Ashforth 1989 - Social Identity Theory and the Organization

Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of management review, 14(1), 20-39.

Google Scholar Link

todo: insert link

Summary

Social Identity Theory (SIT) states that people lump themselves and others into categories. Sorting into categories allows us to conserve cognitive resources by dealing with a single group as opposed to many different individuals. Additionally, this categorization allows us to locate and define ourselves in the social environment. Shared, “prototypical” attributes amongst a group’s members are used to define a category. People have both a “personal” identity (how they are different from others) and a “social” identity (how they are similar to others, i.e., groups to which they belong). As with inequity, what is important is the perception of the person. If a person perceives themselves to be a part of the group (“psychologically intertwined with the fate of the group”), then the effects are the same as if they were objectively part of the group (think superfans and sports teams).

Sorting into groups (even random groups) inevitably leads to in-group favoritism. Identifying with a group is influenced by several factors. The more distinct the group is to comparable groups, the higher the tendency to strong group identification amongst its members. This can even happen within an organization (holographic organizations have a common identity, ideographic organizations have “subunit-specific identities”). Higher prestige groups are more likely to engender stronger group identification. As “salience of the out-group(s)” increases, group identification does as well (remember Kanter’s 1977 paper about females entering a male sales force - the males started acting more macho).

Application

Stronger group identification results in increased support for the group. Group identification can also result in internalizing a group’s norms and values. This paper also has an interesting aside about “total institutions” and how they strip away a newcomer’s old identity (“unlearn”) to supplant it with a new one (for example, after a merger, getting rid of the trappings of the “old” companies could assist in unifying previously disparate groups). When there is “role conflict” amongst several group identities, individuals tend to order, separate, and buffer their identities as opposed to resolving conflicting values. Finally, for several reasons, group identification is much more likely to happen at the subunit rather than the overall organization (I imagine this is even more the case with larger companies). Perhaps, instead of pushing everyone towards a single company goal, a leader could state a company goal and have each unit come up with their own goals that would support that overall goal.