By: Tara K. Lalonde
Even if you are not a sports fan, if you were ever a spectator of the Super Bowl or tuned into the Olympic Games, you probably have a clear picture of what it means to align yourself in favor of a particular team winning.
Sports teams provide an excellent frame of reference when we talk about the power of belonging to a group and the consequential intergroup behavior. To help illustrate this concept, let’s look at a true, albeit silly, example drawn from my experience.
During Super Bowl LIX my beloved Eagles denied the Kansas City Chiefs a three-peat. I’m not exactly a huge football fan, yet my allegiance to the team I grew up cheering on was profound. I donned my jersey with pride, joining other Philly fans to show support. And there was a kind of intrinsic kinship between me and perfect strangers who were also rooting for the Eagles. My fangirl identity certainly didn’t preclude me from interacting amicably with fans of other teams; however, there was only one trophy to win, and when we were crushing it, we made sure that fans of opposing teams knew that their team was inferior. Sorry not sorry.
It was Us versus Them.
Even if you don’t support a particular sports team, I am certain you can relate to the notion of belonging to a group. For example, some people feel strongly about the Star Wars series (May 4th anyone?). Or perhaps you are an avid Jeep owner and attend conventions with your fellow Jeep comrades. Maybe you associate with other military veterans. Some of you may participate in knitting or book clubs. Think about music – are you a “Swiftie”? Team Drake or Kendrick?
The point is that group affinity is a completely normal part of being a human. The challenge for leaders is motivating shared goals, coordinating learning, and inspiring action across different groups within organizations. To better understand this dynamic, let’s first dive a little deeper into some of the theory behind this behavior.
Social Identity and Self-Categorization
First introduced by Henri Tajfel and later expanded upon by John Turner, followed by a wealth of research specific to the organizational context, these examples fall under what is called social identity and self-categorization theory.[1]
Basically, individuals view themselves as members of specific social categories or groups. The identity of the social group to which one belongs both describes and prescribes the normative behavior of group members, leading to social learning and construction of knowledge. The social group becomes associated with one’s identity and shapes how a member of that group views things and how they feel, increasing conformity to those group norms. From an organizational perspective, these varying group norms often align with differing subcultures.
For example, when I first became a supervisor, my social identity changed, and along with that, expectations of my behavior also changed. The social group to which we belong is called our ingroup. In this case, my ingroup shifted from my working peers to my new management peers.
However, the perception of one’s social category is a function of the relative evaluation of another group, or what is referred to as the outgroup. In the first example, my ingroup was other Eagles fans, but that only mattered relative to the outgroup, which in the case of the Super Bowl was the Kansas City Chiefs fans. If there was no other outgroup to form the basis of comparison, the ingroup would be pretty much moot.
As demonstrated in the same example, since we have a stake in our social identity, we are naturally motivated to evoke strategies that maintain a comparison that favors our ingroup over outgroups. Thus, we tend to maintain a perspective of ingroup versus outgroup or us versus them. This happens naturally, and often unconsciously.
Just the awareness of an outgroup can lead people to bind more closely with their ingroup. On the average day I don’t go around talking about the Eagles, but when they were getting ready to play the Chiefs, I was overtly expressing my identity allegiance. This dedication can even result in such a strong belief in the integrity of the group that loyalty to the group persists even when they commit an otherwise egregious act[2] (like not making it to the Super Bowl the following year!).
Although this can be fun when watching a Sunday afternoon football game, it can lead to a lot of unproductive conflict, and certainly leadership challenges when building teams and systems that are interdependent across different groups.
Consider the interaction between management and the human resources department or the engineering group and the product support group. Members of each group naturally adhere to norms and objectives that may easily conflict with those of the outgroup, and each will do their best to ensure that their needs are met, which brings us to the discussion of how zero-sum thinking impacts intergroup relations.
Zero-Sum Beliefs
Rooted in game theory, zero-sum beliefs are based on the idea of resource scarcity. When there is a perception (doesn’t need to be true) of a fixed sum of resources that can be distributed, there is a belief that if one group gains, then by default, the other group loses. When we talk about resources, these beliefs aren’t constrained to tangible resources; they extend to symbolic resources as well. This zero-sum mentality leads to win-lose perspectives that motivate competition among groups.
For example, there may be multiple projects within a division that are vying for concrete assets such as budget allocations, highly sought after talent, building infrastructure, and tools. At the same time, you might have different groups seeking more status-emblematic resources that could include perceived assets like recognition, prestige, promotion opportunities, job title, reputation, credibility and trust. When employees and teams view these resources as limited, those who receive a disproportionate distribution are often seen as higher status compared to the other groups and may therefore be viewed as a threat.
Although some competition can be seen as healthy in motivating people, this perspective can induce unnecessary conflict as people strive for their group to be the “winning team” and thereby engage in behaviors that thwart collaboration.
What Can You Do as a Leader to Create More Collaborative Intergroup Dynamics?
The reality is that very few situations are, in fact, zero-sum. As a leader you can overcome some of these challenges by reframing perspectives from what might be destructive division to constructive win-win viewpoints. This might mean providing context and clarity of the bigger picture, zooming out to show how all the parts of the system come together to benefit the whole.
For example, when one group receives more funding, you might need to highlight how, when one team gains, it strengthens the entire organization by providing more overall opportunities. Or if one group is feeling underappreciated, it may prompt you to take a step back and reflect on how you could change the “hero” narrative to ensure they are adequately recognized for their contribution.
In his book The Infinite Game, leadership expert Simon Sinek discusses the idea of taking an “infinite mindset” approach.[3] This strategy requires reconceptualizing the game whereby rather than focusing on fixed, short-term goals that produce internal rivalry, you focus on the long-term vision and the collaboration required to achieve those goals. As a leader, it is your responsibility to not only create a shared vision for the organization, but to ensure that everyone understands how their role contributes to it and why decisions are made in support of it.
According to belonging expert Geoffrey L. Cohen, “If we perceive others as threats, we’ll likely be more inclined to distance ourselves or be aggressive toward them; if we don’t perceive them as threats, we’ll be more receptive.”[4] Navigating these nuances requires leaders to practice empathy, taking the time to understand how decisions and organizational influences have an impact on group identities. Rather than assuming you know, taking the time to seek others’ perspectives and show compassion for their concerns can help reduce the threat response and go a long way in improving collaboration in achieving larger shared goals.
I suppose if I consider the overarching goal of enjoying American football as a national pastime, I can reframe my perspective and applaud the Seattle Seahawks win in Super Bowl LX this year and I may even be less harsh toward Chiefs fans…after all, the game is a great reason for all of us to celebrate good food and company, regardless of which team’s jersey we wear.
What organizational examples do you have where you were able to reframe perspectives and engage different groups on superordinate goals? How did you reduce the threat response and create win-win scenarios?
[1] Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (Eds.). (2012). Social identity processes in organizational contexts. Psychology Press.
[2] Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20-39. https://doi.org/10.2307/258189
[3] Sinek, S. (2019). The infinite game. Portfolio.
[4] Cohen, G. L. (2022). Belonging: The science of creating connection and bridging divides. Norton.
