Naomi Ellemers

Motivating Individuals and Groups at Work: A Social Identity Perspective on Leadership and Group Performance

We argue that additional understanding of work motivation can be gained by incorporating current insights concerning self-categorization and social identity processes and by examining the way in which these processes influence the motivation and behavior of individuals and groups at work. This theoretical perspective that focuses on the conditions determining different self-definitions allows us to show how individual and group processes interact to determine work motivation. To illustrate the added value of this approach, we develop some specific propositions concerning motivational processes underpinning leadership and group performance.

The Influence of Socio-structural Variables on Identity Management Strategies

This chapter attempts to provide empirical support for some of the key predictions of social identity theory. This theory not only describes the psychological processes underlying the desire to establish positive social identity, it also identifies antecedent conditions to the use of different options to improve ones status position. On the basis of the theoretical statements provided by social identity theory, a research programme, designed to investigate conditions under which group members would be inclined to pursue status improvement individually or as a group, was set up. A theoretical analysis implies that status structures can be characterized with a limited number of variables and that such socio-structural variables are likely to be important determinants of peoples preference to display individualist or collectivist behaviour when striving for higher status. The main variables in this respect seem to be: (1) the relative status position of ones group; (2) the permeability of group boundaries...

Stereotype content model across cultures: Towards universal similarities and some differences

The stereotype content model (SCM) proposes potentially universal principles of societal stereotypes and their relation to social structure. Here, the SCM reveals theoretically grounded, cross-cultural, cross-groups similarities and one difference across 10 non-US nations. Seven European (individualist) and three East Asian (collectivist) nations (N=1,028) support three hypothesized cross-cultural similarities: (a) perceived warmth and competence reliably differentiate societal group stereotypes; (b) many out-groups receive ambivalent stereotypes (high on one dimension; low on the other); and (c) high status groups stereotypically are competent, whereas competitive groups stereotypically lack warmth. Data uncover one consequential cross-cultural difference: (d) the more collectivist cultures do not locate reference groups (in-groups and societal prototype groups) in the most positive cluster (high-competence/high-warmth), unlike individualist cultures. This demonstrates out-group derogation without obvious reference-group favouritism. The SCM can serve as a pancultural tool for predicting group stereotypes from structural relations with other groups in society, and comparing across societies.

Group virtue: The importance of morality (vs. competence and sociability) in the positive evaluation of in-groups.

Although previous research has focused on competence and sociability as the characteristics most important to positive group evaluation, the authors suggest that morality is more important. Studies with preexisting and experimentally created in-groups showed that a set of positive traits constituted distinct factors of morality, competence, and sociability. When asked directly, Study 1 participants reported that their in-groups morality was more important than its competence or sociability. An unobtrusive factor analytic method also showed morality to be a more important explanation of positive in-group evaluation than competence or sociability. Experimental manipulations of morality and competence (Study 4) and morality and sociability (Study 5) showed that only in-group morality affected aspects of the group-level self-concept related to positive evaluation (i.e., pride in, or distancing from, the in-group). Consistent with this finding, identification with experimentally created (Study 2b) and preexisting (Studies 4 and 5) in-groups predicted the ascription of morality, but not competence or sociability, to the in-group.

Career-oriented versus team-oriented commitment and behavior at work

Among a representative sample of the Dutch population (Study 1: N = 690), careeroriented and team-oriented commitment were assessed, in addition to affective organizational commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1991). Confirmatory factor analysis supported the proposed distinction between the 2 specific forms of commitment at the measurement level. Furthermore, the construct validity of team-oriented and career-oriented commitment as well as their differential implications were corroborated by self-reports of workrelated behavior 1 year later. The distinction between career-oriented and team-oriented commitment was then cross-validated in a 2nd study, among employees of a financial service organization in Belgium (TV = 287), in which the constructs proved to be not only differentially related to self-reported behavior at work, but also predictive of performance ratings by superiors. The aim of the present study was to develop and validate a measure to distinguish career-oriented from teamoriented work commitment. We intended to examine whether these specific forms of commitment could be distinguished from each other at the measurement level and to investigate whether they were differentially related to self-reported as well as externally assessed indexes of work-related behavior. We first present results from a representative sample of the Dutch working population, relating measures of commitment taken at Time 1 to selfreported behavior at Time 2 (Study 1). Subsequently, we cross-validated and extended our findings by examining whether similar results would be obtained when self-reported commitment scores were related to external assessments of performance, with an independent sample consisting of employees of a financial service organization in Belgium (Study 2). In organizational theory and research, attempts to predict the behavior of individual workers in organizations have focused on organizational commitment as a crucial

How work and family can facilitate each other: Distinct types of work-family facilitation and outcomes for women and men.

This study was designed to gain more insight in the different ways in which work and family roles can benefit each other. Both qualitative (N=25) and quantitative (N=352) results obtained in a financial service organization supported the distinction between energy-based, time-based, behavioral, and psychological work-family facilitation, in addition to different types of work-family conflict that were identified in previous research. As expected, facilitation contributed substantially and differentially to the prediction of work and nonwork outcomes, over and above the effects of conflict. As predicted, women experienced higher levels of facilitation than men did. Furthermore, results indicate that examining facilitation, in addition to conflict, is especially important to predict the work and home life experiences of women.

The underrepresentation of women in science: Differential commitment or the queen bee syndrome?

We examined possible explanations for the underrepresentation of women among university faculty, in two different national contexts. In the Netherlands, a sample of doctoral students (N = 132) revealed no gender differences in work commitment or work satisfaction. Faculty members in the same university (N = 179), however, perceived female students to be less committed to their work and female faculty endorsed these gender-stereotypical perceptions most strongly. A second study, in Italy, replicated and extended these findings. Again, no gender differences were obtained in the self-descriptions of male and female doctoral students (N = 80), while especially the female faculty (N = 93) perceived female students as less committed to their work than male students. Additional measures supported an explanation in social identity terms, according to which individual upward mobility (i.e. of female faculty) implies distancing the self from the group stereotype which not only involves perceiving the self as a non-prototypical group member, but may also elicit stereotypical views of other in-group members.

Social identity as both cause and effect: The development of group identification in response to anticipated and actual changes in the intergroup status hierarchy

This study investigates how in-group identification develops during group interaction and forms a dynamic input and output that changes over time. Phase 1 of the study shows how initial level of identification in combination with anticipated changes in the intergroup status hierarchy, predicts subsequent levels of identification. Whereas low identifiers only express solidarity with their group to the extent that the improvement of group status constitutes a likely prospect, high identifiers maintain commitment even if their group faces an uncertain or bleak future. During Phase 2 of the study, it is shown how low and high identifiers respond differently to actual changes in the intergroup status structure. Overall, low identifiers seem more instrumental than high identifiers, in the sense that the former are only prepared to affirm identification with a low status group when status improvement is imminent, or has actually been realized. These results are discussed with reference to social identity theory.

Being different or being better? National stereotypes and identifications of Polish and Dutch students

This paper investigates two theoretical statements that are central to Social Identity Theory and Self-Categorization Theory: (1) when people identify as members of a social group, they are motivated to distinguish this group in a positive sense from relevant comparison groups, and: (2) in an hierarchically organized system of possible social identities, people may define their identity at various levels, but two levels cannot be salient in the same situation. Four studies investigate whether these hypothesized processes can be traced in natural social categories. Study 1 (N=150) found that Polish subjects had a more negative national stereotype than Dutch subjects. Study 2 (N=160) investigated whether these national stereotypes were related to the perceived distinctiveness of national traits, and to differential levels of national and European identification for Polish and Dutch subjects. Contrary to the expectations, it was found that Polish subjects identified more strongly with their national group than Dutch subjects. Both positive and negative national traits were considered more distinctive by Polish subjects than by Dutch subjects. Moreoever, Polish subjects expressed stronger European identity than Dutch subjects. Study 3 (N=161) replicated the findings of Study 2 under more controlled conditions. The Polish national stereotype was found to be largely based on negatively evaluated traits, and Polish subjects were more motivated to accentuate the distinctiveness of their national traits than Dutch subjects. Again, Polish subjects displayed stronger national and European identities. Further-more, no support was found for the expectation that Polish subjects would employ some self-protective strategy when such an opportunity was offered in this study. Similarly, in Study 4 (N=40) we found no evidence that Polish subjects utilized an alternative self-protective mechanism, namely ‘group-serving’ attributions, by means of which negative national traits could be ascribed to external circumstances. The results of these four studies are discussed in relation to Social Identity Theory, Self-Categorization Theory and political/historical developments in Europe.

Intragroup and Intergroup Evaluation Effects on Group Behavior

Groups differ in the prestige they are accorded by outgroups, and individuals differ in how much respect they receive from their group. The authors orthogonally varied both types of social evaluation—intergroup and intragroup—to assess their joint effects on reward allocations and the amount of time donated to work on a group activity that could satisfy either personal or group goals. Respected members of a devalued group were the most inclined to withhold rewards from the outgroup, and they donated the greatest amount of time to improve the ingroup’s image rather than their personal image. Disrespected members of a prestigious group did not favor the ingroup over the outgroup in reward allocations, and they invested in a group activity only if they might improve their personal image by doing so. The authors discuss why intragroup respect is particularly important for devalued group members.