Social Identity Processes in Organizational Contexts

Michael A. Hogg, Deborah J. Terry

• Publisher: Psychology Press
• Year: 2014
• ISBN:
  9781317762829
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: History & Theory in Psychology
• Index: Psychology

This new volume is the first to bring together social and organizational psychologists to explore social identity theory in organizational contexts. The chapters are wide ranging - they deal with basic social identity theory, organizational diversity, leadership, employee turnover, mergers and acquisitions, organizational identification, cooperation and trust in organizations, commitment and work, and socialization and influence within organizations. This book is an integrative platform for a closer relationship between social psychologists and organizational psychologists who study social identity processes in organizations.

1

Social Identity Theory and Organizational Processes

MICHAEL A. HOGG
DEBORAH J. TERRY

University of Queensland

T his book is about the role of social identity processes in organizational contexts. It is about how collective self-conception influences and is influenced by organizational processes. More specifically, it brings together two literatures that have much to learn from one another, but which, until recently, have not often appeared together on the same stage: social psychology research on social identity theory, and organizational psychology research on identity processes in organizations and work groups. Since about 1989, organizational psychologists have increasingly incorporated social identity concepts in their thinking but have tended to focus more on early emphases of the theory. Social identity theorists finally started paying systematic attention to organizational contexts only a few years ago—a trend which has gathered momentum. In this brief introductory chapter we provide some background to these developments, give a basic description of key features of the social identity approach, and then overview the ensuing chapters in order to identify controversies, integrative themes, and future directions for research.

SOME BACKGROUND

Organizational contexts provide a near-perfect arena for the operation of social identity processes. Organizations are internally structured groups, which are located in complex networks of intergroup relations that are characterized by power, status, and prestige differentials. To varying degrees people derive part of their identity and sense of self from the organizations or work groups to which they belong. Indeed, for many people their professional and/or organizational identity may be more pervasive and important than ascribed identities based on gender, age, ethnicity, race, or nationality.

The relevance of organizational contexts for social identity processes was not lost on early social identity researchers (e.g., R. J. Brown, 1978; Skevington, 1981), however, it was only a few years ago that social identity theorists began to pay systematic attention to organizational contexts (e.g., Haslam, 2001; Hogg & Terry, 2000). Social identity researchers have tended to be more focused on social-cognitive processes and on intergroup behavior between social categories and, for example, on the study of stereotyping (e.g., Oakes, Haslam, & Turner, 1994), categorization processes (e.g., Hogg, 2001), motivational processes (e.g., Hogg, 2000d), social influence and norms (e.g., J. C. Turner, 1991), solidarity and cohesion (e.g., Hogg, 1992), attitudes, behavior, and norms (e.g., Terry & Hogg, 1999), collective behavior (e.g., Reicher, 2001), and intergroup relations (e.g., Ellemers, 1993; Hornsey & Hogg, 2000a). (For general developments, see books by Abrams & Hogg, 1990b, 1999; Ellemers, Spears, & Doosje, 1999; Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Oakes et al., 1994; Robinson, 1996; Spears, Oakes, Ellemers, & Haslam, 1997; Terry & Hogg, 1999; J. C. Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987; Worchel, Morales, Páez, & Deschamps, 1998.)

Organizational psychologists were quicker and more determinedly off the mark regarding the relevance of social identity concepts to organizational life. Ashforth and Mael (1989) first systematically introduced the theory to organizational psychology (also see Ashforth & Humphrey, 1993; Nkomo & Cox, 1996) and subsequently published some related empirical work (e.g., Mael & Ashforth, 1992, 1995). Others have also applied it to organizational settings (e.g., Dutton, Dukerich, & Harquail, 1994; Pratt, 1998; Riordan & Shore, 1997; Tsui, Egan, & O'Reilly, 1992). This literature has, however, often only touched the surface of social identity theory. It has focused on some aspects, but has not systematically incorporated significant theoretical developments made since 1987 that focus on self-categorization, group prototypicality, contextual salience, and depersonalization processes (see Hogg & Terry, 2000; Pratt, 1998).

THE SOCIAL IDENTITY APPROACH

The social identity approach is an integrated theoretical perspective on the relationship between self-concept and group behavior, which contains a number of distinct but compatible and dynamically interrelated conceptual components (subtheories or hypotheses; Abrams & Hogg, 2001; Hogg, 2001; Hogg & Abrams, 1988, 1999; J. C. Turner, 1999). Two of the main components are the original social identity theory and the more recent self-categorization theory.

Tajfel (1972) first introduced the concept of social identity, “the individual's knowledge that he belongs to certain social groups together with some emotional and value significance to him of this group membership” (p. 292), to extend his earlier consideration of social, largely intergroup, perception (i.e., stereotyping and prejudice) to consideration of how self is conceptualized in intergroup contexts; how a system of social categorizations “creates and defines an individuals own place in society” (Tajfel, 1972, p. 293). Social identity rests on intergroup social comparisons which seek to confirm or establish ingroup-favoring evaluative distinctiveness between ingroup and outgroup, motivated by an underlying need for self-esteem (J. C. Turner, 1975; also see Hogg, 2000c). Tajfel (1974a, 1974b) quickly developed the theory to specify how beliefs about the nature of relations between groups (status, stability, permeability, legitimacy) influence the way that individuals or groups pursue positive social identity. This emphasis is retained in Tajfel and Turner (1979) classic statement of social identity theory. The emphasis on social identity as part of the self-concept was explored more fully by J. C. Turner (1982). Intergroup, self-conceptual, and motivational emphases were integrated and grounded in a comprehensive coverage of relevant research by Hogg and Abrams (1988). At about the same time, Turner and his colleagues (J. C. Turner, 1985; J. C. Turner et al., 1987) extended social identity theory through the development of self-categorization theory. Self-categorization theory specified in detail how social categorization produces prototype-based depersonalization of self and others and thus generates social identity phenomena.

The social identity approach, or aspects of it, have been described by social identity theorists in detail elsewhere (e.g., Hogg, 2001; Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Hogg, Terry, & White, 1995; Tajfel & Turner, 1986; J. C. Turner, 1999; J. C. Turner et al., 1987), but will be summarized here.

Social Identity Theory

The basic idea of social identity theory is that a social category (e.g., nationality, political affiliation, organization, work group) within which one falls, and to which one feels one belongs, provides a definition of who one is in terms of the defining characteristics of the category—a self-definition that is a part of the self-concept. People have a repertoire of such discrete category memberships that vary in relative overall importance in the self-concept. Each category membership is represented in the individual member's mind as a social identity that both describes and prescribes one's attributes as a member of that group, i.e. what one should think and feel and how one should behave. Thus, when a specific social identity becomes the salient basis for self-regulation in a particular context, self perception and conduct become ingroup stereotypical and normative, perceptions of relevant outgroup members become outgroup stereotypical, and intergroup behavior acquires, to varying degrees depending on the nature of relations between the groups, competitive and discriminatory properties. Social identities are not only descriptive and prescriptive, they are also evaluative. They furnish an evaluation (generally widely shared or consensual) of a social category and thus of its members, relative to other relevant social categories. Because social identities have these important self-evaluative consequences, groups and their members are motivated to adopt behavioral strategies for achieving or maintaining ingroup-outgroup comparisons that favor the ingroup, and thus of course the self.

To account for social identity phenomena, social identity theory invokes the operation of two underlying sociocognitive processes: (a) Categorization, which sharpens intergroup boundaries by producing group-distinctive stereotypical and normative perceptions and actions and assigns people, including self, to the contextually relevant category. Categorization is a basic cognitive process which operates on social and nonsocial stimuli alike, to highlight and bring into focus those aspects of experience that are subjectively meaningful in a particular context (see Hogg, 2001). Social categorization of self and others reduces people's uncertainty about themselves and others and about how they and others may or ought to behave in specific social contexts (Hogg, 2000d; Hogg & Mullin, 1999). (b) Self-enhancement, which guides the social categorization process such that ingroup norms and stereotypes are largely ingroup-favoring. It is assumed that people have a very basic need to see themselves in a positive light in relation to relevant others (i.e., to have an evaluatively positive self-concept), and that in group contexts, self-enhancement can be achieved by making comparisons between ingroup and relevant outgroups in ways that favor the ingroup (but see Hogg & Abrams, 1993; Hogg & Mullin, 1999; Long & Spears, 1997). For example, comparisons can be made on stereotypical dimensions that favor the ingroup rather than on those that are less flattering to the ingroup.

An important feature of social identity theory is that in order to explain the behavior of group members, it formally articulates these basic sociocognitive processes of categorization and self-enhancement with subjective belief structures (see Ellemers, 1993; D. M. Taylor & McKirnan, 1984; A. van Knippenberg & Ellemers, 1993). The latter refer to peoples beliefs about the nature of relations between their own group and relevant outgroups. These beliefs (which are not necessarily accurate reflections of reality because they can be, and often are, ideological constructs) concern the stability and legitimacy of intergroup status relations and the possibility of social mobility (psychologically passing from one group to another) or social change (psychologically changing the self-evaluative consequences of existing ingroup membership). Subjective belief structures influence the specific behaviors that group members adopt in the pursuit of self-enhancement through evaluatively positive social identity. For example, a lower status group that believes its position is relatively legitimate and stable but also believes that it is quite possible to pass psychologically into the dominant group (i.e., acquire a social identity as a member of the higher status group) will be unlikely to show much solidarity or engage in much direct intergroup competition. Instead, members will attempt, as individuals, to disidentify and gain psychological entry to the dominant group. In contrast, a lower status group that believes its position is illegitimate and unstable, that passing is not viable, and that a different social order is achievable, will show marked solidarity and engage in direct intergroup competition.

Self-Categorization Theory

Self-categorization theory evolves directly from Tajfel and Turner's earlier ideas on social identity. It specifies in detail the operation of the social categorization process as the cognitive basis of group behavior. Social categorization of self and others into ingroup and outgroup accentuates the perceived similarity of the target to the relevant ingroup or outgroup prototype (cognitive representation of features that describe and prescribe attributes of the group). Targets are no longer represented as unique individuals, but rather as embodiments of the relevant prototype: a process of depersonalization. Social categorization of self, self-categorization, cognitively assimilates self to the ingroup prototype and thus depersonalizes self-conception. This transformation of self is the process underlying group phenomena, because it brings self-perception and behavior in line with the contextually relevant ingroup prototype. It produces, for instance, normative behavior, stereotyping, ethnocentrism, positive ingroup attitudes and cohesion, cooperation and altruism, emotional contagion and empathy, collective behavior, shared norms, and mutual influence. Depersonalization refers simply to a change in self-conceptualization and the basis of perception of others; it does not have the negative connotations of terms such as “deindividuation” or “dehumanization.”

Representation of groups as prototypes. The notion of prototypes, which is not part of the earlier intergroup focus of social identity theory, is central to self-categorization theory. People cognitively represent the defining and stereotypical attributes of groups in the form of prototypes. Prototypes are typically not checklists of attributes, but are fuzzy-sets that capture the context-dependent features of group membership often in the form of representations of exemplary members (actual group members who best embody the group) or ideal types (an abstraction of group features). Prototypes embody all attributes that characterize groups and distinguish them from other groups, including beliefs, attitudes, feelings, and behaviors. A critical feature of prototypes is that they maximize similarities within and differences between groups and thus define groups as distinct entities. Prototypes form according to the principle of metacontrast: maximization of the ratio of intergroup differences to intragroup differences. Because members of the same group are exposed to similar social information, their prototypes will usually be similar, and thus shared.

Prototypes are stored in memory but are constructed, maintained, and modified by features of the immediate or more enduring social interactive context. They are context dependent and are particularly influenced by which outgroup is contextually salient. Enduring changes in prototypes and thus changes in self-conception can therefore arise if the relevant comparison outgroup changes over time; for instance, if a car manufacturer compares itself to a computer software manufacturer rather than another car manufacturer. Such changes are also transitory in that they are tied to whatever outgroup is salient in the immediate social context. For instance, a psychology department may experience a contextual change in self-definition if it compares itself with a management school rather than a history department. Thus social identity is dynamic. It is responsive, in type and content, to intergroup dimensions of immediate comparative contexts.

Self-categorization theory's focus on prototypes allows some important conceptual developments in social identity theory, which have direct implications for organizational contexts. When group membership is salient, cognition is attuned to and guided by prototypicality. Thus, within groups people are able to distinguish among themselves and others in terms of how well they match the prototype. An intragroup prototypicality gradient exists; some people are or are perceived to be more prototypical than others (Hogg, 1996b, in press). This idea allows social identity theory now to explicate intragroup processes that are social identity based, such as cohesion and social attraction, deviance and overachievement, and leadership and intragroup structural differentiation.

Self-enhancement and uncertainty reduction motivations. According to social identity theory, social identity and intergroup behavior is guided by the pursuit of evaluatively positive social identity through positive intergroup distinctiveness, which in turn is motived by the need for positive self-esteem. This is referred to as the self-esteem hypothesis (e.g., Abrams & Hogg, 1988). Self-categorization theory's focus on the categorization process hints at an additional (perhaps more fundamental), epistemic motivation for social identity, which has only recently been described and is termed the uncertainty reduction hypothesis (e.g., Hogg, 2000b, 2000d; Hogg & Mullin, 1999). In addition to being motivated by self-enhancement, social identity processes are also motivated by a need to reduce subjective uncertainty about one's perceptions, attitudes, feelings, and behaviors, and ultimately one's self-concept and place within the social world. Uncertainty reduction, particularly about subjectively important matters that are generally self-conceptually relevant, is a core human motivation. Certainty renders existence meaningful and confers confidence in how to behave and what to expect from the physical and social environment within which one finds oneself. Self-categorization reduces uncertainty by transforming self-conception and assimilating self to a prototype that describes and prescribes perceptions, attitudes, feelings, and behaviors. Because prototypes are relatively consensual, they also furnish moral support and consensual validation for one's self-concept and attendant cognitions and behaviors. It is the prototype that actually reduces uncertainty. Hence, uncertainty is better reduced by prototypes that are simple, clear, highly focused, and consensual, and that thus de...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• About the Editors
• List of Contributors
• Preface and Acknowledgments
• 1 Social Identity Theory and Organizational Processes
• 2 Social Identity Dynamics in Modem Organizations: An Organizational Psychology/Organizational Behavior Perspective
• 3 Which Hat to Wear? The Relative Salience of Multiple Identities in Organizational Contexts
• 4 Identity Orientation and Intergroup Relations in Organizations
• 5 Majority-Minority Relations in Organizations: Challenges and Opportunities
• 6 Self-Categorization and Work-Group Socialization
• 7 Social Identity, Commitment, and Work Behavior
• 8 Ambiguous Organizational Memberships: Constructing Organizational Identities in Interactions With Others
• 9 Organizational Identification: Psychological Anchorage and Turnover
• 10 Cooperation in Organizations: A Social Identity Perspective
• 11 Identity and Trust in Organizations: One Anatomy of a Productive but Problematic Relationship
• 12 How Status and Power Differences Erode Personal and Social Identities at Work: A System Justification Critique of Organizational Applications of Social Identity Theory
• 13 Social Identification, Group Prototypicality, and Emergent Leadership
• 14 Your Wish Is Our Command: The Role of Shared Social Identity in Translating a Leader's Vision Into Followers' Action
• 15 Intergroup Relations and Organizational Mergers
• 16 Organizational Identity After a Merger: Sense of Continuity as the Key to Postmerger Identification
• 17 Corporate Mergers and Stepfamily Marriages: Identity, Harmony, and Commitment
• References
• Author Index
• Subject Index