This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Terry, D. J. Articles by O’Brien, A. T. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Status, Legitimacy, and Ingroup Bias in the Context of an Organizational Merger

The University of Queensland, deborah{at}psy.uq.edu.au

Anne T. O’Brien

The University of Queensland

Adopting an intergroup perspective, the research was designed to examine predictors of employee responses to an organizational merger. Data were collected from 120 employees of a newly merged scientific organization. As predicted from social identity theory, the most negative responses to the merger were apparent among the employees of the low status premerger organization. There was also evidence of ingroup bias among both groups of employees involved in the merger—as expected, the bias was most marked on the status-irrelevant dimensions for the employees of the lower status organization, but most marked on the status-relevant dimensions for the employees of the high status organization. Also, in support of social identity theory, the perceived legitimacy of the basis for the status differentiation between the groups was associated with more positive responses to the merger among employees of the low status premerger organization, but with poorer responses among employees of the high status premerger organization. There was consistent evidence that the status by legitimacy interaction was mediated through the extent to which employees of the newly merged organization perceived a common ingroup identity

Key Words: common ingroup identity • ingroup bias • legitimacy • organizational merger • status

References

• Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. London: Sage.
• Anastasio, P., Bachman, B., Gaertner, S., & Dovidio, J. (1997). Categorization, recategorization and common group identity. In Spears, R., Oakes, P. J., Ellemers, N., & Haslam, S. (Eds.), The social psychology of stereotyping and group life (pp. 236-256). Oxford: Blackwell.
• Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1985). How to achieve integration on the human side of the merger. Organizational Dynamics, 13, 41-56.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Brewer, M. B. (1979). Ingroup bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational interpretation. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 307-324.[CrossRef][ISI]
• Brown, B. B., & Lohr, M. J. (1987). Peer-group affiliation and adolescent self-esteem: An integration of ego-identity and symbolic-interaction theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 47-55.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Brown, J. D., Collins, R. L., & Schmidt, G. W. (1988). Self-esteem and direct versus indirect forms of self-enhancement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 445-453.[CrossRef]
• Brown, R. J., Condor, S., Mathews, A., Wade, G., & Williams, J. A. (1986). Explaining intergroup differentiation in an industrial organisation. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 59, 273-286.
• Brown, R. J, & Ross, G. F. (1982). The battle for acceptance: An exploration into the dynamics of intergroup behavior. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social identity and intergroup relations. London: Cambridge University Press.
• Buono, A. F., & Bowditch, J. L. (1989). The human side of mergers and acquisitions: Managing collisions between people, cultures, and organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Caplan, R. D., Cobb, S., French, J. R. P., Van Harrison, R. V., & Pinneau, S. R., Jr. (1975). Job demands and worker health. Washington, DC: US Department of Health, Education and Welfare.
• Caddick, B. (1982). Perceived illegitimacy and intergroup relations. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social identity and intergroup relations, London: Cambridge University Press.
• Cartwright, S., & Cooper, C. L. (1992). Mergers and acquisitions: The human factor. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
• Crocker, J., Blaine, B., & Luhtanen, R. (1993). Prejudice, intergroup behavior, and self-esteem: Enhancement and protection motives. In M. A. Hogg & D. A. Abrams (Eds.), Group motivation: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 52-67). New York: Harvester-Wheatsheaf.
• Crocker, J., Thompson, L. L., McGraw, K. M., & Ingerman, C. (1987). Downward comparison, prejudice, and evaluations of others: Effects of self-esteem and threat. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 907-916.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Validzic, A. (1998). Intergroup bias: Status, differentiation, and a common in-group identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 109-120.
• Dunphy, D., & Stace, D. (1990). Under New Management. New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Ellemers, N., Doosje, B. J., van Knippenberg, A., & Wilke, H. (1992). Status protection in high status minority groups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 123-140.
• Ellemers, N., van Knippenberg, A., de Vries, N., & Wilke, H. (1988). Social identification and permeability of group boundaries. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 497-513.[ISI]
• Ellemers, N., van Knippenberg, A., & Wilke, H. (1990). The influence of permeability of group boundaries and stability of group status on strategies of social mobility and social change. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 233-246.
• Ellemers, N., Wilke, H., & van Knippenberg, A. (1993). Effects of legitimacy of low group or individual status on individual and collective status enhancement strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 766-778.[CrossRef]
• Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., & Bachman, B. A. (1996). Revisiting the contact hypothesis: The induction of a common ingroup identity. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 20, 271-290.
• Gaertner, S. L., Rust, M. C., Dovidio, J. F., Bachman, B. A., & Anastasio, P. A. (1993). The common ingroup model: Recategorisation and the reduction of intergroup bias. European Review of Social Psychology, 41-26.
• Haunschild, P. R., Moreland, R. L., & Murrell, A. J. (1994). Sources of resistance to mergers between groups. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 1150-1178.[CrossRef]
• Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1988). Social identifications: A social psychology of intergroup relations and group processes. London: Routledge.
• Hogg, M. A., Cooper-Shaw, L., & Holzworth, D. W. (1993). Group prototypicality and depersonalized attraction in small interactive groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 452-465.[Abstract]
• Hogg, M. A., Terry, D. J., & White, K. M., (1995). A tale of two theories: A critical comparison of identity theory with social identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58, 225-269.
• Holson, L. M. (1999, January 4). After 2.5 trillion in combinations in 1998, the sky’s the limit in 1999. New York Times.
• Ivancevich, J. M., Schweiger, D. M., & Power, F. R. (1987). Strategies for managing human resources during mergers and acquisitions. Human Resource Planning, 10, 18-35.
• Lalonde, R. (1992). The dynamics of group differentiation in the face of defeat. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 336-342.[Abstract]
• Lemaine, G. (1974). Social differentiation and social originality. European Journal of Social Psychology, 4, 17-52.
• Mirvis, P., & Marks, M. L. (1986, January/February). Merger syndrome: Management by crisis. Mergers and Acquisitions, pp. 70-76.
• Mirvis, P., & Marks, M. L. (1992). The human side of merger planning: Assessing and analysing ‘fit’. Human Resource Planning, 15, 32-41.
• Moghaddam, F. M., & Perreault, S. (1991). Individual and collective mobility strategies among minority group members. Journal of Social Psychology, 132, 343-357.
• Mottola, G. R., Bachman, B. A., Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (1997). How groups merge: The effects of merger interaction patterns on expectations of organizational commitment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 1335-1358.[CrossRef]
• Mullen, B., Brown, R., & Smith, C. (1992). Ingroup bias as a function of salience, relevance, and status: An integration. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 103-122.
• Mummendey, A., Klink, A., Mielke, R., Wenzel, M., & Blanz, M. (1999). Socio-structural characteristics of intergroup relations and identity management strategies: Results from a field study in East Germany. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 259-285.[CrossRef][ISI]
• Mummendy, A., & Schreiber, H. J. (1984). Different just means better: Some obvious and some hidden pathways to ingroup favouritism. British Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 363-368.
• Nahavandi, A., & Malekzadeh, A. R. (1988). Acculturation in mergers and acquisitions. Academy of Management Review, 13, 79-90.
• Sachdev, I., & Bourhis, R. Y. (1987). Status differentials and intergroup behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 17, 277-293.
• Shrivastava, P. (1986) Postmerger integration. Journal of Business Strategy, 7, 65-76.
• Spears, R., & Manstead, A. S. R. (1989). The social context of stereotyping and differentiation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 19, 101-121.
• Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (1985). Intergroup anxiety. Journal of Social Issues, 41, 157-175.
• Tajfel, H. (1974). Social identity and intergroup behavior. Social Science Information, 13, 65-93.[CrossRef][ISI]
• Tajfel, H. (1975). The exit of social mobility and the voice of social change. Social Science Information, 14, 101-118.
• Tajfel, H. (1978). Social categorisation, social identity and social comparison. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 61-76). London: Academic Press.
• Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
• Taylor, D. M., Moghaddam, F. M., Gamble, I., & Zellerer, E. (1987). Disadvantaged group responses to perceived inequality: From passive acceptance to collective action. Journal of Social Psychology, 127, 259-272.
• Terry, D. J. (1994). The determinants of coping: The role of stable and situational factors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 895-910.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Terry, D. J., & Callan, V. J. (1998). Intergroup differentiation in response to an organizational merger. Group Dynamics, 2, 67-81.
• Terry, D. J., Callan, V. J., & Sartori, G. (1996). A test of a stress-coping model of adjustment to large-scale organizational change. Stress Medicine, 12, 105-122.[CrossRef]
• Terry, D. J., Carey, C. J., & Callan, V. J. (2001). Employee Adjustment to an Organizational Merger: An Intergroup Perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 267-280.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Terry, D. J., Tonge, L., & Callan, V. J. (1995). Employee adjustment to stress: The role of coping resources, situational factors, and coping responses. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 8, 1-24.
• Turner, J. C. (1982). Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social identity and intergroup relations (pp. 15-40). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Turner J. C., & Brown R. J. (1978). Social status, cognitive alternatives and intergroup relations. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 171-199). London: Academic Press.
• Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorisation theory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
• van Knippenberg, A. F. M. (1978). Intergroup differences in group perceptions. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), The social dimension: European developments in social psychology (pp. 560-578). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• van Knippenberg, A., & Ellemers, N. (1993). Strategies in intergroup relations. In M. A. Hogg & D. Abrams (Eds.), Group motivation: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 17-23). London: Harvester-Wheatsheaf.
• van Oudenhoven, J. P., & deBoer, T. (1995). Complementarity and similarity of partners in international mergers. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17, 343-356.
• Vaughan, G. M. (1978). Social change and intergroup preferences in New Zealand. European Journal of Social Psychology, 8, 297-314.
• Verkuyten, M. (1997). Ingroup evaluation and self-esteem motivations: Self-enhancement and self-protection. European Journal of Social Psychology, 27, 115-119.
• Zuckerman, M. (1979). Attribution of success and failure revisited, or: The motivational bias is alive and well in attributional theory. Journal of Personality, 47, 245-287.[CrossRef]

CiteULike

Connotea

Del.icio.us

Digg

Reddit

Technorati

This article has been cited by other articles:

				F. Boen, N. Vanbeselaere, and M. Cool Group Status as a Determinant of Organizational Identification After a Takeover: A Social Identity Perspective Group Processes Intergroup Relations, October 1, 2006; 9(4): 547 - 560. [Abstract] [PDF]

				G. E. Kreiner, B. E. Ashforth, and D. M. Sluss Identity Dynamics in Occupational Dirty Work: Integrating Social Identity and System Justification Perspectives Organization Science, September 1, 2006; 17(5): 619 - 636. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. R. Giessner, G. T. Viki, S. Otten, D. J. Terry, and S. Tauber The Challenge of Merging: Merger Patterns, Premerger Status, and Merger Support Pers Soc Psychol Bull, March 1, 2006; 32(3): 339 - 352. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M.-G. Seo and N. S. Hill Understanding the Human Side of Merger and Acquisition: An Integrative Framework Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, December 1, 2005; 41(4): 422 - 443. [Abstract] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Terry, D. J. Articles by O’Brien, A. T. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                   What's this?