A growing body of research points to the contribution of social identity and self‐categorization processes to organizational social capital. In particular, this is because all facets of collective behaviour (e.g., trust, communication, leadership, productivity) are facilitated to the extent that individuals define themselves in terms of higher‐order social categories (i.e., as members of a common ingroup). However, very little work has sought to translate these social and cognitive insights into models of organizational practice. In an attempt to do this, the present paper outlines a four‐phase model for Actualizing Social and Personal Identity Resources (the ASPIRe model). Within a relevant organizational unit, an initial phase involves ascertaining which social identities employees use collectively to define themselves (AIRing). In intermediate phases, relevant subgroups and then the organizational unit as a whole develop goals that are relevant to those identities (Sub‐Casing and Super‐Casing). In a final phase, organizational planning and direction are informed by the outcomes of the previous two phases and by the new organic organizational identity they produce (ORGanizing). Points of contact with alternative models are identified and the model's potential to encourage sustainable productivity is discussed.
Since the advent of the ‘cognitive revolution’ in stereotyping research, interest in the consensual nature of stereotypes and its social psychological basis has declined dramatically. Reversing this trend, this paper examines the manner in which the strength of shared stereotypes and the links between particular content and particular groups are mediated by processes of social influence. Two experiments (Ns = 300, 230) are reported in which participants' pre‐existing stereotypes about Australians and Americans were confirmed or contradicted by either an in‐group or an out‐group source. As predicted, this social validation had powerful effects on the perceived applicability of content to groups (Expt 1) as well as stereotype consensus and favourableness (Expt 2). Stereotypes were typically bolstered when they were confirmed by an in‐group or contradicted by an out‐group, relative to conditions in which they were contradicted by an in‐group or confirmed by an out‐group. It is argued that the theoretical integration of principles from stereotyping and social influence research offers the potential for a fuller understanding of the inter‐subjective, group based properties of stereotypes and stereotype change.
Some models of conflict resolution propose that group membership be downplayed in negotiation because social categorization leads to ingroup bias. Challenging this view, this article argues that social conflict occurs partly as a collective attempt to establish a positive and distinct social identity. Restoration of this identity should therefore be important to negotiating groups. Two interactive studies (Ns = 104, 195) tested the effects over time of emphasizing identity-based group boundaries prior to negotiation with another group. Results indicated that where group members had the opportunity to interact with ingroup members (Study 1) or within a group (Study 2) prior to a superordinate negotiation, they consistently identified more at the subcategory level but were also more satisfied with the negotiation process. Evidence from the second study suggests that these effects were mediated by the development of a superordinate identity.
We are very grateful to Russell Spears for detailed comments on an earlier version of this article. We also thank Kip Williams for his exceptionally thorough and insightful editorial work, which included suggesting the design of the third experiment.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.