The authors offer a framework for conceptualizing collective identity that aims to clarify and make distinctions among dimensions of identification that have not always been clearly articulated. Elements of collective identification included in this framework are self-categorization, evaluation, importance, attachment and sense of interdependence, social embeddedness, behavioral involvement, and content and meaning. For each element, the authors take note of different labels that have been used to identify what appear to be conceptually equivalent constructs, provide examples of studies that illustrate the concept, and suggest measurement approaches. Further, they discuss the potential links between elements and outcomes and how context moderates these relationships. The authors illustrate the utility of the multidimensional organizing framework by analyzing the different configuration of elements in 4 major theories of identification.

An organizing framework for collective identity: Articulation and significance of multidimensionality

-As the workplace has become increasingly diverse, there has been a tension between the promise and the reality of diversity in team process and performance. The optimistic view holds that diversity will lead to an increase in the variety of perspectives and approaches brought to a problem and to opportunities for knowledge sharing, and hence lead to greater creativity and quality of team performance. However, the preponderance of the evidence favors a more pessimistic view: that diversity creates social divisions, which in turn create negative performance outcomes for the group. Why is the reality of diversity less than the promise? Answering this requires understanding a variety of factors, including how diversity is defined and categorized, and the moderating as well as mediating processes that affect the diversity-process-performance linkage. We start with a definition. The word diversity has been used to refer to so many types of differences among people that the most commonly used definition-"any attribute that another person may use to detect individual differences" (Williams & O'Reilly, 1998, p. 81)-while accurate, is also quite broad. As a result, various categorization schemes based on factors such as race or gender, or based on proportions such as the size of the minority, have been used to further refine the definition of diversity in teams. The choices researchers have made in using these categorization schemes, however, do lead to particular tradeoffs. Factor approaches, for example, allow an examination of multiple types of diversity and the interactions among them but ignore the sizes of factions and subgroups. Proportional approaches allow the consideration of minority-group size, and hence the study of issues such as tokenism, but also tend to focus on only one type of diversity and thereby overestimate its relevance relative to other types. The underlying effects of diversity, whichever way it is defined and categorized, have typically been understood through three primary theoretical perspectives: the similarity-attraction paradigm, self- and social categorization, and information processing. These approaches also have their biases. The predictions of similarity-attraction theory are straightforward: Similarity on attributes such as attitudes, values, and beliefs will facilitate interpersonal attraction and liking. Empirical research has supported that surface-level similarity tends to predict affiliation and attraction. The similarity-attraction paradigm was developed to understand dyadic relationships. Yet, individuals can express preferences for membership in particular groups even when they have had no prior social interaction with members of that group. This is primarily a cognitive process of categorization: Individuals are postulated to have a hierarchical structure of self-categorizations at the personal, group, and superordinate levels. Research has demonstrated that the specific categories on which we tend to focus in categorizing others-such as race, gender, values, or beliefs-are likely to be those that are the most distinctive or salient within the particular social context. The act of social categorization activates differential expectations for in-group and out-group members. This distinction creates the atmosphere for stereotyping, in which out-group members are judged more stereotypically than in-group members are. The self-categorization/social-identity and similarity-attraction approaches both tend to lead to the pessimistic view of diversity in teams. In these paradigms, individuals will be more attracted to similar others and will experience more cohesion and social integration in homogeneous groups. The information-processing approach, by contrast, offers a more optimistic view: that diversity creates an atmosphere for enhancing group performance. The information-processing approach argues that individuals in diverse groups have access to other individuals with different backgrounds, networks, information, and skills. This added information should improve the group outcome even though it might create coordination problems for the group. As we disentangle what researchers have learned from the last 50 years, we can conclude that surface-level social- category differences, such as those of race/ethnicity, gender, or age, tend to be more likely to have negative effects on the ability of groups to function effectively. By contrast, underlying differences, such as differences in functional background, education, or personality, are more often positively related to performance-for example by facilitating creativity or group problem solving-but only when the group process is carefully controlled. The majority of these effects have typically been explained in terms of potential mediators such as social integration, communication, and conflict. However, the actual evidence for the input-process-output linkage is not as strong as one might like. Clarifying the mixed effects of diversity in work groups will only be possible by carefully considering moderators such as context, by broadening our view to include new types of diversity such as emotions and networks, and by focusing more carefully on mediating mechanisms. As we delve into advice for organizational teams to enhance the assets of diversity and manage the liabilities, we focus on the benefits of "exploring" as opposed to "exploiting" types of tasks, of bridging diversity through values and goals, and of enhancing the power of the minority. Finally, we end with suggestions for how organizations can learn to create incentives for change within the firm.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1529-1006.2005.00022.x

What Differences Make a Difference?: The Promise and Reality of Diverse Teams in Organizations

Research on value congruence has attempted to explain why value congruence leads to positive outcomes, but few of these explanations have been tested empirically. In this article, the authors develop and test a theoretical model that integrates 4 key explanations of value congruence effects, which are framed in terms of communication, predictability, interpersonal attraction, and trust. These constructs are used to explain the process by which value congruence relates to job satisfaction, organizational identification, and intent to stay in the organization, after taking psychological need fulfillment into account. Data from a heterogeneous sample of employees from 4 organizations indicate that the relationships that link individual and organizational values to outcomes are explained primarily by the trust that employees place in the organization and its members, followed by communication, and, to a lesser extent, interpersonal attraction. Polynomial regression analyses reveal that the relationships emanating from individual and organizational values often deviated from the idealized value congruence relationship that underlies previous theory and research. The authors' results also show that individual and organizational values exhibited small but significant relationships with job satisfaction and organizational identification that bypassed the mediators in their model, indicating that additional explanations of value congruence effects should be pursued in future research.

/pdf/the-value-of-value-congruence-47ytahogx7.pdf

The value of value congruence.

Guanxi (personal connection) has been identified as a necessary condition to do business successfully in China. In this paper, we seek a clear conceptual understanding of this prevalent construct and propose a three-stage model of guanxi development so as to stimulate systematic research in this area. Our conceptual and theoretical discussion of guanxi bases,guanxi objectives, and the operating principles at different stages of guanxi development will also help practitioners to use guanxi more effectively.

On the Intricacies of the Chinese Guanxi: A Process Model of Guanxi Development

The influence of social relationships on human development and behavior is receiving increased attention from psychologists, who are central contributors to the rapidly developing multidisciplinary field of relationship science. In this article, the authors selectively review some of the significant strides that have been made toward understanding the effects of relationships on development and behavior and the processes by which relationships exert their influence on these, with the purpose of highlighting important questions that remain to be answered, controversial issues that need to be resolved, and potentially profitable paths for future inquiry. The authors' thesis is that important advances in psychological knowledge will be achieved from concerted investigation of the relationship context in which most important human behaviors are developed and displayed.

The relationship context of human behavior and development.

A. Main Factors of Attraction 1. Physical attraction We would like to believe that beauty is only skin deep, and therefore, a trivial determinant of liking. Indeed, when asked what they looked for in a potential date, most people put physical attractiveness at the bottom of their list. Elaine Hatfield randomly matched incoming students at the University of Minnesota for a blind date. The students previously had been given a battery of personality tests. Intelligence, masculinity, femininity, dominance, submission, dependence, independence, sensitivity and sincerity had little effect on liking. The one determinant of whether or not a couple liked each other and actually repeated their date was their physical attractiveness.

http://www.airitifile.com/al/15603822/5358/15603822-200004-x-48-39-46-a.pdf

張富鈞

Papers

從人際吸引(interpersonal attraction)的觀點談體育課中師生的互動