Large work organizations and groups within these organizations can be defined as social groups in at least two ways:
- A work-group is a bound social category in which we can determine who is a member and who is not.
- A work-group is characterized by social interdependence that includes both collective and individual aspects, and that is influenced by what individuals in the group do.
Work-groups and organizations are potential social identities for those who see themselves as members. Social identity theory has a social psychological perspective on the origin and consequences of group identification. According to this perspective, identifying through social groups depends on that membership of the social group which is important for the self-concept of an individual. And that the collective interests are important for an individual, perhaps even more important than the personal self-interests. The social identity theory indicates that group identification has both cognitive and motivational backgrounds. Group identification is the first to emerge from basic cognitive processes of social categorization. If these categories are defined and labeled, the process of category accentuation is set in motion. The processes of categorization and accentuation can be applied to both objects and people. All social categories implicitly emphasize the distinction between the 'ingroup' and the 'outgroup'. If emotions are also involved, the categories are confirmed once again.
Categorization can relate to both demographic differences among work-groups and organizational differences.
Social categories can be represented in terms of three levels:
- A social category is a collection of interdependent individuals
- A social category can be seen as one super categorized group of individuals.
- The super categorized unit is divided into subgroups.
Differentiation into subgroups is the most important when investigating diversity.
| | Ingroup / outgroup process | Interpersonal and role relationships | |
Category-based (demographic or organizational) diversity | Stereotype and status expectations | | Intergroup attitudes and perception |
| | Individual differences in cognition, behavior and values | Task performance | |
The terms in the second and third columns interact with each other.
The differentiation of the super categorized collective takes two forms. The form where the relevant social categorizations are external to the organization and the form where the categorizations only partially overlap with membership in the organization itself. This situation represents diversity in terms of demographic factors, such as age or race.
The crosscutting categorized identities only become relevant if the external compositions are added up within the organizational subcategories, because people from different subgroups often have different interests and because the category distinction is correlated with functions within the organization. This form of organizational diversity has problematic implications for the structure and performance of effective employees within organizations. The hierarchical/nested form represents the more striking categories that are nestled as interdependent subgroups within a super categorized organization.
The idea behind putting together a team within an organization is that different backgrounds bring different perspectives to group tasks and achievements.
A series of experiments done by Kramer and Brewer (1984) shows how subgroup differentiation can interfere with effective cooperative behavior within social groups. The choices that individuals make in certain situations reflect the relative importance of the outcomes for the group as a whole. Collective prosperity is only preserved if each individual has his or her self-interest in the name of the collective prosperity. But, if only one person does this, the sacrifices that one individual makes no longer matter in the collective.
Most social dilemmas have only two levels of decision making:
- The individual level
- The collective as a whole level
In the real world this is of course different and there are many other options.
The results of the investigation of Kramer and Brewer's dilemma experiments are special because it told that there were no objectively perceived conflicts in the experimental settings, but when differentiation was present, this made that individuals no longer acted for the collective. If subgroup identities are striking, implicit social competition interferes with effective workgroup collaboration.
A number of experimental paradigms have been developed to study the effects of intergroup contact with cooperating work-groups. This starts with the creation of two social categories to which participants are referred. The two categories are separated, creating two separate social groups. At the end of the first phase of the experiment, the two groups are viewed and a conclusion is drawn. It is usually the case that a preference for one's own group has arisen. The two models are especially suitable for use in the workplace. One looks at the effect of super categorized work groups, and the other focuses on the relationship between social category identity and role relationships in task groups.
A possible consequence of team formation is the creation of a new social identity for team members. If this form of recategorization is successful, the group loyalty and the dedication to the collective will be shifted from the original subgroup to the team as a whole. This is the basis for the regular ingroup identity model. This model lowers group bias in contact situations.
Conditions that emphasize the conspicuousness of the ordinary team identity and suppress the conspicuousness of the subcategories, eliminate team bias in the evaluation of other team members. In the ordinary group identity model, super categorized social identities are created by merging different subgroups into one common category that replaces the original categorical differences. Nevertheless, subgroups also have advantages, because subgroups are sometimes more cooperative than undifferentiated groups. Under the right circumstances, subgroups can increase responsibility and effectiveness.
There are also a number of reasons why regular in-call formations are unstable solutions to diversity management problems. The normal in-group model is very dependent on the relative prominence of the categorical representations, this means that it is very situation related.
Brewer's optimal distinction theory indicates that social identity is driven by two social motives at the individual level: the need for inclusion and the need for differentiation. To fulfill both of these needs, individuals tend to seek inclusion in striking, distinctive groups. In organizations with a lot of diversity there are few outstanding groups of this kind, because there is little striking homogeneity, all groups are a bit of a mix. The result is that psychological mechanisms try to get these outstanding subgroups back again.
When ingroup-outgroup differentiation is clear, members of the same group are seen as having the same character traits and values. Cross-cutting role assignments ensure that there is less intergroup differentiation and less in-group bias in the next contact as a cooperative team, even under conditions where in-group out-group categorization is outstanding.
There are a number of reasons why even more research needs to be done for application in the 'real world':
- The focus of the social psychological experiments are almost all focused solely on the consequences of cooperative contact for intergroup attitudes and perceptions.
- The large organizational context in which the formations and structures of work teams take place, must look more closely at whether the demographic factors are correlated with the organization as a whole. If they are correlated, this can lead to limitations in the areas of forming working groups in which categories and functions are effectively crossed.
- Too little attention is paid to social status among social groups.
