Intergroup Relations in Organizations

By D. van Knippenberg. 2008

90 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Gender Studies, Social Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/28021316e92cca8bde7e24b4aa8db8563c3a097a

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Gender Studies

In Social Psychology

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Participative Decision Making in Schools: A Mediating-Moderating Analytical Framework for Understanding School and Teacher Outcomes (2010, background): “…is that they tap into the primary levels of research significant for management, the target of influence: the teacher at the individual level, the teacher-principal relationship at the dyadic level, nested in the school that in turn is embedded in the school environment (van Knippenberg, 2003).”
Organizational identity strength, identification, and commitment and their relationships to turnover intention: Does organizational hierarchy matter? (2006, methodology): “In the third study, van Knippenberg and Sleebos (2006) collected data from Dutch university faculty to further explore the differences between identification and commitment.”
Defying conventional wisdom: A meta-analytical examination of the differences between demographic and job-related diversity relationships with performance (2012, background): “A wealth of research on intergroup relations shows that such distinctions can engender intergroup biases, such as more favorable attitudes towards ingroup members, more trust in ingroup members, and a greater willingness to cooperate with ingroup members (Tajfel, 1982; van Knippenberg, 2003).”
When Interteam Conflict Spirals into Intrateam Power Struggles: The Pivotal Role of Team Power Structures (2017, background): “Such conflicts between teams are often seen as zero-sum and intractable (e.g., Esses et al., 1998), and are known to sour interteam relations and effectiveness (e.g., Kramer, 1991; Richter, Scully, & West, 2005; van Knippenberg, 2003).”
Diversity faultlines, shared objectives, and top management team performance (2011, background): “From this perspective, what would be required to counteract the influence of faultlines is an influence that increases the salience of the categorization as one team and thus distracts from subgroupings in the team (cf. Gaertner et al., 1993; van Knippenberg, 2003).”
Intergroup Leadership in Organizations: Leading Across Group and Organizational Boundaries (2012, background): “Effective leadership, too, is contingent on social identity dynamics (Hogg, 2001, 2008; Hogg & van Knippenberg, 2003; Lord et al., 1999; Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993; van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2003).”
The Influence of Team Emotional Intelligence Climate on Conflict and Team Members' Reactions to Conflict (2008, background): “All participants were team based and given the recommendation for valid team size (Brett & Rognes, 1986); any team with fewer than 4 members was excluded from further analyses.”
Unity Through Diversity: Value-in-Diversity Beliefs, Work Group Diversity, and Group Identification (2007, background): “…2000), leadership effectiveness (van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2003; Platow, Haslam, Foddy, & Grace, 2003), intergroup relations (Kramer, 1991; van Knippenberg, 2003), and the effects of mergers and acquisitions (van Dick, Wagner, & Lemmer, 2004; van Leeuwen, van Knippenberg, & Ellemers, 2003;…”
Testing and Visualizing Strategic Consensus Within and Between Teams (2011, background): “In similar vein, research in intergroup relations in organizations (Brett & Rognes, 1986; van Knippenberg, 2003) may benefit from the SCM methodology to map shared understanding between interdependent organizational groups beyond issues of strategic priorities alone.”
Leadership in Teams: A Functional Approach to Understanding Leadership Structures and Processes (2010, background): “This involves actions that coordinate work or tasks between teams or functional units (Brett & Rognes, 1986) and includes discussing problems with others, obtaining feedback on product designs and requirements, and coordinating and negotiating with outsiders (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992).”