Implications of Individualist Bias in Social Identity Theory for Cross-Cultural Organizational Psychology

Abstract

Social Identity Theory ( SIT) as used in cross-cultural organizational psychology (CCOP) shows individualistic biases by envisioning an autonomous person whose culture supports temporary, largely independent, and readily interchangeable relationships with multiple categorical groups, organizations, and other collectives. We seek to reduce these biases in CCOP by drawing from recent social psychological analyses, notably Motivated Identity Construction Theory, that have refined identity theory’s original principles. To make a broad range of organizational applications, we rely heavily on our cross-cultural psychology audience’s familiarity with basic SIT topics and controversies by discussing them quite briefly. We apply such refinements to theories about correlates of organizational identification (OI) measures, interpretive OI theorizing, and an intrapersonal network approach to OI. We conclude by extending these refinements to other constructs linking individuals to organizations: organizational commitment, attachments to organization groups and components, and roles and norms.

Stay or not to Stay: An Analysis of Diversity Management and Abusive Leadership Relationship with Turnover Intention

“…The process of intergroup comparison is seen as a vital factor in the formation of ingroup identity (Rather, 2017). Conversely, collectivist values such as cooperative behavior and promoting harmonious relationships with group members are often highlighted in Asian contexts (Peterson & Stewart, 2020). The conservation of resources (COR) theory is a valuable framework for comprehending the association between turnover intentions and abusive supervision (Hobfoll & Freedy, 2018).…”

COVID-19 Pandemicand Xenophobia: Case Studies Based on Social Theories

“…As discussed above, Identification in collectivist societies can be destroyed because an outgroup can become integral to some collectivist in-group identities (Peterson & Stewart, 2020). SIT has tried to explain intergroup relations as a way of the attitudes and behavior of individual human beings are influenced by their identification as members of social groups (Ward, 2017).…”

When too much adjustment is bad: A curvilinear relationship between expatriates’ adjustment and social changes in HCNs

“…We use social identity theory to hypothesize that when expatriates are at an initial level of interaction adjustment in a host unit, their adjustment leads to stability in their communication with HCNs, brings the two groups closer and develops HCNs' trust in expatriates. Some recent literature guides that initiation of social relations among individuals leads to trust and raises expectations towards each other (Peterson & Stewart, 2020). However, the presence of too much trust and reliance is likely to change the nature of trust-based relationships over time (Rotenberg, 2019).…”

“…The dynamic social identity theory further guides that frequent interactions among diverse groups allow members to make predictions about beliefs and comfort zone of others (Honeycutt et al, 1983). Moreover, it leads to the development of a comprehensive understanding of each other's weaknesses and strengths (Peterson & Stewart, 2020;Wise, 2014). Using the social identity theory, it is argued that too much understanding about each other help individuals in clearly recognizing the differences between two social groups and in developing a deeper knowledge of vision of the other groups (Lincoln, 2000).…”