Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T06:28:00.009Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Groups need selves, but which selves? Dual selves in groups and the downsides of individuation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 October 2016

Mark P. Healey
Mark P. Healey*
Affiliation:
Manchester Business School, University of Manchester, Manchester M15 6PB, United Kingdom. [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It may be true that “groups need selves,” as Baumeister et al. contend. However, certain types of selfhood and too much selfhood can both be detrimental to group functioning. I draw on theory and research on dual selves in work groups and teams to outline boundary conditions to the hypothesis that emphasizing individual selves yields positive effects for groups.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 39 , 2016 , e151
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ancona, D. G. & Caldwell, D. F. (1992) Demography and design: Predictors of new product team performance. Organization Science 3:321–41.Google Scholar
Bales, R. F. (1951) Interaction process analysis: A method for the study of small groups. Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Barnard, C. I. (1938) The functions of the executive. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, S. (1994) Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. American Psychologist 49:709–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Galvin, B. M., Lange, D. & Ashforth, B. E. (2015) Narcissistic organizational identification: Seeing oneself as central to the organization's identity. Academy of Management Review 40:163–81. doi: 10.5465/amr.2013.0103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gersick, C. J. G. & Hackman, J. R. (1990) Habitual routines in task-performing groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 47:65–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Healey, M. P., Vuori, T. & Hodgkinson, G. P. (2015) When teams agree while disagreeing: Reflexion and reflection in shared cognition. Academy of Management Review 40:399–22. doi: 10.5465/amr.2013.0154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, S. E. & Schuler, R. S. (1985) A meta-analysis and conceptual critique of research on role ambiguity and role conflict in work settings. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 36:16–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J. D. & Rosenthal, R. A. (1964) Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. Wiley.Google Scholar
Lieberman, M. D. (2007) Social cognitive neuroscience: A review of core processes. Annual Review of Psychology 58:259–89.Google Scholar
McGrath, J. E. (1984) Groups: Interaction and performance. Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
McGrath, J. E. (1991) Time, interaction, and performance (TIP): A theory of groups. Small Group Research 22(2):147–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J. & Lirtzman, S. I. (1970) Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly 15:150–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanovich, K. E. & West, R. F. (2000) Advancing the rationality debate. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23:701–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thibaut, J. W. & Kelley, H. H. (1959) The social psychology of groups. John Wiley.Google Scholar