A Concept of Positive and Negative Social Identity - Essay Example

As a comprehensive insight that thoroughly explicates upon the complexity of the human psyche, the implications ofthe social identity theory are valuable in exploring how intergroup affiliations that are rooted in various reasons can aid the development and communication of human beings as they react to being a part of a particular group. Thus, the social identity theory, in its very core can be viewed as a bridge between the individual and the wider society that certainly sheds light upon the complexities of human associations and relationships, whether these relationships are deemed as positive or negative. According to Ellemers, Spears and Doosje (2002), the construct of social identity is closely related with the self because the notions of social roles and social interactions are present within the realm of an individual’s perception and how he/she wishes to process a specific scenario or situation. Additionally, when the idea that the self is a pivotal force in the creation of one’s social identity is highlighted through the means of concurrent interindividual processes it is also important to establish the fact that the creation of the self is reliant upon group processes as well, such that the influence of one phenomenon cannot be isolated from the other in a given scenario. With regard to this observation, Ellemers, Spears and Doosje (2002) postulate that it is only fair to state that group processes and group affiliations indeed hold the capability to impact how an individual’s self is developed, shaped and nurtured throughout a given period of time. While, the preceding discussion emphasizes upon the notion that social identity theory is essentially a descriptive reflection upon the dynamics of human beings, it also establishes the foundation for the primary goals of this research and paper. Thus, by understanding the components and applications of social identity theory within a range of contexts including tribal, social, familial and organizational, this paper aims to assess the advantages of the theoretical framework in acting as a descriptor of how human beings’ psychological traits define the development of personal traits, characteristics and features through membership or affiliation in a group. Moreover, the paper also answers a critical aspect of research and observation with regard to the conception of social identity theory which is that of the genetic constituent of the framework and how it has the potential to shed light on the possible motivations for seeking group membership. Additionally, the outline of this research demonstrates the ideology that theoretical frameworks are not perfect and are characterized by the presence of limitations or weaknesses that must be addressed and resolved. Owing to this recognition, the research focuses on highlighting the disadvantages of social identity theory in the light of dysfunctional group behavior which may also be categorized as unethical. The concluding reflections of the paper address the criteria of the various steps that can be taken by a leader to diminish the possibility of the occurrence of immoral or unethical aspects in a leader-follower dynamic. The background of research that has been conducted on social identity theory and other associated models has led to the derivation of a concept of positive and negative social identity that can be necessarily defined as an outcome of ingroup relationships. Assessing the implications of social identity theory in exploring the realm of identity constructions the study of Mummendey et al. (1999) understands that the theoretical framework maybe applied in a specific construct to develop effective strategies for coping with the creation of negative social identity. The primary component of this observation is that the suggestions of social identity theory can be applied in scenarios where an unfavorable group situation has been created in order to reveal strategies for demolishing a negative identity. Mummendey et al. (1999) claim that the manner in which an individual identifies as a member of the group and its contributions is a critical factor of evolving strategies as much as it is a mediating variable. In this case human beings’ psychological attributes are characterized by letting go of such traits that are associated with a negative identity thereby, permitting the entrance of positive traits into a person’s psyche. Mummendey et al. (1999) suggest that the sociostructural elements of social identity theory can prove to be of assistance to intervene in the ongoing process which is aiding the creation of a negative self, the research identifies these constituents as: stability or instability of status inadequacy, legitimacy or illegitimacy of status inadequacy and permeability and impermeability of group peripheries. The outcomes of Mummendey et al.’s (1999) research can be applied within organizational settings where employees demonstrate affiliations in various groups that are selected on the basis of determined factors. Furthermore, since the onset of negative social identity is not only limited to an organizational setting it can also be established that the development of strategies to eliminate negative psychological traits is applicable in every group setting whether it is social, tribal or familial. The advantages of applying the recommendations of social identity theory as a descriptor of human beings’ psychological characteristics are closely associated with membership in a familial group. It can be suggested that attachment to family groups is a significant descriptor of the inheritance of psychological traits due to the case for nurture versus nature in the argument of primary socialization and the effects of biological implications of the development of the human psyche. For example, family upbringing that is not necessarily biological or natural but may also be a consequence of adoption or placement in foster care can impact a child’s mentality and govern his/her psychological progress as indicated by research. The support for this assertion is presented by the research of Collins et al. (2000) whose experiment on a group of Romanian orphans that were residing in an orphanage in their home country and had not maintained a relationship with a single caregiver since birth showed that once the children were adopted by Canadian families they demonstrated no signs whatsoever of prior experiences that may have had a negative impact on their psychological development. The conclusions of this research are a representation of the phenomenon that once the Romanian children gained acceptance in a familial group upon their adoption by Canadian couples the psychological traits of mistrust, suspicion, fear and lack of confidence that they had developed during their time in the orphanage were eliminated and replaced with a positive creation of the self as a result of finding new membership in a familial group. The implications of this study assist the development of an observation which asserts that if children are nurtured within a family and provided with the membership in a stable group then the probability of sustaining negative psychological traits is eliminated or at least diminished. Furthermore, if the case of a supportive group membership is applied within an organizational environment then it can be established that such associations can be utilized as a source of promoting team building exercises in a workplace setting. For example, if a company’s induction training process focuses on inviting young professionals who have no prior experience of the workplace environment by creating groups that feature mentors, employees and senior managers then the combination of such personalities within a group can aid the construction of positive relationships that diminish alienation, advance job performance and highlight the presence of issues in the firm. In this manner, group membership can aid the promotion of organizational objectives which can be tied with individual group objectives and applied within a wider social context throughout the workforce. According to Brodwin (2002), the conundrum of whether group membership and social identity creation is characterized by the presence of various forces in the environment or marked by the attendance of a single genetic component has been the source of several decades of research and scholarly works that have been produced by anthropologists, sociologists and psychologists alike. However, the purpose of this discussion is not to negate the social constituent of group membership but to highlight whether the phenomenon is somehow attributable to the existence of a genetic component. Observing the implications of modern knowledge and advancements in the fields of genetics, Brodwin (2002, p. 324) claims that, “emerging genetic knowledge has the potential to transform contemporary notions of social coherence and group identity”. The genetic construct of group membership is vast, as noted by Brodwin (2002) an assessment which focuses on exploring this aspect changes the manner in which one views collectivities and even the factor group collectivism. Nonetheless, the primary point of observation with regard to the matter of the genetic constituent of group affiliation is genealogy and how the ability to trace ancestry can shed light on why human beings seek group membership. Current research on the matter establishes that genetically based identity is a reality that cannot be ignored by contemporary scholars (Brodwin, 2002). The roots of this identification can be traced back to the concept that the natural creation of human beings has been conducted on the basis of a lineage which shares similar traits that in turn create an identity, therefore, those individuals who identify with that particular identity are bound to seek membership in a specified group solely on the basis of genetic motivations, however, this analysis must not disregard the social construct of group membership which is equally if not more important. While, it is evident that an assessment of the social identity theory is conducive to the discovery of several behaviors that affect intergroup relations in an organizational setting, it is important to highlight the validity of social identity theory in the creation of disadvantages and limitations which may evolve into becoming the source of dysfunctional and even unethical behavior on the part of group members regardless of whether the individual is acting as a leader or a follower in the particular scenario. Within the context of the social identity theory and its role in the promotion of antisocial behavior, it can be established that the framework is critical to the explanation of identity threats amongst employees and members of the workforce that emerge specifically in an organizational setting. As noted by Aquino and Douglas (2003), the realm social identity theory also involves the stipulations of several other related frameworks such as the social information processing theory that may explain workers’ motivations for adopting and eventually displaying antisocial behavior. The basic ideology behind this premise resides in the idea that people make use of the particular knowledge and sources of information in their surrounding environment to establish notions of what actions and behaviors are appropriate in the setting. Eventually, as employees are likely to observe the behavior of their managers and colleagues to arrive at such notions it can be asserted that the formulation of unethical and dysfunctional behavior is strongly correlated with the manner in which the managers and colleagues conduct themselves in a workplace setting. With regard to this observation Aquino and Douglas (2003, p. 198) state that: “since employees are likely to look to their co-workers for signals that indicate how they are expected to behave in the workplace, the extent to which they choose to engage in antisocial behavior in response to identity threats should be influenced by their exposure to aggressive role models”. This idea correlates with the observation which suggests that in the setting of workgroups, the collective behavior of an individual’s group is a strong variable which determines the level of member’s antisocial, dysfunctional and unethical behavior (Aquino and Douglas, 2003). In terms of the disadvantages that are posed by the social identity theory in the aiding of the development of antisocial behaviors, Aquino and Douglas (2003) also address the hierarchal component of the case that is most pertinent to formulating an understanding of the behaviors in a leader-follower spectrum. In order to apply this idea successfully it is important to understand the network of relationships in the formulation of a social group within an organization. This notion entails that in the hierarchal group structure members at the higher levels enjoy several benefits such as status, power, authority, prestige and greater monetary benefits while, similar advantages are not enjoyed by individuals who stand at the lower level, Aquino and Douglas (2003) describe that such members are therefore, those who are subjected to bearing negative liabilities. Consequently, the variations social standing within a group leads to the emergence of social psychological consequences that are primarily rooted in differences in status. Aquino and Douglas (2003) explain that because of this situation and the presence of a seemingly unjust social hierarchal status, those who are present at the lower end of the scale demonstrate dysfunctional behaviors that act as a means of self defense to protect themselves from identity threats. According to Aquino and Douglas (2003) it is not correct to assert that individuals at the lower strata adopt aggressive behaviors to reach at a higher stage within the group, in fact the primary motivations for adopting unethical behavior in this scenario is also rooted in aiming to avoid their current position and low status in the chain of command. For a leader it is important to first identify the development of group structure and the formulation of employee associations and relationships within the current structure. Once this evaluation has been conducted in a successful manner by observing the scenario, interviewing employees and seeking staff feedback, the leader must condense the available information to reveal underlying issues and problems within the workgroups. If it is established that new employees’ aggressive and unethical behaviors are being promoted by the actions of their colleagues then an appropriate action would be understand the reasons that are responsible for promoting current issues. The resolution of these issues is necessary not only for the wellbeing of new employees but also for addressing the concerns of those members who have been associated for the workgroup for a significant period of time. Secondly, in order to avoid the negative implications of social psychological outcomes a leader must assess whether hierarchal differences in group structure are justified and needed in the current scenario. For example, if it is established that the workgroup would be able to meet designated objectives if workers who are fulfilling similar roles conduct specified activities then members who have a higher status in terms of prestige and authority should not be assigned the responsibility of managing group activities if it contributes towards grievances within the group. Identity threats are critical factors which lead to the creation of issues within a group; therefore, if a leader recognizes that group dynamics that exist in a leader-follower and follower-follower relationship are causing the emergence of aggressive behavior then a modification within group structure would inhibit the development of unethical, dysfunctional and aggressive behaviors that are negatively impacting the group’s ability to achieve specified aims and objectives. References Aquino, K., & Douglas, S. (2003). Identity threat and antisocial behavior in organizations: The moderating effects of individual differences, aggressive modeling, and hierarchical status. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 90(1), 195-208. Brodwin, P. (2002). Genetics, identity, and the anthropology of essentialism.Anthropological Quarterly, 75(2), 323-330. Collins, W. A., Maccoby, E. E., Steinberg, L., Hetherington, E. M., & Bornstein, M. H. (2000). Contemporary research on parenting: the case for nature and nurture. American Psychologist, 55(2), 218. Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (2002). Self and social identity*. Annual review of psychology, 53(1), 161-186. Mummendey, A., Kessler, T., Klink, A., & Mielke, R. (1999). Strategies to cope with negative social identity: predictions by social identity theory and relative deprivation theory. Journal of personality and social psychology, 76(2), 229. Read More