Workplace groups create their own
values over time through social and economic associations that can damage the
efficiency and financial viability of any organization. When organizations
develop their own group standards, that lay in productive and accurate
perceptions, their premises can encourage higher levels of organizational performance.
Inappropriately socialized members often develop their own groups which
influence the organizational culture and costs of transactions throughout their
networks. Left untouched the groups’
decisions become less logical and more damaging to the financial success of the
total organization. It is important for executives to understand how they
groups form and the potential wide reaching problems they can create.
It is first beneficial to define what
a group is. Groups perceive themselves as belonging to the same social unit (Lawler,
Thye, and Yoon 2008). Their place in society is defined by their shared
experiences and understandings. To change a group member’s identity and perceived
station in life requires the ability to change both self-perception and the
members of their social group. This is one of the reasons why a poor organizational
culture can be improved by moving employees to new locations and bringing in fresh
members with outside perceptions.
When members see themselves as part of a group they
begin to view each other as having similar characteristics and traits that bind
them together. The group is a method of moderating self-interest and seeking
positive perceptions of each other (Ellemers, Spears, and Doosje, 1997). Once
initiated into a group, the members begin to view each other as more worthwhile
and having more positive traits than those who exist outside the group. Within an organization, in and out-group
mentality can create encampment, hoarding of resources, and influence the
financial success of the entire organization through poor decision making.
This can be expected as groups seek to create
advantages for their individual members at the exclusion of competing
organizational interests. They do this through the formation of a group network
that continues to expand throughout the organization. According to Thye, Lawler
and Yoon actors a) perceive the network as a group; and , b) share rewards and resources with each
other when opportunities arise (2011). Such
networks will continue to seek additional rewards and resources even at the
expense of their employer and society.
Within the group certain behaviors will produce
certain reactions and results from participating members. As long as these
behaviors continue to produce the expected results the group members will remain
entrusted to each other. The actions that become dependent on the response from
other members are called social exchanges (Blau 1964). Groups live and breed these
social exchanges and common rules of engagement. Outside intervention by
managers and investors can be resented creating difficulty and passive
resistance to requested changes.
Since such groups have social, as
well as economic purposes, they create higher forms of identity the more these
needs are gratified. Such relational commitment further solidifies the identity
of group members which separates them from other groups (Cook and Emerson, 1984).
Each group has their own relational commitment assumptions that help them
define their distinct identities and existence. Outsiders may have difficulty
understanding the unique set of underlining assumptions the group is using to
define their identity and social interaction.
Over time the group becomes so
distinct that their identity creates new realities of perceiving the world.
According to social constructionists the group eventually uses their assumptions
to create “objective” perceptions of the world (Berger and Luckmann 1966). The person is thus fully embedded in the group
and therefore sees their existence from the vantage point of the group assumptions
and uses these assumptions to judge others and make strategic decisions. Any
management team, new executive, or consulting firm is seen as an outsider
attempting to intrude upon the groups identity which damages self-identity.
This is one reason why outside intervention is often staunchly opposed.
Such similarity in subjective
truth can define “stickiness” in economic decisions that are weighted and
judged against societal norms. Independent objective thought becomes more
difficult the more people define themselves based upon their distorted group
identity. Such relational identities impact both the sociological and economic
transactions of the members (Emerson 1981). Having two different economic
approaches within an organization can damage that organizational viability
through waste and inefficiency that is rooted in inappropriate premises.
At times the group identity can
be so far removed from organizational and societal norms that they run counter
to these wider expectations. Socially embedded market transactions can defy
rational thought and logic (DiMaggio and Louch 1998). Such logic creates their
own market influence based upon information sharing and thought patterns of
members who interpret environment actions from a skewed lens. Changing the
group identity and thought patterns requires exposing them to new people,
methods of needs attainment, and ways of thinking.
Group identity can either
encourage productive behavior or be destructive by nature. In organizations
group identity that is stronger than organizational norms should concern both
executives and investors. Such networks continue to expand their influence and
waste of organizational resources by financially and socially feeding group
members at the expense of more logical choices. It is through the development
of strong cultural assumptions and organizational identity that more effective
uses of organizational resources can be achieved.
Berger, P. and Luckmann, T. (1966).
The Social Construction of Reality.
New
York: Doubleday.
Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and Power in Social Life. New
York: John Wiley.
DiMaggio, P. and Louch, H. (1998).
Socially Embedded Consumer Transactions:
For What Kinds of Purchases Do
People Most Often Use Networks? American Sociological
Review 63:619–37.
Ellemers, N., Spears, R. and Doosje,
B. (1997). Sticking Together or Falling Apart: In-group Identification as a
Psychological Determinant of Group Commitment versus Individual Mobility.
Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology 72:617–26.
Emerson, R. (1981). Social Exchange Theory. pp. 30–65 in
Social Psychology: Sociological Perspectives, edited by M. Rosenberg and R. H.
Turner. New
York: Basic Books, Inc.
Cook, K. and Emerson, R. (1978) Power,
Equity, and Commitment in Exchange Networks. American Sociological Review 43:721–39.
Lawler, E., Thye, S, & Yoon,
J. (2008). Social Exchange and Micro Social Order. American
Sociological
Review 73:519–42.
Thye, S., Lawler, E. & Yoon, J. (2011). The
emergence of embedded relations and group formation in networks of competition.
Social Psychology Quarterly, 74 (4).
