In-group or Out: combatting intragroup favoritism by understanding Social Identity Theory

 

What?

Diversification in leadership can be directly influenced by Social Identity Theory. Social Identity Theory, in a simplified definition, is the idea that human interactions are based on labels and our tendency to group ourselves based on these labels (Nkomo, 2010). These labels or classifications can be self-inflicted or placed by one individual onto another. Additionally, categorizations lead to and allow humans to place themselves into groups, some of which are based on identifiers that are visible; some of which are either self-identified or assumed. Social Identity Theory (SIT) has a third component, aside from the categorization and identification mentioned previously, which is comparison (Nkomo, 2010). Comparison is where perception can create competition between the in-group and the out-group, the group we belong to and the group we do not.

So What?

              In the categorizations of individuals into groups, especially subgroups of an organization for example, prototypes of a “normal” in-group member (Hogg, 2001). In a group of individuals, even with similarities, there are not two people who live completely identical lives. However, just as there is comparison between the in-group and the out-group, that can cause favoritism for one group and negative impacts to the other, there is an alternate way in which comparison impacts the in-group. Within the in-group, there will be a comparison of the members themselves, which is what leads to creating this ideal of a prototypical member (Hogg, 2001). These prototypical members set an example of sorts to which other members move to conform to (Hogg, 2001). These individuals may be perceived to be leaders, but it is not their actions that are creating influence over the members, merely the perception of them being a prototypical group member (Hogg, 2001). However, that is not to say that being a prototypical group member cannot lead to leadership opportunities; with increased likeability comes increased influences & decision making (Hogg, 2001). In every circumstance, a leader or potential leader may undergo an evaluation of their competence for leadership (Sewell, et al., 2022); these judgements are not always accurate or free of error but can be beneficial in analyzing someone’s true leadership capabilities versus likeability (Hogg, 2021). The merger to a collective social identity can escalate to detriment for out-group. That is why evaluating true leadership qualities is so valuable, in hopes of diversifying the pool of individuals that are appointed to leadership roles.

 

Now What?

              Considering the case study, perhaps Mark, being more of a prototypical group member, was cause for his peers not speaking up against his comments and remarks. Equally, I think the three students who did not speak up assessed the risk that felt would accompany speaking out and striving for a positive self-concept, especially as members of the out-group (Nkomo, 2010). Depending on the circumstances or the environment, we may all find ourselves in a scenario where we are the out-group or belonging to specific social groups may seem more prevalent at a given time.  I think it would be easy to say a way to combat this is to stop examining belonging through in-groups & out-groups, but I think this self-evaluation and compartmentalization is a mere part of our beings as humans. The part, I would say, that is or should be combatable is deciding what is in and what is out. Diversity in leadership inherently combats this by acknowledging where there are differences. In diversifying the people at the table, there is an opportunity to create new groups. This is where my own leadership responsibilities lie. As a 4-H agent, it is a part of my duty to show youth opportunities to find their own tables. Understanding how they may be comparing themselves and others, and placing everyone into boxes based on visible and assumed identifiers, means that I must integrate class concepts into programming efforts to effectively counteract these groupings. Beyond that, my understanding that not all competition between groups is a negative makes it my responsibility to show youth that I work with how to differentiate between harmless, friendly competition & harmful aggression (Nkomo, 2010). As a leader, I read case studies such as Mark and Maria’s, and work within my programs to combat an environment where these conflicts must occur and where individuals find it acceptable to use their position to be derogatory towards another or their power to discourage belonging. I will create a program that is a place for all youth in my community and encourage collaboration and cooperation despite differences, inherent and otherwise.

 

 

                                                                         

                                                                            References

Hogg, M. A. (2001). A Social Identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(3), 184–200. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0503_1

Nkomo, S.M. (2010, April). Social Identity: Understanding the In-Group/Out-group phenomenon. In Leader Across Differences (pp.73-79)

Sewell, D. K., Ballard, T., & Steffens, N. K. (2022). Exemplifying “US”: Integrating Social Identity Theory of leadership with cognitive models of categorization. The Leadership Quarterly, 33(4), 101517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2021.101517