Critically evaluating the ASPIRE model of social work - published: 17/11/2022

Extract

[...] Standard deviations and scale means got presented in Table 1. At the baseline, sample t-tests illustrated that the participants reported considerable levels of subgroup identification, subgroup clarity, subgroup alignment, organizational identity, and organizational strategy clarity were considerably higher compared to the scale midpoint - all t(15) > 2.78 (Ghitza, 2014). On the contrary, the participants reported significant levels of organizational strategy support that had not differed from the scale midpoint - t(15) = 1.00, ns. Perception Changes of Superordinate Group and Subgroups The Table 1 outlines the mean changes reported by the participants of the study at Time 1 and Table 2. [...]

[...] And sensitive to the first of the issues, many social identity research works have proposed a strategic model that seeks to establish organizational identification based on a bottom-up procedure that gets informed by engagement with, and respect for lower-level organizational identities. Described as the ASPIRE model, Actualizing Social and Personal Identity Resources, the model draws lower-level identities crucial for organizational groups and then works with the objective of establishing organic organizational identities that may reconcile conflicts between different identities and provide a suitable platform for the establishment of inclusive organizational strategies (Ingram, 2013). ASPIRE Model It is worth noting that the ASPIRE model builds on fundamental principles articulated in self-categorization and social identity theories. [...]

[...] Table Bivariate Correlations between Time 1 Change Measure and Baseline Measures. Time 1 (Sub-Casing + AIRing) Change measures Baseline measures Subgroup Clarity -0.44* -0.03 -0.22 -0.11 Subgroup identification - -0.15 -0.02 -0.42 -0.02 Subgroup alignment - -0.44* - -0.11 Organizational strategy clarity 0.03 -0.15 Organizational strategy support - Organizational identification -0.09 Table Bivariate Correlations Between Organizational Change and Subgroup Measures at Time 2 (Below Diagonal) and Time 1 (Above Diagonal). Measure Subgroup clarity Subgroup identification 0.42 - 0.07 0.50* 0.36 0.76* Subgroup alignment 0.56* 0.77** - 0.59* 0.53* 0.30 Organizational strategy clarity 0.28 0.56* 0.59* - 0.59* 0.69** Organizational strategy support 0.68** - 0.54* Organizational identification 0.45 0.75** 0.59* 0.78* 0.76** - And to evaluate Hypothesis the research operation regressed organizational strategy clarity, and later support for an organizational strategy on organizational identification and organizational strategy on organizational identification and subgroup perceptions based on Ordinary Least Squares estimation (Hall et al., 2019). [...]

[...] As such, the primary objective of the study was to outline a strategically integrated test for the ASPIRE model - the model that describes a sequence of well-structured activities designed to identify subgroup identities to build organizational commitment and identification for organizational strategy. The results drawn from the research operation proved consistent with the model; the first instance meant that there was sufficient evidence that while organizational and subgroup identities were already higher, the participation in the ASPIRE process got associated with the reports that were presented by the participants concerning an increased awareness of, as well as identification with, both the organization and subgroups as a whole - precisely predicted by theory 1a. [...]

[...] It is reasonable that the stages of the investigative structure that was implemented in the research operation, as part of the ASPIRE model, were meant to comprehensively examine project reports presented by the participants, compile issues and questions raised during the operation based on the results drawn from the project results, and eventually draw conclusions regarding the operation from projected results. The operation's reaction component, with regards to the ASPIRE process, supported the ability of the participants to reason creatively, particularly when it got to understanding existing issues, carrying out problem-solving, formulating problem-solving strategies, and checking solutions with various problem-solving strategies. The general concept of evaluation reflected on the measurement of the participant's ability to intervene, interact, and relate to organizational obligations and objectives. References Chambless, C. E., McCormick, S., Ipsen, C., Kurth, N., & Hall, J. (2019). [...]