No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Identity matters to individuals: Group assessment cannot be reduced to collective performance
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 26 October 2016
Abstract
Although we agree that both identification and differentiation play a key role in explaining individual behaviour in groups, we suggest that (1) cohesion and differentiation should be better articulated, (2) the proposal carries implicit value choices that are not necessarily universal, and (3) the success of a group in shaping individual behaviour should refer to the values of individual members.
- Type
- Open Peer Commentary
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016
References
Geertz, C. (1974) “From the native's point of view”: On the nature of anthropological understanding. Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences
28(1):26–45.Google Scholar
Jaynes, J. (1976) The origin of consciousness in the breakdown of the bicameral mind. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.Google Scholar
Pareto, V. (1913) Il massimo di utilità per una collettività in sociologia. Giornale degli economisti e rivista di statistica
46(4):337–41.Google Scholar
Weick, K. E. & Roberts, K. H. (1993) Collective mind in organizations: Heedful interrelating on flight decks. Administrative science quarterly
38(3):357–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Target article
Are groups more or less than the sum of their members? The moderating role of individual identification
Related commentaries (29)
Beyond old dichotomies: Individual differentiation can occur through group commitment, not despite it
But is it social? How to tell when groups are more than the sum of their members
Considering the role of ecology on individual differentiation
Differentiated selves can surely be good for the group, but let's get clear about why
Differentiated selves help only when identification is strong and tasks are complex
Differentiation of selves: Differentiating a fuzzy concept
Disputing deindividuation: Why negative group behaviours derive from group norms, not group immersion
Group and individual as complementary conceptual categories
Group behavior in the military may provide a unique case
Group effort in resuscitation teams
Group members differ in relative prototypicality: Effects on the individual and the group
Group membership: Who gets to decide?
Groups need selves, but which selves? Dual selves in groups and the downsides of individuation
How group members contribute to group performance: Evidence from agent-based simulations
Humans are not the Borg: Personal and social selves function as components in a unified self-system
Identity matters to individuals: Group assessment cannot be reduced to collective performance
Member differentiation and group tasks: More than meets the eye
Not even wrong: Imprecision perpetuates the illusion of understanding at the cost of actual understanding
Reputational concerns as a general determinant of group functioning
Roles and ranks: The importance of hierarchy for group functioning
Social identification is generally a prerequisite for group success and does not preclude intragroup differentiation
Social, not individual, identification is the key to understanding group phenomena
Solved paradoxes and old hats? The research needed on differentiated selves
Task specificity and the impact on both the individual and group during the formation of groups
The hows and whys of “we” (and “I”) in groups
The subtle effects of incentives and competition on group performance
The unique role of the agent within the romantic group
Vicarious contagion decreases differentiation – and comes with costs
We agree and we disagree, which is exactly what most people do most of the time
Author response
Differentiating selves facilitates group outcomes