Module 5 Discussion

Discussion Option 1
 Membership in teams serves as an important source of identity for people in
organizations.  The extent to which a given person identifies with a group occurs on three
distinct levels: cognitive, emotional, and behavioral (CH 10).  This identity can also lead to
categorizing others as part of the “in-group” or “out-group.”  In the following video David
Stillman talks about the "Millennial generation" and how best to manage generational
differences in the workplace.  After watching the TedTalks video discuss your thoughts on
the "Millennial generation” in terms of group identity in an organization.  
 Once we categorize others, we may view members of our own team more favorably –
what are some of the consequences of this categorization?
 How do we help reduce intergroup conflict?

As someone who was born in the millennial generation – 1994, to be exact – I found this
video of David Stillman’s TED Talk to be really fascinating. His point of view on this generation
brought up a lot of valid points, such as the way in which we work, why our work ethic is the
way that it is, and maybe what caused this major shift in how all of us work. Because there’s a
difference in the way the millennial generation works in comparison to their colleagues who
come from the generations before them, it could be easy for the “in-groups” and “out-groups”
to be established. A line from Chapter 10 of our textbook that I found to emphasize on this
cultural shock, you could call it, states, “People consider in-groups to be people who are like
themselves or who belong to the same groups; out-groups are people who are not in their
group or who are members of competitor groups” (Thompson, p. 252). Since there is a fairly
noticeable contrast in the work ethics of millennials and those who have come before them, it’s
easy for the previous generations (traditionalists, baby boomers, gen-x’ers) to say that
millennials are the “out-group” because millennials might not agree with the way in which they,
the “in-group,” work. The same could be said from millennials about their colleagues who are
from previous generations, thinking that because they don’t agree with their beliefs or work
ethic that makes them the “out-group.”
When it comes to my thoughts on the millennial generation in terms of group identity in
organizations, I feel as though millennials are very capable of being able to identify themselves
with a group or organization. For me, I don’t think the problem really lies in group identity
among millennials, it more so lies in whether or not organizations will allow for them to be part
of the group’s identity. To refer to something that David Stillman mentioned in his talk, instead
of turning away the engagement from millennials why not invite their engagement in and let
their thoughts be heard. Allowing them to have an identity within the organization can have a
positive impact because, essentially, we’re the ones who are wanting to shape the course of
our future. Now, whether or not our desire to have that ability is perceived by others as being
entitled, a word that’s had a negative connotation for our generation, depends on who you’re
talking to. I think it’s easy to confuse the two, but unless you take the time to understand
where they’re coming from and what the intention is for their thinking and acting you won’t get
the full picture, which traces back to organizations being inviting of this generation’s
engagement and interest in wanting to be part of the group’s identity.
When we categorize others and view members of our own team more favorably, we’re
partaking in what’s defined as in-group bias. According to our textbook, in-group bias is stated
as, “the tendency to favor one’s own group at the expense of outgroups” (Thompson, p. 254).
Some of the consequences of categorization can include, but are not limited to, intergroup
empathy bias [“tendency to empathize less with out-group members or out-group leaders”
(Thompson, p. 254)], stereotyping [“a generalized (usually faulty) belief that everyone from a
given culture is the same” (Thompson, p. 324)], as well as separation [“Separation occurs when
a person maintains their own culture and distances from the other culture” (Thompson, p.
343)]. When it comes to how we help reduce the intergroup conflict, there could be several
ways to go about tackling it. For me, it’s all about how you approach the conflict and which type
of resolution(s) you feel will work best based on your situation. Out of the many possible ways
to reduce conflict, the most effective way to reduce conflict is with integration. We’re
introduced to this term in Chapter 13 of our textbook, where it’s defined as, “a type of
acculturation whereby each member of the multicultural team maintains their own culture,
while also maintaining contact with the other culture” (Thompson, p. 343). By integrating
ourselves with each other, whether we’re part of an “in-group” or “out-group,” we’re able to
be understanding of one another, which can decrease the potential rise of intergroup conflict.
Although we’re introduced to this term in a multicultural context, it can also apply to matters
beyond multiculturalism.

References:
Tedx (Tedx Talks). (2010, December 1). TEDxStLouis – David Stillman – The M-Factor [Video
file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8m5BdIdyC4
Thompson, L. L. (2017). Making the Team: A Guide for Managers, Sixth Edition. New York, New
York: Pearson Education, Inc.