Understanding the Development of Team Identification: A Qualitative Study in UN Peacebuilding Teams

Abstract

Purpose The goal of our study was to scrutinize the psychological processes that occur in individuals when developing identification with a highly diverse team. Design/Methodology/Approach A qualitative, theorygenerating approach following the principles of grounded theory was chosen as research design. Data were obtained from 63 personal interviews with members of seven UN peacebuilding teams in Liberia and Haiti. These teams were particularly well suited for analyzing the dynamics of identification processes as they constitute extreme cases with respect to team members' identity diversity. Findings Our analysis reveals four different processes that occur as individuals develop team identification (TI): enacting a salient identity, sensemaking about team experience, evaluating collective team outcomes, and converging identity. Implications We can show that team members engage in both individual-and collective-directed sensemaking processes during TI development, thereby using internal (i.e., other team members) and external points of reference (i.e., team-external actors) for ingroup/outgroup comparisons. Moreover, our study reveals different modes of identity convergence (i.e., active, reactive, and withdrawal) which are associated with different types of TI (i.e., deep-structured TI, situated TI, and disidentification). Originality/Value Although team members' identification with their workgroup has long been considered important for effective team functioning, knowledge about its development has remained limited and largely without empirical footing from a real-world team context. Our study represents the first empirical attempt to inductively identify the processes that occur in individuals as they develop TI.

Work Group Inclusion: Test of a Scale and Model

“…This is consistent with a core theme in diversity research, which shows that, when women and disadvantaged racial-ethnic groups are in the numerical minority (and hence, unique relative to the work group or organization), a positive diversity climate (Gonzalez & DeNisi, 2009) or other indicators that the organization is providing an identity-safe environment can facilitate retention (Hall, Schmader, Aday, Inness, & Croft, 2018). Past research has emphasized how creating team identification (a belongingness construct) is critical for realizing positive outcomes in diverse teams (Huetterman, Doering, & Boerner, 2017). We suggest that uniqueness is also an important quality to realize not only work group inclusion but also retention and performance-related outcomes.…”

The Value of Speaking for “Us”: the Relationship Between CEOs’ Use of I- and We-Referencing Language and Subsequent Organizational Performance

“…At the same time, scholars have asserted that successful leaders do not simply accept received social identities as given but instead actively seek to create and promote a particular version of group identity (Augoustinos and de Garis 2012;Huettermann et al 2017;Reicher et al 2005;Reicher and Hopkins 2001). In other words, "leaders have to be masters of identity, not merely slaves to it" (Haslam et al 2011, p. 162).…”

“…Indeed, this idea is underscored by the fact that the most widely used organizational identification scale-developed in the seminal work by Mael and Ashforth (1992)-includes the item: "When I speak about [group under study], I usually say 'we' rather than 'they'". In line with these ideas, we argue that there is likely to be a dual process at play such that leaders' use of we-referencing language serves both (a) to be an indication of, and signal, the leader's own social identification with the collective (Mael and Ashforth 1992;Rousseau 1998) and (b) to create a shared sense of identity among those they lead and to clarify who we are, what we stand for, and who we want to be in the future (Haslam et al 2011;Huettermann et al 2017;Riantoputra 2010). These in turn should inspire identification among members of the organization (Schuh et al 2012;van Dick et al 2007;Wieseke et al 2009) as well as mobilize members' behavior towards a common goal (Haslam and Reicher 2007).…”

How Cooperation Reinforces Conflict Over Time

“…For instance, disidentification may develop through being invalidated by others, followed by a distortion of information, cognitive simplifications, overly polarizing stereotypes, and conflict (Fiol et al, 2009). One of the consequences of such disidentification from specific groups is a regression toward strengthening ties with other groups (Huettermann et al, 2017). In contrast to these negative views on disidentification, literature also highlights important positive effects.…”

“…When subgroups disidentify from other subgroups, literature often emphasizes the disruptive effect of disidentification. For instance, one of the consequences of disidentifying from specific groups may be reversing to and strengthening ties with other groups (Huettermann et al, 2017) and can involve strong emotions such as hatred, pride, and fear (Fiol et al, 2009).…”