This week’s report deals with the concept of in and out-groups. As we begin, we will be looking into what exactly makes an in and out-group. We will also study the concepts of in and out-groups. Once we wrap up the first portion of the research we will immediately be going into our second section. The second portion will consist of describing a personal example in which I was part of an in-group situation. Once I divulge my personal example, I will be describing a situation in which a colleague of mine found himself in an out-group situation. Once we study these two situations, the report will navigate into the third portion in which we will be analyzing and explaining some of the differences between my in-group situation and my colleague’s out-group experience. As we move into the fourth section of the report, we will be looking into how in-groups and out-groups affect organizations and their employees. The fifth section of the report will explain how the out-group situation in which my colleague found himself was directly caused by an extend of a non-task related factors. Finally, as we reach the final section of the report, the report will describe some of the implications that can occur when leader’s develop a relationship with their followers.
The concepts of in & out-groups
As we begin this report, I would like to take the opportunity to thank the Human Resources department for giving me this opportunity to present this information to each and every one of you. As we begin this research we will be speaking in regards to the concept that makes in and out groups
Let us now begin by speaking in regards to the concept of in and out groups. According to Bierstedt (1963), an in-group and out-group have no real specific size. He states that an in-groups can be something as small as a family and as immense as the world and that an out-group can simply be anyone who is not part of the family or not in the world. A better evaluation of an in-group is what he calls the “we-group” and the out-group the “they group” (Para.4).
Nahavandi (2011) uses the concept of in and out groups to describe the many relationships we may have with different supervisors. Nahavandi explains that the subordinates who demonstrate a higher-quality relationship with supervisors are considered to be in the in-group and the individuals who become distant will be considered part of the out-group (Page 80)
Nahavandi (2011) goes on to say that in-group followers bask in their leader’s attention, support and confidence. These followers also look forward to tasks that are both challenging and interesting. One of the biggest kickbacks that in-group followers may receive is when their supervisors overlook their errors, and recognize and reward them more frequently for their work. Now, members of the out-group have a totally different treatment and many times the supervisor may even have a bias view of their work ethic. Members of the out-group may be...