Do group and organizational identification help or hurt intergroup strategic consensus?

J.P. Porck, D. van Knippenberg, Murat Tarakci, Nufer Ates, P.J.F. Groenen, Marco de Haas

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

Abstract

Implementing strategy demands an organizationwide effort, where teams should not operate in isolation. A challenge many organizations face in implementing their strategy is eradicating silo thinking and creating shared understanding of strategy between interdependent teams—that is, intergroup strategic consensus. However, strategy process research is silent on how such intergroup strategic consensus can emerge. Drawing on social identity theory, we offer a lens to understand what influences the degree of intergroup strategic consensus. We unveil a tension between organizational and group identification such that organizational identification enhances intergroup strategic consensus, whereas group identification reduces it. Moreover, we hypothesize that high group identification crowds out positive effects of organizational identification on intergroup strategic consensus. Data from 451 intergroup relationships between 92 teams within a service organization support these hypotheses. We replicate our results using 191 intergroup relationships between 37 teams from another organization. These results allow us to develop an understanding of intergroup strategic consensus, expand the conversation in strategy process research to between-team interdependencies, and challenge the assumption in management literature and practice that higher identification is always desirable.
Original languageEnglish
JournalJournal of Management
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 23 Jul 2018

Fingerprint

Strategic consensus
Organizational identification
Intergroup
Implementing strategy
Strategy process
Process research
Isolation
Shared understanding
Service organization
Social identity theory
Interdependencies
Crowd-out

Keywords

  • strategic consensus
  • intergroup relations
  • intergroup strategic consensus
  • social identity
  • strategy process
  • behavioral strategy

Cite this

Porck, J. P., van Knippenberg, D., Tarakci, M., Ates, N., Groenen, P. J. F., & de Haas, M. (2018). Do group and organizational identification help or hurt intergroup strategic consensus? Journal of Management. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206318788434
Porck, J.P. ; van Knippenberg, D. ; Tarakci, Murat ; Ates, Nufer ; Groenen, P.J.F. ; de Haas, Marco. / Do group and organizational identification help or hurt intergroup strategic consensus?. In: Journal of Management. 2018.
@article{34905f9334404d80855af3267ae8f25b,
title = "Do group and organizational identification help or hurt intergroup strategic consensus?",
abstract = "Implementing strategy demands an organizationwide effort, where teams should not operate in isolation. A challenge many organizations face in implementing their strategy is eradicating silo thinking and creating shared understanding of strategy between interdependent teams—that is, intergroup strategic consensus. However, strategy process research is silent on how such intergroup strategic consensus can emerge. Drawing on social identity theory, we offer a lens to understand what influences the degree of intergroup strategic consensus. We unveil a tension between organizational and group identification such that organizational identification enhances intergroup strategic consensus, whereas group identification reduces it. Moreover, we hypothesize that high group identification crowds out positive effects of organizational identification on intergroup strategic consensus. Data from 451 intergroup relationships between 92 teams within a service organization support these hypotheses. We replicate our results using 191 intergroup relationships between 37 teams from another organization. These results allow us to develop an understanding of intergroup strategic consensus, expand the conversation in strategy process research to between-team interdependencies, and challenge the assumption in management literature and practice that higher identification is always desirable.",
keywords = "strategic consensus, intergroup relations, intergroup strategic consensus, social identity, strategy process, behavioral strategy",
author = "J.P. Porck and {van Knippenberg}, D. and Murat Tarakci and Nufer Ates and P.J.F. Groenen and {de Haas}, Marco",
year = "2018",
month = "7",
day = "23",
doi = "10.1177/0149206318788434",
language = "English",
journal = "Journal of Management",
issn = "0149-2063",
publisher = "Sage Publications, Inc.",

}

Do group and organizational identification help or hurt intergroup strategic consensus? / Porck, J.P.; van Knippenberg, D.; Tarakci, Murat; Ates, Nufer; Groenen, P.J.F.; de Haas, Marco.

In: Journal of Management, 23.07.2018.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Do group and organizational identification help or hurt intergroup strategic consensus?

AU - Porck, J.P.

AU - van Knippenberg, D.

AU - Tarakci, Murat

AU - Ates, Nufer

AU - Groenen, P.J.F.

AU - de Haas, Marco

PY - 2018/7/23

Y1 - 2018/7/23

N2 - Implementing strategy demands an organizationwide effort, where teams should not operate in isolation. A challenge many organizations face in implementing their strategy is eradicating silo thinking and creating shared understanding of strategy between interdependent teams—that is, intergroup strategic consensus. However, strategy process research is silent on how such intergroup strategic consensus can emerge. Drawing on social identity theory, we offer a lens to understand what influences the degree of intergroup strategic consensus. We unveil a tension between organizational and group identification such that organizational identification enhances intergroup strategic consensus, whereas group identification reduces it. Moreover, we hypothesize that high group identification crowds out positive effects of organizational identification on intergroup strategic consensus. Data from 451 intergroup relationships between 92 teams within a service organization support these hypotheses. We replicate our results using 191 intergroup relationships between 37 teams from another organization. These results allow us to develop an understanding of intergroup strategic consensus, expand the conversation in strategy process research to between-team interdependencies, and challenge the assumption in management literature and practice that higher identification is always desirable.

AB - Implementing strategy demands an organizationwide effort, where teams should not operate in isolation. A challenge many organizations face in implementing their strategy is eradicating silo thinking and creating shared understanding of strategy between interdependent teams—that is, intergroup strategic consensus. However, strategy process research is silent on how such intergroup strategic consensus can emerge. Drawing on social identity theory, we offer a lens to understand what influences the degree of intergroup strategic consensus. We unveil a tension between organizational and group identification such that organizational identification enhances intergroup strategic consensus, whereas group identification reduces it. Moreover, we hypothesize that high group identification crowds out positive effects of organizational identification on intergroup strategic consensus. Data from 451 intergroup relationships between 92 teams within a service organization support these hypotheses. We replicate our results using 191 intergroup relationships between 37 teams from another organization. These results allow us to develop an understanding of intergroup strategic consensus, expand the conversation in strategy process research to between-team interdependencies, and challenge the assumption in management literature and practice that higher identification is always desirable.

KW - strategic consensus

KW - intergroup relations

KW - intergroup strategic consensus

KW - social identity

KW - strategy process

KW - behavioral strategy

U2 - 10.1177/0149206318788434

DO - 10.1177/0149206318788434

M3 - Article

JO - Journal of Management

JF - Journal of Management

SN - 0149-2063

ER -