“We Do It, but They Don't”: Multiple Categorizations and Work Team Communication

Abstract

The present study adopted an intergroup approach to information sharing and ratings of work team communication in a public hospital (N = 142) undergoing large-scale restructuring. Consistent with predictions, ratings of communication followed a double ingroup serving bias: while team members reported sending about the same levels of information to double ingroup members (same work team/same occupational group) as they did to partial ingroup members (same work team/different occupational group), they reported receiving less information from partial ingroup members than from double ingroup members and rated the communication that they received from partial ingroup members as less effective. We discuss the implication of these results for the management of information sharing and organizational communication.

Keywords:

• Intergroup Communication
• Organizational Identity
• Social Identification

Notes

1. Note that longitudinal research is necessary to examine causality in the identification–communication relationship. Longitudinal research is not needed to examine the group membership–communication relationship because it is difficult to imagine how communication, as it is conceived in the current study, could influence group membership.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Tim A. Grice

Tim Grice is a postdoctoral research fellow at the School of Psychology, University of Queensland

Cynthia Gallois

Cindy Gallois (Ph.D., University of Florida) professor of psychology at the University of Queensland

Elizabeth Jones

Dr Liz Jones (Ph.D., University of Queensland) is a senior lecturer in organizational psychology at Griffith University

Neil Paulsen

Neil Paulsen (Ph.D., University of Queensland) is a senior lecturer at the University of Queensland Business School

Victor J. Callan

Victor J Callan (Ph.D., Australian National University) is professor of management at the University of Queensland Business School