The present research focused on responses of low-status group members to a merger with a high-status group. A study was conducted (N = 153) in which the alignment of the leader for the merged group (ingroup vs. outgroup) and leader behavior (equality, outgroup favoritism, ingroup favoritism, complementarity) were manipulated. The authors predicted that the leader, by his or her behavior, would play an important role in defining the new relationship between premerger groups. Overall, low-status ingroup leaders were evaluated more positively than high-status outgroup leaders. Ingroup leaders were evaluated more favorably and were more likely to engender a common identity in the merged group than were outgroup leaders when leaders behaved in an ingroup-favoring or complementary fashion. In contrast, evaluations of ingroup and outgroup leaders did not differ when the leader stressed equality or was outgroup favoring. The findings demonstrate the important role leaders can play in accentuating or de-emphasizing premerger status differences.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ahlers, J. (1995). Similar differences and different similarities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam.
2.
Anderson, L. R. , & Ager, J. W. (1978). Analysis of variance in small group research. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, 341-345.
3.
Blake, R. R. , & Mouton, J. S. (1985). How to achieve integration on the human side of the merger. Organizational Dynamics, 13, 41-56.
4.
Brown, R. , & Wade, G. S. (1987). Superordinate goals and intergroup behaviour: The effects of role ambiguity and status on intergroup attitudes and task performance. European Journal of Social Psychology, 17, 131-142.
5.
Cohen, E. G. (1984). The desegregated school: Problems in status power and interethnic climate. In N. Miller & M. B. Brewer (Eds.), Groups in contact: The psychology of desegregation (pp. 77-96). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
6.
Deschamps, J. C. , & Brown, R. (1983). Superordinate goals and intergroup conflict. British Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 189-195.
7.
Doosje, B. , Spears, R., & Koomen, W. (1995). When bad isn’t all bad: Strategic use of sample information in generalization and stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 642-655.
8.
Dovidio, J. F. , Gaertner, S. L., & Validzic, A. (1998). Intergroup bias: Status, differentiation, and a common ingroup identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 109-120.
9.
Duck, J. M. , & Fielding, K. S. (1999). Leaders and subgroups: One of us or one of them?Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 2, 203-230.
10.
Ellemers, N. (1993). The influence of socio-structural variables on identity enhancement strategies. European Review of Social Psychology, 4, 27-57.
11.
Ellemers, N. , Doosje, B., van Knippenberg, A., & Wilke, H. (1992). Status protection in high status minority groups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 123-140.
12.
Gaertner, S. L. , Dovidio, J. F., Rust, M. C., Nier, J. A., Banker, B. S., Ward, C. M., et al.. (1999). Reducing intergroup bias: Elements of intergroup cooperation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 388-402.
13.
Gaertner, S. L. , Mann, J., Murrell, A., & Dovidio, J. F. (1989). Reducing intergroup bias: The benefits of recategorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 239-249.
14.
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.
15.
Hornsey, M. J. , & Hogg, M. A. (2002). The effects of status on subgroup relations. British Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 203-218.
16.
Jetten, J. , Duck, J., Terry, D. J., & O’Brien, A. (2001). [When groups merge: Low- and high-status groups’ responses to aligned leaders]. Unpublished raw data, University of Exeter.
17.
Jetten, J. , Spears, R., Hogg, M. A., & Manstead, A. S. R. (2000). Discrimination constrained and justified: The variable effects of group variability and ingroup identification. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 329-356.
18.
Jetten, J. , Spears, R., & Manstead, A. S. R. (1998). Defining dimensions of distinctiveness: Group variability makes a difference to differentiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1481-1492.
19.
Johnson, D. W. , & Johnson, F. P. (1975). Joining together: Group theory and group skills. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
20.
Jost, J. T. , & Banaji, M. R. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 1-27.
21.
Marcus-Newhall, A. , Miller, N., Holtz, R., & Brewer, M. B. (1993). Cross-cutting category membership with role assignment: A means of reducing intergroup bias. British Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 125-146.
22.
Mottola, G. R. , Bachman, B. A., Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (1997). How groups merge: The effects of merger integration patterns on anticipated commitment to the merged organization. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 1335-1358.
23.
Platow, M. J. , Hoar, S., Reid, S., Harley, K., & Morrison, D. (1997). Endorsement of distributively fair and unfair leaders in interpersonal and intergroup situations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 27, 465-494.
24.
Schweiger, D. M. , & Walsh, J. P. (1990). Mergers and acquisitions: An interdisciplinary view. In K. M. Rowland & G. R. Ferris (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resource management (Vol. 8, pp. 41-107). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
25.
Schweiger, D. M. , & Weber, Y. (1989). Strategies for managing human resources during mergers and acquisitions: An empirical investigation. Human Resource Planning, 9, 69-86.
26.
Sherif, M. , & Sherif, C. W. (1969). Social psychology. New York: Harper & Row.
27.
Skevington, S. M. (1981). Intergroup relations and nursing. European Journal of Social Psychology, 11, 43-59.
28.
Tajfel, H. (Ed.). (1978). Interindividual behaviour and intergroup behaviour. In Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 27-60). London: Academic Press.
29.
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. 33-48). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
30.
Terry, D. J. , & Callan, V. J. (1998). Ingroup bias in response to an organizational merger. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice, 2, 67-81.
31.
Terry, D. J. , Carey, C. J., & Callan, V. J. (2001). Employee adjustment to an organizational merger: An intergroup perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, pp. 267-280.
32.
Terry, D. J. , & O’Brien, A. T. (2001). Status, legitimacy, and ingroup bias in the context of an organizational merger. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 4, 271-289.
33.
Van Knippenberg, D. , Van Knippenberg, B., Monden, L., & De Lima, F. (2002). Organizational identification after a merger: A social identity perspective. British Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 233-252.
