Organizational Psychology

In the literature on organizational psychology and management, the concepts of “organizational identity” and “organizational identification” are widespread. However, it also notes the ambiguity and ambiguity in the use of these constructs. Purpose. The purpose of the study is to analyze various points of view regarding the essence and correlation of these phenomena, and on the basis of it, to offer a certain understanding of them, overcoming the existing limitations and contradictions. Method — analysis of literature and systematization of the material. Results. The general ideological platformand directions of the analysis of organizational identity (otherwise, the identity of the organization), as well as theoretical foundations and approaches to the interpretation of organizational identification are considered. Despite the diversity of points of view, organizational identity is predominantly considered at the collective level, as it reflects the characteristics of the organization and emphasizes its uniqueness incomparison with other organizations. Organizational identification, in turn, is analyzed at the individual level in the relationship “individual — organization” and is understood in the context of a person’s self-determination as a member of a particular organization. The article discusses the relationship between the concept pairs “organizational identity” and “organizational identification”, “organizationalidentification” and “organizational commitment”, and highlights the problem of the validity of tools formeasuring organizational identification. Particular attention is paid to terminological restructuring, whichgoes beyond the established tradition. In accordance with it, it is proposed to consider organizational identification at the individual level as a process, and organizational identity as a result of this processat a certain point in time. An appropriate justification has been given for this. A new definition and understanding of two phenomena — organizational identification and disidentification — are givenas forms of manifestation of processes, respectively, integration and disintegration in the external and internal plan of the individual. The conclusion summarizes the reasons for the terminological confusionand diversity in understanding the constructs “organizational identity” and “organizational identification”, suggests a certain systematization of terms and outlines a research perspective. The value of the results lies in the fact that they provide a generalized and more understandable picture on a few issues related to the understanding and relationship of organizational identity and organizational identification, and also expand the understanding of identification and disidentification as processes that characterize the dynamics of relations between a person and organization.