This research is a continuation of London's earlier paper (2003) on Antecedents and Consequences of Self-Verification: Implications for Individual and Group Development. London, Polzer and Omoregie explore how self-verification, group diversity and task demands determine identity negotiating behaviour in self-disclosure and shared feedback.
Self-verification Motivation
Feedback is critical in self-disclosure. In early stages of formation, shared self-perception confirms what is seen in others is a reflection of ourselves. Self-verification forms through reassurance in group response. Group interaction that confirms self-view promotes smooth and harmonious interactions. This process maintains self-esteem.
London, Polzer and Omoregie state that group members:
- with high self-esteem accept feedback on both positive and negative characteristics;
- with low self-esteem react well to feedback on positive characteristics;
- preferred feedback on unfavourable characteristics; and
- preferred working with partners who offer unfavourable feedback.
Situation Conditions: Member Diversity and Task Interdependence
Group efficacy is interrupted when diversity leads to perceptions of social categories. Inaccurate views of competence negatively affect interaction and congruence. When individual social categorisation is replaced with group social categorisation, differences are viewed as the strengths and weaknesses of the group. Previous work by Polzer indicates that diversity in groups with high interaction improves creativity. Complex tasks involving sequential interdependence require coordination and cooperation to collect strengths in individual skill, knowledge and experience. Increased group cohesiveness results in better performance.
Identity Negotiation
Explicit discussion of appraisal is avoided when feedback threatens individual identity. Negotiation occurs frequently at group inception during the introductory phase of clarifying individual contribution. A lack of direct feedback results in individuals taking cues from each other and tracking performance data to identify group reaction.
London, Polzer and Omoregie propose the following:
- Proposition 1 - members’ desire for self-verification, learning, and feedback will be positively related to (a) the initiation of self-disclosure of skills, background, personal goals, and conflicts of interest; (b) seeking self-verifying feedback; and (c) giving feedback early in the group process (as early as the first few minutes of the first meeting). Self-enhancement and performance goal orientation will be positively related to asking for positive feedback and affirming/laudatory comments.
- Proposition 2 - situational demands will be positively related to initiation of identity negotiation and feedback. In particular, member diversity and interdependent tasks that require diverse input will be positively related to members (a) disclosing how their skills and background are likely to influence the group’s task and (b) sharing (seeking, receiving, and giving) feedback.
Change
Disruption to preestablished context indicates a need for group re-structuring and re-negotiating identity when:
- group members leave or change;
- tasks, goals and significant progress change; or
- outcomes significant to success or failure indicate a rise in self-esteem or transformation.
- Proposition 3 - change stimulates identity negotiation as an evolving process.
Achieving Self-Verification, Internal Congruence and Transactive Memory
Self-verification
Retaining individual identity motivates the group toward self-verification, London, Polzer and Omoregie propose. Distinct roles and contribution enhances group integration in ways members recognise and value. High levels of congruence in groups indicates fewer instances of emotional conflict.
Interpersonal Congruence
Self-verification processes benefit behaviour retrospectively. Characteristics are recognised and utilised. London, Polzer and Omoregie highlight the benefit groups of a heterogeneous nature necessitating judgement.
Transactive Memory
By establishing high interpersonal congruence and feedback recognised skills and knowledge become available to the group. London, Polzer and Omoregie state that transactive memory rests in the beliefs group members' have about each others' expertise. Transactive memory is the accumulation of group knowledge that cannot be held by a single individual, and can be drawn upon as a resource. Acquired skills and knowledge are shared and maintained for the benefit of the group. Core members maintain transactive memory. Novice members observe experienced group members to increase individual knowledge.
Individuals develop distinct knowledge domain specialisation. This enhances collective knowledge and individuals gain knowledge at a deeper cognitive level. London, Polzer and Omoregie indicate research in groupwork has shown that group learning leads to establishing differentiated and specialised knowledge, increases in memory for task related information and accuracy in completing projects. Members trained on an individual basis do not achieve similar levels of interpersonal congruency. Overlapping task knowledge occurs, less information is retained and completed tasks are inaccurate.
Expertise defines self-views and identities. Individual perceptions about group member expertise is relayed through feedback leading to interpersonal congruence. Related tasks confirm individual thoughts on group member expertise that result in either positive formation of cognitive association or dysfunctional outcomes. London, Polzer and Omoregie state that communication is significant in retrieving group information. Close relationships enhance the development of transactive memory. Motivation to learn and for recall comes from group expectation for new knowledge. Characteristics of transactive memory systems are:
- specialisation that is closely connected to group views;
- credibility generated by self-verification processes; and
- coordination of adaptation and transformation.
- Proposition 4 - identity negotiation is positively related to member self-verification, transactive memory and interpersonal congruence.
Feedback
Difficulties in achieving transactive memory and interpersonal congruence lie in levels of positive self-image and self-disclosure. Feedback has been viewed as threatening to self-image. Time for reflection is necessary for transformation. Multi-source feedback directed at individuals or group prompts new interactions in identity negotiation. Interpersonal congruence and transactive memory are mutually enacted by those receiving and giving feedback. London, Polzer and Omoregie argue that it is not a product of adjustment to task demands, team leader direction or formal appraisal.
Analysis of feedback encourages members to adopt group abilities of contribution. Process structure and leader direction relate positively in identity negotiation and shared feedback.
- Proposition 5 - leader directed activity encourages identity negotiation and self-verification.
Ongoing Group Process, Development and Achievement
Group reflexivity consists of reflection and exploration that leads to a state of readiness and become routine, London, Polzer and Omoregie state. Through self-verification and interpersonal congruence members establish resources and transactive memory.
- Proposition 6 - interpersonal congruence and transactive memory relates to planning, implementation and assessment.
- Proposition 7 - interventions strengthen the relationship between the development of transactive memory and its use.
- Proposition 8 - change stimulates the group to use its transactive memory.
- Proposition 9 - use of transactive memory is positively related to goal accomplishment and group development.
- Proposition 10 - goal achievement and group development is positively related to continuous and evolving identity negotiation.
- Proposition 11 - either the group or individual members take the initiative to change the situation.
- Proposition 12 - group achievement and development affects members’ motivation for further self-verification.
Directions for Research and Practice
London, Polzer and Omoregie reflect that time is needed to study the effects of interpersonal congruence and transactive memory on outcomes and processes. Testing efffects of interventions may help identify the processes of developing transactive memory. An exploration of antecedents to self-verification that prompt identity negotiation is warranted. The authors question whether conditions of transactive memory and interpersonal congruence are stable, fluid or elastic. Managerial perspectives indicate a need for evaluation of process and tools.
Conclusion
Time and environment affect group cohesion through processes of identity negotiation and self-verification. Self-disclosure leads to seeing oneself in others and establishing competencies and expertise. Development of collective knowledge depends on interpersonal congruence and feedback. Transactive memory increases with individual members understanding of group complexity. High levels of interpersonal congruence correlate positively with group social categorisation. Variables in identity negotiating behaviours should be considered as areas for further research.
No comments:
Post a Comment