In this paper, a social identity perspective on the management of diversity in organizations is outlined. The perspective is well-placed to offer considerable insight in this area, given that it explicates the processes through which group memberships impact on people's attitudes and behaviour both within and between groups that are operative in the workplace. According to this perspective, relative group status and the perceived permeability of intergroup boundaries are key factors that need to be considered in any efforts to understand intergroup relations in the workplace. After a brief overview of the social identity perspective, the paper discusses: i) the role that group status and perceived permeability play in determining the nature of intergroup relations in the workplace, and 2) the type of interventions that can be derived from a social identity perspective in an effort to improve intergroup relations in the workplace.
Ashforth, B.E. , and S.A. Johnson. 2001. Which hat to wear? The relative salience of multiple identities in organizational contexts. In Social identity processes in organizational contexts, eds M.A. Hogg and D.J. Terry, 31-48. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
2.
Ashforth, B.E. , and G. Kreiner. 1999. `How can you do it?': Dirty work and the dilemma of identity. Academy of Management Review24, 413-434.
3.
Ashforth, B.E. , and F. Mael. 1989. Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review17, 20-39.
4.
Brewer, M.B.1979. In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin86, 307-324.
5.
Brewer, M.B.1996. When contact is not enough: Social identity and intergroup cooperation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations20, 291-303.
6.
Brown, B.B. , and M.J. Lohr. 1987. Peer-group affiliation and adolescent self-esteem: An integration of ego-identity and symbolic-interaction theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology52, 47-55.
7.
Ellemers, N. , A. van Knippenberg, N.K. de Vries, and H. Wilke. 1988. Social identification and permeability of group boundaries. European Journal of Social Psychology18, 497-513.
8.
Ellemers, N. , H. Wilke, and A. van Knippenberg. 1993. Effects of the legitimacy of low group or individual status on individual and collective identity enhancement strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology64, 766-778.
9.
Elsbach, K.D.2000. Coping with hybrid organizational identities: Evidence from California Legislative Staff. In Advances in qualitative organisational research, vol. 3, ed. J. Wagner, 59-90. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.
10.
Elsbach, K.D. , and R. Kramer. 1996. Members' responses to organizational identity threats: Encountering and countering the Business Week ratings. Administrative Science Quarterly41, 442-476.
11.
Gaertner, S.L. , and J.F Dovidio. 2000. Reducing intergroup bias. The common in group identity model. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
12.
Haslam, S.A.2001. Psychology in organizations: The social identity approach. London: SAGE Publications.
13.
Hewstone, M. , and R.J. Brown. 1986. Contact is not enough: An intergroup perspective on the `contact hypothesis'. In Contact and conflict in intergroup encounters, eds M. Hewstone and R.J. Brown, 1-44. Oxford: Blackwell.
14.
Hewstone, M. , R. Martin, C. Hammer-Hewstone, R.J. Crisp, and A. Voci. 2001. Majority-minority relations in organizations: Challenges and opportunities. In Social identity processes in organizational contexts, eds M.A. Hogg and D.J. Terry, 67-86. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
15.
Hogg, M.A. , and D. Abrams. 1988. Social identifications: A social psychology of intergroup relations and group processes. London: Routledge.
16.
Hogg, M.A. , and D.J. Terry. 2000. Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review25, 121-140.
17.
Hogg, M.A. and D.J. Terry, eds. 2001. Social identity processes in organizational contexts. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
18.
Hornsey, M.J. and M.A. Hogg. 2000. Assimilation and diversity: An integrative model of subgroup relations. Personality and Social Psychology Review4, 143-156.
19.
Jost, J.T.2001. Outgroup favoritism and the theory of system justification: A paradigm for investigating the effects of socioeconomic success on stereotype content. In Cognitive social psychology: The Princeton Symposium on the Legacy and Future of Social Cognition, ed. G.B. Moskowitz. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
20.
Jost, J.T. , and K.D. Elsbach. 2001. How status and power differences erode personal and social identities at work: A system justification critique of organizational applications of social identity theory. In Social identity processes in organizational contexts, eds M. A. Hogg and D.J. Terry, 181-196. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
21.
Lalonde, R.N.1992. The dynamics of group differentiation in the face of defeat. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin18, 336-342.
22.
Marcus-Newhall, A. , N. Miller, R. Holtz, and M.B. Brewer. 1993. Cross-cutting category membership with role assignment: A means of reducing intergroup bias. British Journal of Social Psychology32, 125-146.
23.
Mullen, B. , R. Brown, and C. Smith. 1992. Ingroup bias as a function of salience, relevance, and status: A integration. European Journal of Social Psychology22, 103-123.
24.
Pratt, M.G.2001. Social identity dynamics in modern organizations: an organizational psychology/organizational behavior perspective. In Social identity processes in organizational contexts, eds M.A. Hogg and D.J. Terry, 13-30. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
25.
Ruggiero, K.M. and D.M. Marx. 1999. Less pain and more to gain: Why high status group members blame their failure on discrimination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology77, 774-784.
26.
Sachdev, I. and R.Y. Bourhis. 1987. Status differentials and intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology17, 277-293.
27.
Tajfel, H.1974. Social identity and intergroup behaviour. Social Sciences Information13, 65-93.
28.
Tajfel, H. and J.C. Turner. 1979. An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. The social psychology of intergroup relations, eds W.G. Austin and A.S. Worchel, 33-47. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
29.
Terry, D.J. and V.J. Callan. 1998. Ingroup bias in response to an organizational merger. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice2, 67-81.
30.
Terry, D.J. , and M.A. Hogg. 1996. Group norms and the attitude-behavior relationship. A role for group identification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin22, 776-793.
31.
Terry, D.J. and A.T. O'Brien. 2001. Status, legitimacy, and ingroup bias in the context of an organizational merger. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations4, 271-289.
32.
Terry, D.J. , C.J. Carey, and V.J. Callan. 2001. Employee adjustment to an organizational merger: An intergroup perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin27, 267-290.
33.
Turner, J.C. , M.A. Hogg, PJ. Oakes, and M.S. Wetherell. 1987. Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford: Blackwell.
34.
van Knippenberg, A. , and N. Ellemers. 1993. Strategies in intergroup relations. In M.A. Hogg and D. Abrams, eds, Group motivation: Social psychological perspectives, 17-23. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf, and New York: Prentice-Hall.
35.
Wright, S.C. , D.M. Taylor, and EM. Moghaddam. 1990. Responding to membership in a disadvantaged group: From acceptance to collective protest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology58, 994-1003.
