This is a possible answer to the question as to why IMMLs prefer to work with IMML’s compared to with BBA’s. Even if we are not superior, we might have other non-rational reasons for not working with BBAs, such as our stereotypes of them. These stereotypes are perhaps unjustified, and not based on fact, but simply that we find faults with them to better our personal identity, which fits with the theory of Tajfel in order to boost our self-esteem.
Social Identity Theory - Tajfel
Although there are some members of the IMML group that are as foreign to us as the BBA’s, we feel more comfortable working with IMML’s because they have the same behavioural characteristics as us, as well as sharing common goals. Tajfel suggests that a reason for this is the need to treat the ‘team’s values as our own’. Examples of this include: the aim of finding a placement or business school in our respective countries, with a well respected degree in a relatively unique course from a renowned university. Concerns about placements cross language boundaries, and unites all IMMLs.
A group “ thinks and behaves in characteristically design team ways”.
This supports the social identity theory of when IMML first attended the Organizational Behaviour lecture of semester 2 with Kate McArdle. Throughout the past 2 years it has become acceptable to enter the management classes late, strolling slowly to the seat and even talking or waving to friends while the class has already started. However, when Kate McArdle started teaching the course this norm was not acceptable to her. By trying to change the group norm (apologising if late), IMML had temporarily modified their behaviour: the number of students being late was reduced, and if they were late they apologised out of courtesy to the entire class. However, when Foster Fei started teaching the class in Week 5, IMML reverted back to their initial behaviour. We can thus say that in this case it is difficult, almost impossible, for the minority to impose a change on a majority, especially if that norm has had time to evolve for 2 years. If a group majority were to accept the new group norm, they must all conform to the new norm. In summary we can say that because the majority of the IMML course was not convinced of the necessity of being on time, Kate McArdle only changed the group norm temporarily.
According to Tajfel “in order to evaluate their own opinion and abilities, individuals not only compare themselves to other individuals with whom they interact, but also compare their own group with similar and distinct, out groups.”
After the exam results were released, one characteristic of the members in FIMML was that they then tried to compare their results with others in their small seminar group, and secondly in a more general way against the other language groups. This comparison produced concrete (if biased i.e. ask the people you know will have the results to back up your stereotypes and our assertions of other groups) evidence to reinforce the stereotypes of the other groups and emphasizes our opinion of our group being superior. This minimises the perceived difference in the in-group (seminar B) and maximises the difference from the out-group (IMML as a whole)
Cross theory example
One student, Harry*, who joined group B at its formation was fluent in French. At the start of the year he spoke often in class, offered answers almost constantly and talked very quickly. This was not very well received by the group at first. The student realised this and decided to answer only when no one else did. According to Tajfel: this was so that others could have a chance. Harry sacrificed his own interests for the good of the group as a whole. This shows how Harry moved from thinking individually (personal identity), doing what benefited him, to “feeling and thinking as a representative of a group”. This also complies with Asch’s theory about how groups influence individual attitudes and behaviour. “Observing norms is of such benefit to us that we are prepared to suppress any personal desires and are thus willing to limit our individual freedom and abide by them”. Harry therefore supports both the theory of Tajfel as well as Asch’s.
As a second example of this we refer to an IMML Spanish student, Steve*, who came into the IMML French group in the second year. The French group felt that the new student was violating pivotal norms of our group. Such norms were: speaking a lot during the classes; criticising teachers; and overtly expressing his opinions without taking other’s opinions into consideration. His norms could either derive from the norms he had learned in his first year in the Spanish group, or due to his individual differences that he has gained through his culture, since his French nationality is exceptional to that of the group. After being in the French IMML group for a few weeks, there was tension between the new student and his language group, whereas the seminar group B didn’t seem affected by the new presence because the new student was not in the same group. This example disproves Asch’s theory. The new student didn’t conform to the group pressure put upon him. In our opinion, his judgement and actions were not affected, even when the group vocalised their general disagreement to him being there. Neither did the group break up as a result of this.
Small (formal & informal) Groups
In this section of the essay we will use the example of Steve again because he is relevant for this part as well. However, we will do this in the context of small informal or formal groups looking at it from a whole different angle.
“As long as individuals see themselves as more important than the group, then the latter cannot function effectively”.
Steve joining the French group lowered our self-awareness and heightened our group awareness. The group has had no influence over his behaviour and showed animosity to him by for example sighing or laughing when he talks. This is the case even now, 6 months after his coming into FIMML. He did not adapt to the norm of the group. Perhaps this insinuates that Steve does not see IMML as one of the groups that form his social identity. In this way he would not be influenced by the group, conform to it or attempt to convert the group to his way of thinking as it bears little or no importance on his self concept, and furthermore his social identity. In not recognising IMML as a key part of this social identity he does not feel that it is necessary to conform to the behaviour. Steve’s action supports Tajfel’s theory as mentioned above. This could be due in part to our perception of his elitist attitude, where he feels superior to the rest, stopping the group from functioning. Group members even left his class. For us to conform to him, we feel that he would have to conform to us first. We could perhaps propose therefore that established groups do not conform to newcomers, but rather newcomers conform to previously established groups.
When he joined seminar group A, he changed the group norms. He had an outspoken personality and his loud confident attitude contradicted the previously quiet oral class. At first this resulted in others leaving the group, but the remaining students still did not conform to him and so eventually he was forced to leave. As soon as he left, the other group members returned.
Cross-divisional groups
“The subjects did not suffer the modification of perception, nor did they conclude that they were wrong. They yielded because they feared being excluded… They voiced the majority position with a full awareness of what they were doing.”
The following example is a result of a small formal cross-divisional group, which also included an informal group. In the first semester of the second year one of our group members was assigned to a marketing project team. Sam* found out that her marketing group consisted of two GIMML’s, two FIMML’s and one SPIMML. Already at the first meeting, they had problems deciding on the topic of the coursework. With pressure and even threat of not doing the expected workload for the project, Sam* had persuaded the group of the quality of her idea. If we use Asch’s theory for this example, this would comply with the “Distortion of Action” which is the fear of the other group members of potentially being excluded from the group. This exclusion would have been in terms of not being asked about their opinion about the progress of the project. It was therefore easier for them to initially conform to the pressure exerted. In fact, they were suppressing their own observation as to what would be a suitable subject area. When the group came together in the following weeks, the leadership shifted from Sam* to one of the GIMMLs, which in turn made Sam* turn away form the group and “not care” about the outcome of the coursework. The reason behind this was because her first attempt of pressurising the group had failed. In other words she was overthrown because of her non-conformity with the rest of the group. To summarise this example we can say that the group was in fact temporarily modified. An informal group (friendship) between the two GIMMLs was evident, not however between the two FIMMLs, and this had an impact on the construction of the group and the shift in leadership, since the GIMML, who lead later on, had a “supporter” (one conformed to her authority so the others were also convinced that she had the ability to lead).
Conclusion
From the outset, whilst our IMML experience can be related to Asch and Tajfel, to both support and criticise the theory of Individuals in groups, and conformity to group norms, it must be noted that each example, having derived from personal experience is biased, since we cannot know what other group members have thought of their shared past experiences. It is likely therefore that our stereotypes dominate our perceived knowledge of experience.
Through our group discussions we have come to agreement that the smaller the group gets, the more evident and thus important conforming becomes. In addition to this we believe that established groups do not conform to newcomers, but newcomers conform to previously established groups. Furthermore, conformity in smaller groups is easier than in bigger groups due to the individual behaviour, which becomes more apparent the smaller the group gets. This was highlighted with the example of the OB lecture, where people did not conform. This stands in comparison to Harry, who in fact conformed to what the students of Seminar B solicited upon him.
As a group we initially struggled to find many examples of norms within FIMML, as they are not obvious to us because we already conform to them. This shows how the group norms bind the group together and that there are different sets of both pivotal and peripheral norms, which differ between the divisions from IMML as a whole to separate language groups.
In a culturally diverse group, as the IMML course is, it is difficult to make broad assumptions of group norms and to apply the theories of Asch and Tajfel because the norms of this formal group have not derived from evolving collective group behaviour but from their own personal environments.
2172 Words (Excluding quotations)
Huczynski and Buchanan. Organisational Behaviour: An introductory text, 5th Edition. Financial Times Prentice Hall, 2004. Page 356.
Op. Cit. Page 373
*The true name of the student has been changed for anonymity purposes.
