In their theory of intergroup leadership, Hogg, van Knippenberg, and Rast proposed the novel concept of intergroup relational identity. An intergroup relational identity (IRI) refers to a form of social identity that is defined in terms of the cooperative and mutually promotive relationship between subgroups. This article outlines the development of a five-item scale to measure IRI. We conducted five studies with over 1,700 participants from different countries. The unidimensional factor structure of the five-item scale replicated across studies, and the latter three studies provided evidence of construct (convergent and discriminant) and criterion-related validity. Intergroup relations are often overlooked in organizational behavior and management research. However, our results support the idea that IRI affects intergroup or inter-team cooperation and collaboration, as well as leadership effectiveness—enhanced perceptions of an IRI is a promising way to reduce conflict between subgroups within a larger collective. To date, no measure of IRI has been published. These studies present the first empirical test of and support for the newly developed IRI measure, and provide evidence demonstrating the benefit of promoting an IRI for both leadership and intergroup relations more broadly.
AbramsD.HoggM. A. (2010). Social identity and self-categorisation. In DovidioJ. F.HewstoneM.GlickP.EssesV. M (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of prejudice, stereotyping and discrimination (pp. 179–193). London: SAGE.
2.
BirnbaumM. H. (2004). Human research and data collection via the Internet. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 803–832. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141601
3.
BraekenJ.van AssenM. A. L. M. (2017). An empirical Kaiser criterion. Psychological Methods, 22, 450–466. doi:10.1037/met0000074
4.
BrewerM. B.GardnerW. (1996). Who is this ‘we’? Levels of collective identity and self-representation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 83–93. doi:10.1037/0022–3514.71.1.83
5.
ConwayJ. M.LanceC. E. (2010). What reviewers should expect from authors regarding common method bias in organizational research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25, 325–334. doi:10.1007/s10869–010–9181–6
6.
CooperD.ThatcherS. M. B. (2010). Identification in organizations: The role of self-concept orientations and identification motives. Academy of Management Review, 35, 516–538. doi:10.5465/AMR.2010.53502693
7.
CranoW. D.BrewerM. B.LacA. (2015). Principles and methods of social research (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
8.
CrossS. E.BaconP. L.MorrisM. L. (2000). The relational-interdependent self-construal and relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 791–808. doi:10.1037/0022–3514.78.4.791
9.
CuijpersM.UitdewilligenS.GuenterH. (2016). Effects of dual identification and interteam conflict on multiteam system performance. Journal of Occupational and Organizational, 89, 141–171. doi:10.1111/joop.12113
10.
DavisonR. B.HollenbeckJ. R.BarnesC. M.SleesmanD. J.IlgenD. R. (2012). Coordinated action in multiteam systems. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 808–824. doi:10.1037/a0026682
11.
DeChurchL. A.MarksM. A. (2006). Leadership in multiteam systems. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 311–329. doi:10.1037/0021–9010.91.2.311
12.
DovidioJ. F.GaertnerS. L.LamoreauxM. J. (2009). Leadership across group divides: The challenges and potential of a common group identity. In PittinskyT. L. (Ed.), Crossing the divide: Intergroup leadership in a world of difference (pp. 3–16). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
13.
DovidioJ. F.GaertnerS. L.SaguyT. (2009). Commonality and the complexity of “we”: Social attitudes and social change. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13, 3–20.
14.
GomezA.BrooksM.BuhrmesterM.VazquezA.JettenJ.SwannW. B. (2011). On the nature of identify fusion: Insights into the construct and a new measure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 918–933. doi:10.1037/a0022642
15.
HinkinT. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1, 104–121. doi:10.1177/109442819800100106.
16.
HoggM. A. (2015). Constructive leadership across groups: How leaders can combat prejudice and conflict between subgroups. Advances in Group Processes, 32, 177–207. doi:10.1108/S0882–614520150000032007D
17.
HoggM. A.ShermanD. K.DierselhuisJ.MaitnerA. T.MoffittG. (2007). Uncertainty, entitativity, and group identification. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 135–142. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2005.12.008
18.
HoggM. A.TerryD. J. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25, 121–140. doi:10.5465/AMR.2000.2791606
19.
HoggM. A.van KnippenbergD.RastD. E.III. (2012a). Intergroup leadership in organizations: Leading across group and intergroup boundaries. Academy of Management Review, 37, 232–255. doi:10.5465/amr.2010.0221
20.
HoggM. A.van KnippenbergD.RastD. E.III. (2012b). The social identity theory of leadership: Theoretical origins, research findings, and conceptual developments. European Review of Social Psychology, 23, 258–304. doi:10.1080/10463283.2012.741134
21.
HornseyM. J.HoggM. A. (2000a). Subgroup relations: A comparison of mutual intergroup differentiation and common ingroup identity models of prejudice reduction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 242–256. doi:10.1177/0146167200264010
22.
HornseyM. J.HoggM. A. (2000b). Intergroup similarity and subgroup relations: Some implications for assimilation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 948–958. doi:10.1177/01461672002610005
23.
HuL.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.
24.
IacobucciD. (2010). Structural equation modeling: Fit indices, sample size, and advanced topics. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20, 90–98.
25.
JacksonC. L.ColquittJ. A.WessonM. J.Zapata-PhelanC. P. (2006). Psychological collectivism: A measurement validation and linkage to group member performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 884–899. doi:10.1037/0021–9010.91.4.884
26.
JacksonE. M.JohnsonR. E. (2012). When opposites do (and do not) attract: Interplay of leader and follower self-identities and its consequences for leader-member exchange. The Leadership Quarterly, 23, 488–501. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.12.003
27.
JohnO. P.NaumannL. P.SotoC. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and conceptual issues. In JohnO. P.RobinsR. W.PervinL. A. (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 114–158). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
28.
JohnsonR. E.SelentaC.LordR. G. (2006). When organizational justice and the self-concept meet: Consequences for the organization and its members. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99, 175–201. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.07.005
29.
JudgeT. A.BonoJ. E.IliesR.GerhardtM. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 765–780. doi:10.1037/0021–9010.87.4.765
30.
KaiserH. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 141–151. doi:10.1177/001316446002000116
31.
KennyD. A.KaniskanB.McCoachD. B. (2011). The performance of RMSEA in models with small degrees of freedom [unpublished paper]. University of Connecticut.
32.
KrautR.OlsonJ.BanajiM.BruckmanA.CohenJ.CouperM. (2004). Psychological research online: Report of board of scientific affairs' advisory group on the conduct of research on the internet. American Psychologist, 59, 105–117. doi:10.1037/0003–066X.59.2.105
33.
MaelF.AshforthB. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 103–123. doi:10.1002/job.4030130202
34.
PodsakoffP. M.MacKenzieS. B.PodsakoffN. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 539–569. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-120710–100452
35.
R Core Team/ (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Retrieved from https://www.R-project.org/.
36.
RastD. E.III.HoggM. A.van KnippenbergD. (2018). Intergroup leadership across distinct subgroups and identities. Manuscript submitted for publication, University of Alberta, Edmonton.
37.
RichterA. W.ScullyJ. W.WestM. A. (2005). Intergroup conflict and intergroup effectiveness in organizations: Theory and scale development. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 14, 177–203. doi:10.1080/13594320444000263
38.
RichterA. W.WestM. A.Van DickR.DawsonJ. F. (2006). Boundary spanners’ identification, intergroup contact, and effective intergroup relations. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 1252–1269. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2006.23478720
39.
RosseelY. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48, 1–36. doi:10.18637/jss.v048.i02
40.
ShufflerM. L.Jiménez-RodríguezM.KramerW. S. (2015). The science of multiteam systems: A review and future research agenda. Small Group Research, 46, 659–699. doi:10.1177/1046496415603455
41.
SingelisT. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 580–591. doi:10.1177/0146167294205014
42.
SlussD. M.AshforthB. E. (2007). Relational identity and identification: Defining ourselves through work relationships. Academy of Management Review, 32, 9–32. doi:10.5465/AMR.2007.23463672
43.
SlussD. M.AshforthB. E. (2008). How relational and organizational identification converge: Processes and conditions. Organization Science, 19, 807–823. doi:10.1287/orsc.1070.0349
44.
van KnippenbergD. (2003). Intergroup relations in organizations. In WestM.TjosvoldD.SmithK. G. (Eds.), International handbook of organizational teamwork and cooperative working, (pp. 381–399). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
45.
van KnippenbergD.van KnippenbergB.De CremerD.HoggM. A. (2004). Leadership, self, and identity: A review and research agenda. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 825–856. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.09.002
46.
YzerbytV.DemoulinS. (2010). Intergroup relations: The context. In FiskeS. T.GilbertD. T.LindzeyG. (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (5th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 1024–1083). New York, NY: Wiley.
47.
ZaccaroS. J.MarksM. A.DeChurchL. (Eds.). (2012). Multiteam systems: An organization form for dynamic and complex environments. New York, NY: Routledge.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
