The utility of a broader conceptualization of organizational identification: Which aspects really matter? Rolf van Dick 1 *, Ulrich Wagner 2 , Jost Stellmacher 2 and Oliver Christ 2 1 Aston Business School, Birmingham, UK 2 Philipps-University of Marburg, Germany Predictions of social identity and self-categorization theories about the relevance of social identification in organizational contexts are presented. We propose that different foci of identification (e.g. with own career, team, organization, occupation) as well as different dimensions of organizational identification (cognitive, affective, evaluative, and behavioural) can be separated. Furthermore, these different aspects of organizational identification are assumed to be differentially associated with work- related attitudes and behaviours. Predictions are first tested in a questionnaire study of 515 German school teachers. Confirmatory factor analyses demonstrated that dimensions and foci can indeed be differentiated. In addition, results indicate that different aspects correlate differentially with different criteria. The results are cross- validated in two samples of 233 German school teachers and 358 bank accountants, respectively. This study investigates social identity predictions in the organizational domain. The aim of the present paper is to demonstrate the multidimensionality of social identification in the existence of different foci and dimensions. Social Identity Theory (SIT) was developed by Tajfel and Turner (1979, 1986) as an alternative to mainstream theories of that time which explained intergroup conflict as resulting from constraints in material resources (Sherif, 1966). In their minimal group studies, Tajfel and colleagues (e.g. Tajfel, Billig, Bundy, & Flament, 1971) created groups using meaningless distinctions, such as preference for certain abstract paint- ings. Once created, individuals were expected to evaluate members of their in-group and of the other group, the out-group. To summarize, it was demonstrated that individ- uals evaluated in-group members more positively, distributed more money to in-group members, and enlarged differences between in- and out-group if given the chance to, although there was no interdependence, future interaction or material self-interest for *Correspondence should be addressed to Rolf van Dick, Aston Business School, Aston University, Work & Organizational Psychology Group, Aston Triangle, Birmingham B4 7ET, UK (e-mail: r.vandick@aston.ac.uk). Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (2004), 77, 171–191 © 2004 The British Psychological Society www.bps.org.uk 171