CHAPTER 1 SYNOPSIS OF THE THESIS 1.1 MOTIVATION AND STRUCTURE OF THE THESIS 1 SYNOPSIS OF THE THESIS MOTIVATION OF THE THESIS

Transcription

1 1 CHAPTER 1 SYNOPSIS OF THE THESIS 1.1 MOTIVATION AND STRUCTURE OF THE THESIS MOTIVATION OF THE THESIS The social identity approach, comprising the theories of social identity and its cognitive derivate social categorization theory (e.g., Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, and Wetherell 1987), has inspired an increasing body of research in marketing and management, which is still gaining momentum. Fundamentally, the social identity approach rests on two essential assumptions: First, a person s sense of identity is partly a function of belonging to a social group. Social identity is generally viewed as that part of an individual s self-concept which derives from his knowledge of his membership of a social group (or groups) together with the value and emotional significance attached to that membership (Tajfel 1978, p. 63). Second, when people have established group memberships and ultimately formed a social identity, they categorize themselves as in-group members and others who do not belong to their group as out-group members. This social categorization process has a variety of cognitive-perceptual consequences for group members, such as biased information processing or more stereotypical memory (for excellent reviews see van Knippenberg and Dijksterhuis 2000; Macrae and Bodenhausen 2000). One of the root constructs of the social identity approach is the concept of social identification, which can be defined as a relatively enduring state that reflects an individual s readiness to define him- or herself as a member of a particular social

2 2 group (Haslam 2001, p. 383; see also Edwards 2005 for a review of the history of the construct). Thus, the degree of identification with a specific group reflects the importance a specific social identity has for an individual s sense of self (Olkkonen and Lipponen 2006; Mael and Ashforth 1989). The key implication is that social identification, firmly rooted in the social identity approach, ties the individual s selfconcept to a collective role (Ashforth, Harrison, and Corley 2008), which ultimately leads people to act on behalf of those groups embodying their social identities (Ellemers, de Gilder, and Haslam 2004; Mael and Ashforth 1989). Transferred to organizational contexts, identification results in a variety of desirable employee behaviors, such as increased extra-role behavior or increased performance (e.g., Celsi and Gilly 2010; Olkkonen and Lipponen 2006; Dukerich, Golden, and Shortell 2002; van Knippenberg and van Schie 2000). Hence, from an instrumental perspective, the social identity approach is of high relevance for research in management and marketing as it provides potent means and strategies for employee steering. In addition to the high relevance, the social identity approach also has a high theoretical fit to organizational contexts. This is because organizations are essentially a nexus of different nested groups and the social identity approach is fundamentally meant to explain intergroup behavior. Arguably, this has contributed to the frequent applications of social identity perspectives in marketing and management. Starting with Ashforth s and Mael s seminal article Social Identity Theory and the Organization, in 1989, as an initial conceptual application of the social identity approach, subsequent research in management and marketing has thoroughly investigated the phenomena of social identity and social identification in organizational contexts (for a review see Riketta 2005). Most notably, in the marketing literature, the concept of social identification has been broadened to consumer-company identification (Bhattacharya and Sen 2003) and more recently to brand identification (Lam, Ahearne, Hu, and Schillewaert 2010), as fruitful theoretical extensions.

3 3 However, one major drawback of previous studies, is their limited theoretical scope in applying the social identity approach to organizational contexts. More precisely, research has failed to take into account that the social identity approach originated as an attempt to explain intergroup bias and discrimination (Hamilton and Hewstone 2007). Specifically, the role of intergroup stereotypes, formally defined as often over-generalized, rigid and exaggerated beliefs about the characteristics, attributes, and behaviors of members of certain groups (Hilton and von Hippel 1996; Krueger, Hall, Villano, and Jones 2008), as another root construct of the social identity approach has been neglected. In fact, this neglect is surprising, as in his seminal work, based on the minimal group paradigm, Henri Tajfel (e.g., 1969) demonstrated that intergroup stereotypes and intergroup discrimination could arise as a consequence of simple intergroup differentiation. In other words, the mere categorization of individuals into two groups, an in-group and an out-group is sufficient for stereotypes to arise and to shape intergroup behavior (Hamilton and Hewstone 2007). That mere categorization is sufficient for stereotypes to arise has major implications for organizations. As organizations provide their members with multiple group memberships, such as the lunch group, the shift, the work group, or the department and these subgroups all represent potential targets for stereotyping, stereotypes can be viewed as an ubiquitary phenomenon in organizations. Following previous research in social psychology, which converges on the notion that stereotypes poison intergroup relations, it is likely that stereotypes also have detrimental outcomes in organizational contexts such as scapegoating, aggression, or lack of support for the targeted group (for reviews of social psychological literature see Hewstone, Rubin, and Willis 2002; Hilton and van Hippel 1996). Given the ubiquity of stereotypes and its harmful organizational consequences, the investigation of stereotypes in organizational contexts is of major importance.

4 4 The role of negative stereotypes is particularly important in a personal selling setting because salespeople, as the face of an organization (Hartline, Maxham, and McKee 2000), pervasively affect customers perceptions of the entire company through their direct interaction (Ahearne, Bhattacharya, and Gruen 2005; Liao and Chuang 2004). Thus, in case salespeople harbor negative stereotypes against any formal or informal group within their own organization (e.g., against their corporate headquarters), this might evoke unfavorable customer evaluations of the respective company, which subsequently affect organizational performance. Likewise, in case sales representatives harbor negative meta-stereotypes (i.e. shared beliefs regarding the stereotypes that out-group members hold about his or her group), as a function of their membership in a stigmatized organization, this may impact sales encounters adversely. Under this condition customers perceptions of service quality might be negatively influenced and ultimately, this may harm the entire customer-company relationship. Against this backdrop, the present studies introduce the concept of stereotypes to the sales management literature 1 and thereby provide a more holistic picture of social identity processes in organizations. More specifically, the present studies are instigated by addressing the following major research questions: (1) How is social identification with multiple nested organizational groups associated with intra-organizational intergroup stereotyping? (2) How harmful is intra-organizational intergroup stereotyping for key marketing and sales outcomes, such as sales performance and customer satisfaction? (3) How can intra-organizational intergroup stereotyping be avoided? (4) On which organizational level (corporate management level vs. sales unit level) do remediation strategies have to be implemented in order to successfully reduce intra-organizational intergroup stereotyping? 1 Note that there is one previously conducted study on stereotypes in a sales context. However, this study is not rooted in the social identity approach, see Babin, Boles, and Darden (1995).

5 5 (5) How are sales and service encounters affected if sales representatives become the target of customers stereotyping? STRUCTURE OF THE THESIS In order to answer the above derived research questions, three empirical studies were conducted, which build the groundwork of this thesis: Study 1: The Ambidexterity of Social Identification: Multiple Identification Foci and Their Countervailing Effects on Salespeople s Negative Headquarters Stereotypes. Study 2: When Salespeople Develop Negative Headquarters Stereotypes: Performance Effects and Managerial Remedies. Study 3: The Stigma of Dirty Work in Dyadic Interactions. Study 1 examines how sales representatives social identification with multiple nested groups (in this case sales representatives identification with their work teams and their identification with the entire organization) influences intraorganizational intergroup stereotyping. At the core of this study is what the authors termed ambidexterity of social identification. The ambidexterity of social identification refers to the paradox that identification processes may lead to either positive (decreased intergroup stereotyping) or negative outcomes (increased intergroup stereotyping) as a result of the interplay between subgroup-based and organizational identification. In other words, it reflects the idea that organizational intergroup stereotyping as an outcome of social identification varies as a function of different identification foci. In theoretically deriving and empirically testing this ambidexterity, study 1 answers research question 1 3 (how is social identification associated with intergroup stereotyping, how harmful is it, and how can it be avoided). Thereby, empirically supporting the ambidexterity of social identification and showing how customer satisfaction and sales representatives sales performance is impacted.

6 6 While study 1 shows how stereotypes affect sales representatives sales performance and customer satisfaction, study 2 more deeply explores negative organizational consequences of intra-organizational intergroup stereotyping and additionally establishes empirical associations between stereotypes and sales representatives adherence to corporate strategy and their customer orientation. Therefore, study 2 provides a more holistic answer to research question 2 (how harmful is intra-organizational intergroup stereotyping for key marketing and sales outcomes). Furthermore and most importantly, study 2 answers research question 4 (on which organizational level should remediation strategies), by exploring the relevance of multiple organizational subgroups for the rise and hindrance of intraorganizational intergroup stereotyping. More specifically, findings from study 2 indicate that stereotypes can be remedied through managerial actions, but more so at the corporate management level than at the sales unit level. In expanding the concept of stereotypes beyond intra-organizational intergroup stereotyping (e.g., towards organizational subgroups) to stereotyping of organizations by external constituents, such as customers, study 3 is a crucial extension to study 1 and 2. More specifically, study 3 investigates how negative stereotypes, harbored by customers towards organizational boundary spanners of a stigmatized organization, harm customers perceived service quality. Moreover, boundary spanners negative meta-stereotypes (i.e. shared beliefs regarding the stereotypes that out-group members hold about his or her group) negatively impact their sales performance. In sum, study 3 particularly answers research question 5 (how are sales and service encounters affected if sales representatives become the target of customers stereotyping).