Abstract: Workers form their own work-related identity through identification and dis-identification with their organizations, and the processes depend on their perceptions of their organizations’ identity. Workers’ motivation to identify or dis-identify with an organization is to enhance their self-esteem. However, an organization has rich identity elements, making it possible that a worker can identify with some but dis-identify with others at the same time. The construct of organizational identification has been comprehensively studied in the literature, but the construct of organizational dis-identification needs much conceptual clarification, theoretical elaboration, and empirical exploration. Organizational dis-identification is a unique construct, different from though relevant to organizational identification. In our nomological network, organizational identification and dis-identification have different antecedents and consequences.
Survey data came from 250 workers in five firms in Southwest China. Workers reported their perceptions on organizational prestige, procedural justice, organizational identification, organization dis-identification, loyalty boosterism, and organizational expedience. These scales were either previously validated in their Chinese version or back-translated using double-blind procedures. All scales satisfied the traditional psychometric properties.
Out of a structural equation model, results supported all the hypotheses. Perceived organizational prestige positively predicted organizational identification, which in turn positively predicted loyalty boosterism actions toward organizations. Procedural justice negatively predicted organizational dis-identification, which then positively predicted workers’ expedient behaviors. The model fit indices satisfied the conventional criteria. In addition, a series of nested structural equation models indicated that organizational identification and dis-identification are distinct—combining them will make the model much worse and the fit indices unacceptable.
In conclusion, organizational identification and dis-identification are different constructs. Theoretically, the nomological network proposed the different antecedents and consequences. Empirically, treating them as distinct constructs fit the data much better than dealing with them as one. The differentiation of these two constructs, especially research on organizational dis-identification, has great implications to management practices of organizations.

Key words: organizational identification, organizational dis-identification, social identity, self-esteem, intra- personal conflict