01van knippenberg (ds) 28/6/01 8:39 am Page 185
Group Processes &
Editorial: Social Identity
Processes in
Organizations
Daan van Knippenberg
University of Amsterdam
Michael A. Hogg
University of Queensland
T H I S special issue is based on a three-day con-
ference held in Amsterdam in early July 2000,
under the European Association of Experi-
mental Social Psychology’s Small Group
Meeting scheme. The conference brought
together social psychologists, organizational psy-
chologists, and scholars from business schools
from around the world to present and discuss
their work on social identity processes in
organizations.
Since its inception in the early 1970s (e.g.
Tajfel, 1972), social identity theory has had a
major impact on the way that social psycholo-
gists think about and do research on group pro-
cesses and intergroup relations. For instance, a
number of recent publications have attributed a
significant role to social identity theory in the
recent revival of interest among social psycholo-
gists in group processes (e.g. Abrams & Hogg,
1998; Moreland, Hogg, & Hains, 1994). Social
identity theory has, however, mainly focused on
intergroup phenomena in the context of large
scale social categories and demographic groups,
and has paid rather less attention to small
groups and intragroup phenomena. With some
important exceptions (e.g. Brown, 1978; Brown,
Condor, Mathews, Wade, & Williams, 1986), this
emphasis has tended to steer social identity
Downloaded from gpi.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
G
Intergroup Relations
2001 Vol 4(3) 185–189
P
I
R
researchers away from the study of organizations
– and yet organizations provide an extraordi-
narily rich canvas for the study of social identity
processes.
Recently, all this has changed. Over the last
five years or so, social identity researchers have
increasingly applied social identity principles to
organizational contexts and in turn have discov-
ered that this exercise raises fundamental con-
ceptual questions concerning social identity
processes (see Hogg & Terry, 2000). This new
development has generated substantial activity.
There are a number of general monographs and
edited books (e.g. Haslam, 2001; Haslam, van
Knippenberg, Platow, & Ellemers, in prep.;
Hogg & Terry, 2001; Tyler & Blader, 2000), and
many articles and chapters on issues such as
mergers and acquisitions (e.g. Terry & Callan,
1998; van Knippenberg, van Knippenberg,
Author’s note
Address correspondence to Daan van Knippen-
berg, University of Amsterdam, Work &
Organizational Psychology, Roetersstraat 15,
1018 WB Amsterdam, The Netherlands [email:
ao_vanKnippenberg@macmail.psy.uva.nl]
Copyright © 2001 SAGE Publications
(London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi)
[1368-4302(200107)4:3; 185–189; 017493]
01van knippenberg (ds) 28/6/01 8:39 am Page 186
Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 4(3)
Monden, & de Lima, in press), leadership (e.g.
Hogg, in press; Hogg, Hains, & Mason, 1998),
group performance (e.g. Haslam, Powell, &
Turner, 2000; van Knippenberg, 2000), diversity
(e.g. Brewer, 1995), cooperation and prosocial
behavior (e.g. Tyler, 1999), and employee
turnover (Abrams, Ando, & Hinkle, 1998).
In contrast to social identity theorists’ rather
slow engagement with organizational contexts,
organizational scientists have been very quick
to find a role for social identity processes in the
explication of organizational behaviors – a
development engendered by the now classic
1989 paper by Ashforth and Mael, which intro-
duced social identity theory to organizational
scientists. There have been a large number of
social identity publications in the organiz-
ational literature focusing on similar issues to
those above (e.g. Dutton, Dukerich, & Har-
quail, 1994; Mael & Ashforth, 1992, 1995; Pratt,
1998; Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993; Tsui,
Egan, & O’Reilly, 1992; see also the 2000 special
issue of Academy of Management Review on
organizational identity and organizational
identification).
What is quite surprising, given this conver-
gence, is that there has actually been very little
engagement between social identity researchers
who study organizational contexts, and organiz-
ational scientists who employ social identity con-
cepts. For instance it is very rare to find these
two groups publishing in the same forums (but
see the 2000 Academy of Management Review
special issue) or co-authoring research. One
drawback of this insulation is that social identity
theorists do not benefit as much as they might
from the organizational literature, and organiz-
ational scientists have been somewhat isolated
from recent social cognitive developments in
the social identity approach. This special issue,
and the conference on which it is based, is part
of an attempt to draw closer together social psy-
chologists and organizational scientists who
work at the interface of social identity concepts
and organizational processes.
As mentioned above, research on social iden-
tity processes in organizations focuses on a wide
range of topics. The articles in this special issue
capture a significant subset of these topics.
186
Downloaded from gpi.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
Haslam and his associates focus on one of the
major topics in contemporar y leadership
research: charismatic (or transformational)
leadership. Building on previous research
showing that attributions of charisma are more
likely when the organization’s success increases
while the leader is in office, they present a theor-
etical and empirical analysis suggesting that
these attributions of charisma are moderated by
the extent to which the leader is seen to affirm
or negate the ingroup identity.
Tyler and Blader highlight identity concerns
as determinants of cooperative behavior in
groups and organizations. They contrast identity
concerns regarding pride (status of the group)
and respect (status as a group member) with
more instrumental concerns as determinants of
cooperative behavior and provide evidence that
these identity concerns are more strongly
related to cooperative behaviors and attitudes
toward the organization than instrumental con-
cerns are.
Postmes, Tanis, and de Wit study the relation-
ship between communication and commitment.
They distinguish vertical communication
(between management and subordinates) from
horizontal communication (among colleagues
at the same level in an organization). On the
basis of the social identity theory distinction
between interpersonal and group membership-
based relationships, they predict and find that
vertical communication is a stronger predictor
of commitment than is horizontal communi-
cation.
Addressing two important issues in contem-
porar y leadership research, Martin and
Epitropaki study perceptions of transactional
and transformational leadership, as they are
affected by the interplay of organizational
identification and Implicit Leadership
Theories. They propose that employees whose
organizational identification is relatively low are
more likely to have perceptions of their actual
leader’s behavior that are biased by their
Implicit Leadership Theories. Martin and
Epitropaki present evidence in support of this
proposition.
Nauta, de Vries, and Wijngaard explore inter-
group biases in people’s perceptions of how
01van knippenberg (ds) 28/6/01 8:39 am Page 187
their own and other departments conduct
negotiations. They focus on negotiations
between sales and planning departments in an
organization, and pay particular attention to
the role played by interdepartmental power
differences.
Also focusing on intergroup relations in
organizations, but from a different angle, Terry
and O’Brien study the relation between low and
high status partners in a merger. As predicted,
employees of the low status partner responded
more negatively to the merger. This relationship
was moderated by the perceived legitimacy of
the intergroup status differences, and this inter-
action was mediated by the perception of a
common superordinate identity.
These studies all underscore the observation
that the study of social identity processes in
organizations raises important theoretical ques-
tions. The study of intergroup relations within
organizations, for instance, provides a context in
which the superordinate group membership in
which these organizational groups are embed-
ded (i.e. the organization as a whole) is more
salient than is usually the case in studies of the
relationship between societal groups or ad hoc
lab groups. As a consequence, the study of inter-
group relations in organizations raises import-
ant questions about the relationship between
sub-groups and the superordinate social cat-
egory, and how this relationship may shape sub-
ordinate and superordinate identification (van
Knippenberg & van Leeuwen, 2001) and inter-
group relations (Hornsey & Hogg, 2000). In a
similar vein, the hierarchical structure that is
inherent in organizations, not only between
groups but also, and especially, within groups,
introduces leadership as a core issue in research
on social identity processes in organizations.
This has contributed to the growing interest in
leadership processes and social identity (e.g.
Haslam & Platow, in press; Hogg, in press). As a
last example, the fact that probably all formal
groups in organizations are task groups has
brought group goals and group performance to
the center of social identity researchers’ atten-
tion (e.g. Haslam, 2001; van Knippenberg,
2000).
The study of social identity processes in
Downloaded from gpi.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
van Knippenberg & Hogg editorial
organizations thus has important potential not
only for our understanding of organizational
behavior, but also for the theoretical develop-
ment of the social identity approach as a frame-
work for the study of group processes and
intergroup relations. To realize this potential, it
is essential that social psychologists and organiz-
ational scientists create shared forums for the
exchange of ideas and the presentation and dis-
cussion of their research and seek opportunities
for collaborative research projects to a greater
extent than is now the case. This will not only be
to the benefit of the applied and theoretical
value of these research projects, but may also
work to integrate social psychological and
organizational psychological perspectives on
issues of shared interest such as identification
and commitment, leadership, and group per-
formance.
References
Abrams, D., Ando, K., & Hinkle, S. (1998).
Psychological attachment to the group: Cross-
cultural differences in organizational
identification and subjective norms as predictors
of workers’ turnover intentions. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 1027–1039.
Abrams, D., & Hogg, M. A. (1998). Prospects for
research in group processes and intergroup
relations. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 1,
7–20.
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity
theory and the organization. Academy of
Management Review, 14, 20–39.
Brewer, M. B. (1995). Managing diversity: The role of
social identities. In S. Jackson & M. Ruderman
(Eds.), Diversity in work teams: Research paradigms for
a changing workplace (pp. 47–68). New York:
American Psychological Association.
Brown, R., Condor, S., Mathews, A., Wade, G., &
Williams, J. (1986). Explaining intergroup
differentiation in an industrial organization.
Journal of Occupational Psychology, 59, 273–286.
Brown, R. J. (1978). Divided we fall: An analysis of
relations between sections of a factory workforce.
In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation between social
groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup
relations (pp. 395–429). London: Academic Press.
Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V. (1994).
Organizational images and member identification.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 239–263.
187
01van knippenberg (ds) 28/6/01 8:39 am Page 188
Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 4(3)
Haslam, S. A. (2001). Psychology in organizations: The
social identity approach. London: Sage.
Haslam, S. A., & Platow, M. J. (in press). Social
identity and the link between leadership and
followership: How affirming an ingroup identity
translates personal vision into group action.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.
Haslam, S. A., Powell, C., & Turner, J. C. (2000).
Social identity, self-categorization and work
motivation: Rethinking the contribution of the
group to positive and sustainable organizational
outcomes. Applied Psychology: An International
Review, 49, 319–339.
Haslam, S. A., van Knippenberg, D., Platow, M. J., &
Ellemers, N. (Eds.). (in prep.). Social identity at
work: Developing theory for organizational practice.
Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
Hogg, M. A. (in press). A social identity theory of
leadership. Personality and Social Psychology Review.
Hogg, M. A., Hains, S. C., & Mason, I. (1998).
Identification and leadership in small groups:
Salience, frame of reference, and leader
stereotypicality effects on leader evaluations.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75,
1248–1263.
Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (2000). Social identity
and self-categorization processes in organizational
contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25,
121–140.
Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (2001). Social identity
processes in organizational contexts. Philadelphia, PA:
Psychology Press.
Hornsey, M. J., & Hogg, M. A. (2000). Assimilation
and diversity: An integrative model of subgroup
relations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4,
143–156.
Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their
alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated
model of organizational identification. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 13, 103–123.
Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1995). Loyal from day
one: Biodata, organizational identification, and
turnover among newcomers. Personnel Psychology,
48, 309–333.
Moreland, R. L., Hogg, M. A., & Hains, S. C. (1994).
Back to the future: Social psychological research
on groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
30, 527–555.
Pratt, M. G. (1998). To be or not to be? Central
questions in organizational identification. In D. A.
Whetten & P. C. Godfrey (Eds.), Identity in
organizations: Building theory through conversations.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
188
Downloaded from gpi.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The
motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A
self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4,
577–594.
Tajfel, H. (1972). Social categorization. English
manuscript of ‘La catégorisation sociale’. In S.
Moscovici (Ed.), Introduction à la Psychologie Sociale
(Vol. 1, pp. 272–302). Paris: Larousse.
Terry, D. J., & Callan, V. J. (1998). In-group bias in
response to an organizational merger. Group
Dynamics, 2, 67–81.
Tsui, A., Egan, T., & O’Reilly, C. (1992). Being
different: Relational demography and
organizational attachment. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 37, 549–579.
Tyler, T. R. (1999). Why people cooperate with
organizations: An identity-based perspective.
Research in Organizational Behavior, 21, 201–246.
Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2000). Cooperation in
groups. Procedural justice, social identity, and behavioral
engagement. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
van Knippenberg, D. (2000). Work motivation and
performance: A social identity perspective. Applied
Psychology: An International Review, 49, 357–371.
van Knippenberg, D., van Knippenberg, B., Monden,
L., & de Lima, F. (in press). Organizational
identification after a merger: A social identity
perspective. British Journal of Social Psychology.
van Knippenberg, D., & van Leeuwen, E. (2001).
Organizational identity after a merger: Sense of
continuity as the key to post-merger identification.
In M. A. Hogg & D. J. Terry (Eds.), Social identity
processes in organizational contexts. Philadelphia, PA:
Psychology Press.
Biographical notes
is an associate professor of
D A A N VA N K N I P P E N B E R G
organizational psychology at the University of
Amsterdam. His research interests are in social
identity processes in organizations, leadership,
individual and group decision making,
organizational justice, group performance, and
mergers and acquisitions. He is a former editor of
a Dutch organizational behavior journal and co-
editor (with Alexander Haslam, Michael Platow,
and Naomi Ellemers) of Social Identity at Work:
Developing Theory for Organizational Practice
(forthcoming) and (with Michael Hogg) Identity,
Leadership, and Power (forthcoming).
MICHAEL HOGG is professor of social psychology,
director of the Centre for Research on Group
01van knippenberg (ds) 28/6/01 8:39 am Page 189
Processes, and director of research for the Faculty
of Social and Behavioural Sciences at the
University of Queensland. He has published widely
on social identity and self-categorization theories,
and on topics in the social psychology of group
processes & intergroup relations. He is editor, with
Dominic Abrams, of the journal Group Processes &
Downloaded from gpi.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
van Knippenberg & Hogg editorial
Intergroup Relations, and series editor for Sage of
Essential Texts in Social Psychology. He is also editor,
with Joel Cooper, of the Sage Handbook of Social
Psychology (forthcoming) and has just edited, with
Scott Tindale, Blackwell Handbook of Social
Psychology: Group Processes (2001).
189