, p < .001) level of analysis. In addition, consistent with Hypothesis 1(b), Trust OID was signicantly positively related to Trust involvement (b = 0.62, p < .001) and negatively related to Trust intention to leave (b = 0.43, p < .001), while NHS OID was positively associated with NHS involvement (b = 0.66, p < .001) and negatively related to NHS intention to leave (b = 0.50, p < .001).

Figure 1. Simultaneous multifoci partially mediated model with no foci crossing. Model t statistics: v2 = 1700.58, df = 394, RMSEA = 0.067, SRMR = 0.18, CFI = 0.98, AIC = 1842.58. (**p < .01, ***p < .0001)

2010 Hogrefe Publishing

Journal of Personnel Psychology 2010; Vol. 9(1):1726

22

M. R. Edwards & R. Peccei: Testing a Multifoci Model of OID

Finally, in line with Hypothesis 1(c), signicant indirect effects were found between NHS POS and NHS turnover intention (B = 0.14[Wald 95% Condence Interval = 0.18:0.10]), NHS POS and NHS involvement (B = 0.18[0.12:0.24]), Trust POS and Trust involvement (B = 0.32[0.26:0.38]), and between Trust POS and Trust turnover intention (B = 0.23[0.27:0.19]).

Testing Alternative Models

Due to the cross-sectional nature of the study it is possible that other structural models may exist that also t the data. With this in mind, we examined two alternative models with different causal orderings between POS, OID, and the two outcomes, and compared them to the main structural models discussed above. People who identify strongly with a group may have a tendency to have a positive perceptual bias linked to evaluations associated with that group (Brown, Condor, Mathews, Wade, & Williams, 1986). Hence, the results of the partial mediation model in Figure 1 were compared with those of a model which tested the two forms of OID as independent variables and the two POS constructs as mediators. This comparator OID-POS-Outcomes model (v2 = 1732.25, df = 394, RMSEA = 0.068, SRMR = 0.13) t the data less well than the hypothesized POS-OIDOutcomes model (with an AIC of 1874.28 compared to 1842.58). In addition, the studys best tting model (Figure 2) was compared with a model that completely reversed all of the structural paths (v2 = 1890.20, df = 393, RMSEA = 0.072, SRMR = 0.26). This comparison model again demonstrated a worse t to the data with an AIC of 2034.20, compared to 1748.85.

Testing Simultaneous Multifoci and Crossfoci Effects

In order to test Hypothesis 2 which predicts that the structural paths on the model would largely follow a target similarity/identity matched effect, we examined the potential for possible crossover effects between variables associated with either the Trust or NHS foci. To this end, modication indices (MI) were consulted to identify whether the partial mediation model in Figure 1 could be improved by including foci-crossing paths. The highest potential structural index that could improve the model was a prediction of Trust identication from NHS identication (b = 0.48, p < .001). This downward foci-crossing path was added and the model was retested. This model showed signicantly improved (SBDv2 = 31.54, p < .001) t statistics (v2 = 1615.80, df = 394, RMSEA = .065, CFI = 0.98, AIC = 1757.80) with the SRMR approaching acceptable levels (0.096). One more foci-crossing path was identied, a downward prediction of Trust involvement from NHS identication (b = 0.21, p < .001). Adding this path yielded a signicantly improved (SBDv2 = 9.80, p < .001) model t (v2 = 1604.85, df = 393, RMSEA = 0.065, SRMR = 0.090, CFI = 0.98, AIC = 1748.85) with all indices showing acceptable values. No further structural improvements were identied that remained within the bounds of feasible theoretical explanation. This revised model, shown in Figure 2, represents the best tting conceptual model with the best empirical integrity. As the structural paths between POS and OID appeared to be quite different at the two levels (b = 0.28 vs. b = 0.47) an additional model was tested which set these two paths to be equal, comparing these models tests whether the strength of the two paths can be considered signicantly different. The constrained model ts the data signicantly worse (SBDv2 = 4.25, p < .05) than our best tting model (which allowed these paths to differ). In summary, the results of the SEM analysis indicate that with both the Trust and the NHS as foci, POS, as hypothesized, had a positive effect on identication which, in turn, had a signicant effect on the two outcomes. The results also show that, with both organizational targets, POS had a direct effect on selected outcomes, above and beyond the indirect effect that it had via OID. Finally, a fairly high degree of foci specicity was found, thereby providing quite strong support for Hypothesis 2. The results, however, also show the operation of some crossfoci effects with NHS identication having a signicant positive impact on both identication and involvement with the Trust as a target.
Journal of Personnel Psychology 2010; Vol. 9(1):1726

Assessment of the Effects of Same-Source Bias

Finally, we tested for potential problems of same-source bias using a technique that controls for the effects of an unmeasured latent methods factor (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003) applied to our nal model. A rst-order latent methods variable was introduced into the full SEM allowing all observed variables to cross-load onto this construct. The model showed an improved t (v2 = 1095.30, df = 363, RMSEA = 0.052, CFI = 0.99, SRMR = 0.083) suggesting the presence of some form of same-source bias. Importantly, however, the changes to the structural model are marginal with only minor adjustments to structural path coefcients. The resulting relationships were as follows: NHS POS and NHS identication (b = 0.28, p < .001), Trust POS and Trust identication (b = 0.46, p < .001), NHS identication and NHS involvement (b = 0.66, p < .001) and NHS turnover intention (b = 0.49, p < .001), Trust identication and Trust turnover intention (b = 0.44, p < .001) and Trust involvement (b = 0.54, p < .001), NHS POS and NHS involvement (b = 0.12, p < .01) and NHS turnover intention (b = 0.25, p < .001), Trust POS and Trust turnover intention (b = 0.35, p < .001), NHS identication and Trust identication (b = 0.49, p < .001), also NHS identication and Trust involvement (b = 0.17, p < .01). As the structural elements of the best tting model remained significant and changed only marginally, the additional analysis indicates that same-source bias was not having an adverse effect on the resulting structural model (MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Fetter, 1991, 1993; MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Paine, 1999).
2010 Hogrefe Publishing

M. R. Edwards & R. Peccei: Testing a Multifoci Model of OID

23

Figure 2. Best tting foci-crossing model. Model t statistics: v2 = 1604.85, df = 393, RMSEA = 0.065, SRMR = 0.090, CFI = 0.98, AIC = 1748.85. (***p < .001)

Discussion
In the present study we sought to contribute to the analysis of OID and the growing debate on multiple foci of identication in complex organizations. This involved testing the extent to which full OID nomological networks involving specic hypothesized links between POS, identication, and selected outcomes reproduced with two organizational identity targets within the UK National Health Service. The focus was on extending theoretical and empirical understanding of the multifoci nature of identication and of its antecedents and outcomes by examining two key issues. First was to examine hypothesized relationships between POS, identication, involvement, and turnover intention and to explore whether these links held with both the Trust and the NHS as foci. Second was to determine whether the links involved were foci specic or whether there were signicant crossfoci effects in operation and, if so, what the nature and direction of these crossfoci effects were. The results direct attention to a number of points linked to the above aims. The rst relates to the idea of multiple foci of identication in complex organizations such as the NHS. In line with recent work on dual OID (e.g., Ashforth & Johnson, 2001; George & Chattopadhyay, 2005), our results showed that employees can and do identify with at least two organizational entities simultaneously, in this case with their local Trust and with the NHS as a whole. Thus, although related, identication with the Trust and identication with the NHS were distinct constructs and respondents were able to distinguish between the two foci. In practice we found that employees identied less strongly with their local Trust than with the NHS. This nding is particularly interesting as other researchers have argued that proximal entities
2010 Hogrefe Publishing

are likely to attract higher levels of identication (Reade, 2001; Van Knippenberg & van Schie, 2000). Our results, however, show that this is not always the case. Instead, they provide support for Vora and Kostovas (2007) argument that in complex organizational systems individuals may sometimes identify more strongly with a more distant, abstracted organizational target than with a more proximal one where the higher-order organizational identication is considered more important than the lower-order identity. An explanation is presented for such a situation by Ashforth et al. (2008) who suggest that higher-order identities can be chronically salient if they are of higher status than lowerorder entities or when they are highly centralized such that members are oriented to look vertically for direction and resource (p. 354). As the NHS is centrally resourced and has been in existence since 1948 (unlike the relatively immature Trusts that came into being in 2001), the relative strength of employee identication with this higher-order entity accords with existing theory. The second and more fundamental point concerns the link between POS and OID. Our ndings provide support for the idea that organizational support and perceived treatment by the organization have an important inuence on the extent to which employees identify with the organization. Thus, POS was found to have a signicant positive effect on OID with both the Trust and the NHS as foci. Consistent with organizational support theory (Eisenberger et al., 1986), the results provide clear support to the idea that if employees believe their organization cares for their wellbeing they will be more likely to forge a bond of identication with the organization in response. As mentioned above, there is a consistent (signicant) but different relationship between POS and OID found at the level
Journal of Personnel Psychology 2010; Vol. 9(1):1726

24

M. R. Edwards & R. Peccei: Testing a Multifoci Model of OID

of the Trust and of the NHS in our study. Specically, the POSidentication link was much stronger at the Trust than at the NHS level of analysis. This is particularly interesting given the higher level of identication that the NHS attracts compared to the Trust and the fact that levels of POS are perceived as the same at Trust and NHS foci. One possible explanation for the stronger Trust-OID relationship is that the local healthcare Trust is responsible for implementing and setting HR practices and will, therefore, be perceived as responsible for managing employees. It is likely that the ability of an organization to inuence levels of identication by increasing levels of support for employees may well depend upon its ability to change perceptions of support and how much control it has on policy implementation. As the Trust directly manages and implements people management policies, it follows that it may be more likely and able, compared to the NHS, to attract identication via some form of POS-related socio-emotional exchange and self-esteem bolstering mechanisms. Although there may be other explanations for the stronger POS-OID relationship in relation to the Trust than to the NHS, the present ndings suggest that OID might indeed be best understood in terms of both SIT and socio-emotional exchange-based explanations. The third main point to emerge from the analysis relates to the POS-OID-Outcomes model more generally. All hypothesized links were signicant and in the predicted direction at both the Trust and the NHS foci. In addition to the POS-identication link discussed above, our results indicated that, in line with recent research on the outcomes of OID (e.g., Riketta, 2005), employees who identied with their local Trust were more likely to want to stay in the Trust and to exert effort on its behalf. Similarly, employees who identied with the NHS were more likely to want to stay in the NHS and to exert effort on its behalf. In line with organizational support theory and research (Eisenberger et al., 1986; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002), we also found a direct positive relationship between NHS POS and respondents willingness to exert effort on behalf of the NHS, as well as a direct negative relationship between POS and intention to leave at both the Trust and NHS foci of analysis. Overall, therefore, our ndings provide clear support to the idea that POS has both a direct effect on organizational involvement and on turnover intention, and an indirect effect that goes through OID. Both these direct and indirect effects appear to be robust since, by and large, they reproduce at the two foci of analysis examined. The nal point relates to crossfoci effects in the data. There was a considerable degree of foci specicity in the POS-OID-Outcomes models. For the most part, observed effects operated separately in terms of the two foci. NHS POS and Trust POS, for example, only had a signicant effect on NHS identication and on Trust identication, respectively, rather than having a direct effect on identication across the two foci of analysis. Similarly, NHS and Trust identication had the strongest relationships with outcomes corresponding to matched identication foci. This is in line with the arguments presented by Van Knippenberg and van Schie (2000) who suggest that the more strongly an individual identies with a certain group, the more he [or she] is likely to think and act in terms of this group memJournal of Personnel Psychology 2010; Vol. 9(1):1726

bership (p. 140). Our study, therefore, largely supports existing propositions linked to the identity matching principle (Ullrich et al., 2007) which suggests that antecedents associated with particular levels will predict identication at that level (Ellemers & Rink, 2005), and that identication targeted at a particular entity will most strongly effect behaviors toward that same object (Ashforth et al., 2008). Two crossfoci effects proved important, however. Both of these effects were positive and, in both cases, the link was from the level of the NHS to that of the local Trust. Specically, the more employees identied with the NHS, the more they expressed identication with their local Trust and the more willing they were to put themselves out on behalf of the Trust. Importantly, therefore, despite evidence in the present study supporting the identity matching principle or target similarity effect (Lavelle et al., 2007), our results suggest that the existence of multiple or dual forms of identication is likely to have some spillover effects on outcomes or behaviors associated with different organizational entities. One possible explanation for the observed downward effects from the global focus of the NHS to that of the local Trust is that the NHS is the dominant entity in the sense that it attracts higher levels of identication than does the subsidiary Trust. In other words, our results suggest that in complex multilevel structures crossfoci effects may well go from the entity that is more chronically salient (Ashforth et al., 2008) to the less salient entity rather than the other way around. More generally, our results highlight the importance of testing for identication-related crossfoci effects since this allows for a fuller understanding of the factors that affect particular phenomena of interest at a given level in complex organizational structures.

Implications for Management

The ndings of the present study have a number of implications for managers. First, the role played by POS in the analysis points to policies and practices that could be introduced to foster identication and lead to positive employee outcomes. If an organization manages and treats its employees supportively, employees are likely to reciprocate and identify with the organization to a greater extent, with additional benets in terms of wanting to stay in the organization and exerting effort on its behalf. One route available to ensure that staff perceive the organization as supportive is through the introduction of particular people management practices; previous research (Allen, Shore, & Griffeth, 2003; Tyler & Blader, 2003) indicates that POS is likely to be fostered when employees experience fair and just management procedures, when they experience supportive managers and supervisors, and when they experience a range of supportive people management practices. The results relating to foci specicity and crossfoci effects also have important policy implications. They suggest that before introducing practices designed to foster OID, managers in organizations that have complex structures would do well to consider what target of identication is the most desirable. Because of the general foci-specic nature of the effects involved, employee identication with
2010 Hogrefe Publishing

M. R. Edwards & R. Peccei: Testing a Multifoci Model of OID

25

a particular organizational target is likely to benet that specic target to the greatest extent; employees will be more likely to exhibit behaviors in support of the particular organizational entity when it is of greater salience to them. Importantly, in line with the identity matching principle, the relative salience of either the parent or subsidiary organization in the minds of employees can be expected to have implications for employee behaviors those who identify more strongly with a subsidiary are more likely to act in the interests of this lower-order identity and those who identify more strongly with the parent would be expected to orient their behaviors accordingly. In addition, managers need to be particularly sensitive to the nature of dual-organizational identication dynamics and be careful to ensure that the particular organizational entity that they are seeking to foster employee identication with is in fact the one that is seen as being responsible for supportive practices. If, for example, a large organization with numerous subsidiaries is too distal to be able to take the credit for centrally driven policies that are cascaded downward, it is feasible that the lower-order identities may well receive the credit when implementing these. Consequently, the subsidiary entities may attract higher levels of identication.

development of identication as part of a broader analysis of the antecedents and consequences of multiple foci of identication in complex organizations. Specically by simultaneously testing a POS-OID-Outcomes model within a complex dual-organizational foci/identity context, it is the rst study to examine such a model while exploring target similarity/identity matching versus foci-crossing issues. As such, it makes a signicant contribution to the literature and increases our understanding of the complexities of the role that POS and OID play in organizations.

References
Abrams, D., & de Moura, R. (2001). Organizational identication: Psychological anchorage and turnover. In M. A. Hogg & D. J. Terry (Eds.), Social identity processes in organizational contexts (pp. 131148). Philadelphia: Psychology Press. Allen, D. G., Shore, L. M., & Griffeth, R. W. (2003). The role of perceived organizational support and supportive human resource practices. Journal of Management, 29(1), 99118. Ashforth, B. E., Harrison, S. H., & Corley, K. G. (2008). Identication in organizations: An examination of four fundamental questions. Journal of Management, 34(3), 325374. Ashforth, B. E., & Johnson, S. A. (2001). Which hat to wear? The relative salience of multiple identities in organizational contexts. In M. A. Hogg & D. J. Terry (Eds.), Social identity processes in organizational contexts (pp. 3148). Philadelphia: Psychology Press. Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. A. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 2039. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 11731182. Cook, J., & Wall, T. (1980). New work attitude measures of trust, organizational commitment and personal need fulllment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 53, 3952. Edwards, M. R. (2005). Organizational identication: A conceptual and operational review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 7(4), 207230. Edwards, M. R. (2009). HR, perceived organisational support, and organisational identication: An analysis after organizational formation. Human Resource Management Journal, 19(1), 91115. Edwards, M. R., & Peccei, R. (2007). Organizational identication: Development and testing of a conceptually grounded measure. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 16, 2557. Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P. D., & Rhoades, L. (2001). Reciprocation of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 4251. Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchinson, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500507. Ellemers, N., & Rink, F. (2005). Identity in work groups: The benecial and detrimental consequences of multiple identities and group norms for collaboration and group performance. Advances in Group Processes, 22, 141. Fuller, J. B., Barnett, T., Hester, K., & Relyea, C. (2003). A social identity perspective on the relationship between perceived organizational support and organizational commitment. Journal of Social Psychology, 143, 789791.
Journal of Personnel Psychology 2010; Vol. 9(1):1726

Limitations and Future Research

Despite the important implications outlined above, the present study has some limitations. A key limitation is the crosssectional nature of our data that did not permit a systematic causal analysis of the hypothesized links between POS, OID, and selected outcomes. As mentioned above, comparator models examined which tested alternative theoretical explanations demonstrated an inferior t to the data than those linked to the theoretical propositions presented as part of the current study. These results provide considerable additional support for the studys best tting model. Despite this, however, future research should seek to employ longitudinal data designed to assess change over time. A second limitation concerns the POS measure used in the present analysis. To reduce the length of the questionnaire, we used a shortened three-item Trust and NHS version of Eisenberger et al.s (1986) POS scale. Although these measures exhibited adequate internal reliability, to increase condence in the results, future research should use fuller POS scales. In this context it is also worth noting that although the self-report measures used in the study did not pose signicant problems of same-source bias in the analysis, future research would benet from using a variety of measurement instruments, including, for example, supervisor assessments of employee citizenship behaviors. Finally, more research is clearly needed to test the extent to which the present ndings reproduce across different types of complex organizations. Particularly useful in this respect would be to examine the antecedents and consequences of identication with multiple foci in a range of different types of parent-subsidiary structures. Despite the above limitations, this study is the rst to have systematically examined the role of POS in the
2010 Hogrefe Publishing

26

M. R. Edwards & R. Peccei: Testing a Multifoci Model of OID

Fuller, J. B., Hester, K., Barnett, T., Frey, L., Reylea, C., & Beu, D. (2006). Perceived external prestige and internal respect: New insights into the organizational identication process. Human Relations, 59, 815846. George, E., & Chattopadhyay, P. (2005). One foot in each camp: The dual identication of contract workers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 6899. Joreskog, K. G. (2005). Structural Equation Modeling with ordinal variables using LISREL. http://www.ssicentral.com/ lisrel/techdocs/ordinal.pdf, accessed 2 May 2008. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling (2nd ed.). London: Guildford Press. Lavelle, J. J., Rupp, D. E., & Brockner, J. (2007). Taking a multifoci approach to the study of justice, social exchange, and citizenship behavior: The target similarity model. Journal of Management, 33(6), 841866. Lee, J., & Peccei, R. (2007). Perceived organizational support and affective commitment: the mediating role of organization-based self-esteem in the context of job insecurity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28, 661685. MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Fetter, R. (1991). Organizational citizenship behavior and objective productivity as determinants of managers evaluations of performance. Organizational and Human Decision Processes, 50, 128. MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Fetter, R. (1993). The impact of organizational citizenship behaviors on evaluations of sales performance. Journal of Marketing, 57, 7080. MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Paine, J. B. (1999). Do citizenship behaviors matter more for managers than for salespeople? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27, 396410. Mael, F. A., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of a reformulated model of organizational identication. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 103123. Mathieu, J. E., & Taylor, S. R. (2006). Clarifying conditions and decision points for mediational type inferences in organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 10311056. Meyer, J. P., Becker, T. E., & Van Dick, R. (2006). Social identities and commitments at work: Toward an integrative model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 665683. Olkkonen, M. E., & Lipponen, J. (2006). Relationships between organizational justice, identication with organization and work unit, and group-related outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100, 202215. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879903. Price, J. L., Mueller, C. W., & Currivan, D. B. (1992). Study of teacher turnover in the Chicago public schools mimei, University of Iowa. Reade, C. (2001). Dual identication in multinational corporations: Local managers and their psychological attachment to the subsidiary versus the global organization. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 12, 405424. Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support a review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 698714. Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R., & Armeli, S. (2001). Affective commitment to the organization: The contribution of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 825836. Riketta, M. (2005). Organizational identication: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 358384. Riketta, M., & Van Dick, R. (2005). Foci of attachment in organizations: A meta-analysis comparison of the strength and correlates of work-group versus organizational commitJournal of Personnel Psychology 2010; Vol. 9(1):1726

ment and identication. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 490510. Riketta, M., Van Dick, R., & Rousseau, D. (2006). Employee attachment in the short and long run: Antecedents and consequences of situated and deep-structure identication. Zeitschrift fu r Personalpsychologie, 5, 8593. Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (2001). A scaled difference chisquare test statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika, 66, 507514. Sluss, D. M., Klimchak, M., & Holmes, J. J. (2008). Perceived Organizational Support as a mediator between relational exchange and organizational identication. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73, 457464. Steiger, J. H. (2000). Point estimation, hypothesis testing, and interval estimation using RMSEA: Some comments and a reply to Hayduk and Glaser. Structural Equation Modeling, 7, 149162. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of social conict. In W. Austein & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of inter-group relations (2nd ed.). Chicago: Nelson Hall. Tyler, T. R. (1999). Why people cooperate with organizations: An identity based perspective. In R. I. Sutton & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 201247). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2003). The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social identity theory, and cooperative behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 349361. Ullrich, J., Wieseke, J., Christ, O., Schulze, M., & Van Dick, R. (2007). The identity-matching principle: Corporate and Organizational Identication in a franchising system. British Journal of Management, 18, 2934. Van Dick, R. (2001). Identication in organizational contexts: linking theory and research from social and organization psychology. International Journal of Management Reviews, 3, 265283. Van Dick, R., Wagner, U., Stellmacher, J., & Christ, O. (2004). The utility of a broader conceptualization of organizational identication: Which aspects really matter? Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, 171191. Van Knippenberg, D., Van Dick, R., & Tavares, S. (2007). Social identity and social exchange: Identication, organizational and supervisor support, and withdrawal from the job. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37, 457477. Van Knippenberg, D., van Knippenberg, B., Monden, L., & de Lima, F. (2002). Organizational identication after a merger: A social identity perspective. British Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 233252. Van Knippenberg, D., & van Schie, E. C. M. (2000). Foci and correlates of organizational identication. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, 137147. Vora, D., & Kostova, T. (2007). A model of dual organizational identication in the context of the multinational enterprise. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28, 327350.

Martin R. Edwards Department of Management Kings College London Franklin Wilkins Building 150 Stamford Street London SE1 9NH UK Tel. +44 20 7848 4095 Fax +44 20 7848 4639 E-mail Martin.r.edwards@kcl.ac.uk
2010 Hogrefe Publishing