Social identity patterns and trust in demographically diverse work teams

Abstract

The article presents a model that links trust in a demographically diverse work context to three different social-identity patterns. Trust is considered to be beneficial for interpersonal relationships and work outcomes in diverse teams as well as for a healthy work relationship between minority members and their company. First, imposing a common ingroup identity based on similarities has been put forward as a useful method of creating depersonalized forms of trust among members of different demographic subgroups. However, its usefulness seems to be limited to situations of low identity threat. Alternatively, recent findings support the usefulness of creating a relational identity orientation or a common ingroup identity that explicitly embraces the value of diversity. The latter methods seem to enforce more personalized and more robust forms of identity-based trust in teams. They may also be useful in promoting trust of minority members in the organizational setting as a whole and in its authorities, probably because these identity patterns contribute to feelings of respect among minority members. Practical implications of these findings are discussed. Résumé. Cet article présente un modèle qui relie la confiance dans des contextes de travail démographiquement divers à trois schémas différents d'identité sociale. On peut considérer que dans des équipes très diverses la confiance est bénéfique pour les relations interpersonnelles et les performances de travail ainsi que pour des relations de travail saines entre membres des minorités et leur organisation. On a dans un premier temps mis en avantqu'imposer une identité intra-groupe commune basée sur des ressemblances était une méthode utile pour créer des formes de confiance dépersonnalisées parmi les membres de sous-groupes de

Efficiency and defense motivated ingroup projection: Sources of protoypicality in intergroup relations

“…their complexity) reduce ingroup projection (Alexandre, 2010;Machunsky, 2005;Machunsky, Meiser, & Mummendey, 2009;Meireles, 2007;Peker, Crisp, & Hogg, 2010;Waldzus et al, 2003Waldzus et al, , 2005. Such interventions would be particularly relevant in situations of structural change, where one group has to accept bigger changes than the other, for example in mergers of organizations of different size or market power (Boen et al, 2010;Giessner, Viki, Otten, Terry, & Täuber, 2006;Terry & O'Brien, 2001;Van der Zee et al, 2009). Regarding implications for insecure intergroup contexts our results are more ambiguous.…”

“…The current research tests the hypothesis that biased prototypicality judgments can be an outcome of these two very different processes and it specifies the situations in which one or the other process is more likely. The question of what motivates biased prototypicality judgments is important because disagreement between groups on their prototypicality is the kernel of many intergroup conflicts that have high relevance for large scale politics and interactions in everyday life, whether they be linked to issues of gender, sexual orientation, nationality, race, age or any other category (e.g., Gaunt, 2009;Hahn, Judd, & Park, 2010;Morton & Postmes, 2011;Van der Zee, Vos, & Luijters, 2009). …”

Diversity climate enhances work outcomes through trust and openness in workgroup communication

“…In diversity literature, trust is often mentioned as an outcome variable related to cohesion and team identification in diverse teams. Van der Zee et al ( 2009 ) review the literature on diversity and trust, and state that cultural differences between team members may result in lower trust, due to categorization processes and the psychological effects of dissimilarity (see also Hooghe et al 2009 ). They also propose, however, that a group climate which promotes positive diversity attitudes may turn around this relationship.…”

Trust in Group Decisions: a scoping review

“…This information forms the basis for discussions regarding trainee competence and attainment of specific educational milestones.Shared Mental Model [42, 43]The shared knowledge and organized understanding of the information and resources used by the group, tasks and problems faced by the group, and individual group members’ imported informationDeveloping a shared model of trainee competence is critical for these committee decisions. Sources of shared information include written evaluations, results of knowledge exams, conversations amongst faculty members with their own experiences with the trainees, etc.Potential for Future Interactions and Relationships [33]A person’s early feelings about group members can create a sense of optimism about the potential of the relationshipNew committee members may be more willing to cooperate with other members given the potential of building stronger future relationships.Political Skill [44]A social effectiveness construct defined as the ability to effectively understand others at work and to use such knowledge to influence others to act in ways that enhance one’s personal and/or organizational objectivesA committee member who has particularly strong opinions about a trainee may be more persuasive (and potentially trusted as well) based upon his or her degree of political skill.Relational Identity Orientation [45]One’s conception of his/her relatedness to other individualsCommittee members with a high relational identity orientation may take great steps to build relationships within the group and will likely be more trusted as well.Need for Affiliation [33]An overlapping common factor among group members that motivates them to view each other as trustworthyThis collective need helps a committee build a shared level of trust amongst members and within the group.Standing in the Group [38]A person’s inclusion or membership in a group (e.g. power or hierarchy differentials)An individual’s position, whether specified (e.g.…”