ISSN: 2226-3624
Open access
Organizational identification does not always accompany the discretionary contribution it would lead us to expect. This conceptual article develops the Conditional Activation Framework (CAF) to examine identity-behavior divergence: a recurring behavioral shortfall across comparable work situations while organizational identification remains meaningful. In artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled virtual organizations, algorithmic allocation and evaluation can shape employees’ opportunities to express what they value through work. CAF distinguishes relatively stable work values from work-value activation in a particular episode, encompassing salience, legitimacy, and enactability. It proposes that identification is more strongly associated with discretionary pro-organizational behavior when a relevant value is salient, its expression is regarded as appropriate, and employees have practical opportunities to act on it. The same design may support one valued contribution while restricting another. Persistent restrictions are therefore expected to make divergence more likely among strongly identified employees. Instrumental retention provides a comparison: valued job benefits may sustain participation when identification is weak, with discretionary contribution requiring separate explanation. By distinguishing identification strength from the conditions of its expression, CAF frames a testable question about when attachment supports action. Evidence would need to establish the proposed moderation while accounting for competing explanations of behavioral change.
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. The Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20–39. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4278999
Bardi, A., & Schwartz, S. H. (2003). Values and behavior: Strength and structure of relations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(10), 1207–1220. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203254602
Cameron, L. D., & Rahman, H. (2022). Expanding the locus of resistance: Understanding the co-constitution of control and resistance in the gig economy. Organization Science, 33(1), 38–58. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2021.1557
Czakon, W., Mania, K., Jedynak, M., Ku?niarska, A., Choi?ski, M., & Dabi?, M. (2024). Who are we? Analyzing the digital identities of organizations through the lens of micro-interactions on social media. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 198, 123012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.123012
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
De Stobbeleir, K. E. M., Ashford, S. J., & Buyens, D. (2011). Self-regulation of creativity at work: The role of feedback-seeking behavior in creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 54(4), 811–831. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.64870144
Duggan, J., Carbery, R., McDonnell, A., & Sherman, U. (2023). Algorithmic HRM control in the gig economy: The app-worker perspective. Human Resource Management, 62(6), 883–899. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.22168
Duggan, J., Sherman, U., Carbery, R., & McDonnell, A. (2020). Algorithmic management and app-work in the gig economy: A research agenda for employment relations and HRM. Human Resource Management Journal, 30(1), 114–132. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12258
Edwards, J. R., & Cable, D. M. (2009). The value of value congruence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 654–677. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014891
Elsbach, K. D., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2001). Defining who you are by what you’re not: Organizational disidentification and the National Rifle Association. Organization Science, 12(4), 393–413. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.12.4.393.10638
Epitropaki, O., Kark, R., Mainemelis, C., & Lord, R. G. (2017). Leadership and followership identity processes: A multilevel review. The Leadership Quarterly, 28(1), 104–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.10.003
Fan, S. X., Duan, S. X., & Deng, H. (2024). Improving digital work experience: An experimental investigation of IT identity and organization support. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 124(3), 1107–1131. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-02-2023-0128
Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331–362. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.322
Gibbs, J. L., Sivunen, A., & Boyraz, M. (2017). Investigating the impacts of team type and design on virtual team processes. Human Resource Management Review, 27(4), 590–603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.12.006
Griffeth, R. W., Hom, P. W., & Gaertner, S. (2000). A meta-analysis of antecedents and correlates of employee turnover: Update, moderator tests, and research implications for the next millennium. Journal of Management, 26(3), 463–488. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630002600305
Hom, P. W., Lee, T. W., Shaw, J. D., & Hausknecht, J. P. (2017). One hundred years of employee turnover theory and research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 530–545. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000103
Kellogg, K. C., Valentine, M. A., & Christin, A. (2020). Algorithms at work: The new contested terrain of control. Academy of Management Annals, 14(1), 366–410. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2018.0174
Kreiner, G. E., & Ashforth, B. E. (2004). Evidence toward an expanded model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.234
Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of individuals’ fit at work: A meta-analysis of person–job, person–organization, person–group, and person–supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 281–342. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00672.x
Leonardi, P. M., & Barley, S. R. (2008). Materiality and change: Challenges to building better theory about technology and organizing. Information and Organization, 18(3), 159–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2008.03.001
Maio, G. R. (2010). Mental representations of social values. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 42, pp. 1–43). Burlington, MA: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(10)42001-8
Mitchell, T. R., Holtom, B. C., Lee, T. W., Sablynski, C. J., & Erez, M. (2001). Why people stay: Using job embeddedness to predict voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 44(6), 1102–1121. https://doi.org/10.5465/3069391
Newlands, G. (2021). Algorithmic surveillance in the gig economy: The organization of work through Lefebvrian conceived space. Organization Studies, 42(5), 719–737. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840620937900
Orlikowski, W. J. (2007). Sociomaterial practices: Exploring technology at work. Organization Studies, 28(9), 1435–1448. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840607081138
Petriglieri, J. L. (2011). Under threat: Responses to and the consequences of threats to individuals’ identities. Academy of Management Review, 36(4), 641–662. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2009.0087
Riketta, M. (2005). Organizational identification: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66(2), 358–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2004.05.005
Rubenstein, A. L., Eberly, M. B., Lee, T. W., & Mitchell, T. R. (2018). Surveying the forest: A meta-analysis, moderator investigation, and future-oriented discussion of the antecedents of voluntary employee turnover. Personnel Psychology, 71(1), 23–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12226
Shao, Y., Nijstad, B. A., & Täuber, S. (2019). Creativity under workload pressure and integrative complexity: The double-edged sword of paradoxical leadership. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 155, 7–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.01.008
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). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Tett, R. P., & Meyer, J. P. (1993). Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intention, and turnover: Path analyses based on meta-analytic findings. Personnel Psychology, 46(2), 259–293. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1993.tb00874.x
Twenge, J. M., Campbell, S. M., Hoffman, B. J., & Lance, C. E. (2010). Generational differences in work values: Leisure and extrinsic values increasing, social and intrinsic values decreasing. Journal of Management, 36(5), 1117–1142. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309352246
Vallas, S., & Schor, J. B. (2020). What do platforms do? Understanding the gig economy. Annual Review of Sociology, 46, 273–294. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-121919-054857
Van Dick, R., Wagner, U., Stellmacher, J., & Christ, O. (2004). The utility of a broader conceptualization of organizational identification: Which aspects really matter? Journal of occupational and organizational psychology, 77(2), 171–191. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317904774202135
Verplanken, B., & Holland, R. W. (2002). Motivated decision making: Effects of activation and self-centrality of values on choices and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(3), 434–447. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.3.434
Wood, A. J., Graham, M., Lehdonvirta, V., & Hjorth, I. (2019). Good gig, bad gig: Autonomy and algorithmic control in the global gig economy. Work, Employment and Society, 33(1), 56–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017018785616
Bao, J., & Osman, J. (2026). Organizational Identification and Behavioral Divergence: Work-Value Activation in Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Virtual Organizations. International Journal of Academic Research in Economics and Management Sciences, 15(4), 27–44.
Copyright: © 2026 The Author(s)
Published by HRMARS (www.hrmars.com)
This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this license may be seen at: http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode