Theories in Action #2: Social Identity Theory

SIT states that group membership affects how we perceive ourselves; the stronger the social identity, the more we promote in-group favoritism. Leader emergence/effectiveness depends on how strongly the group members identify with the group. In my situation, there are two others interns in addition to me. One of them just started this past week. We all work remotely, and I have only seen them once since training. I have also only seen my boss once since training, and the other interns have not seen her at all. This is my boss’s choice, too; she could be meeting with us or making more of an effort, or responding to our efforts, to all come together. Given this, there is very little social identity with the interns and TTF in general. It is hard because we are establishing the Richmond chapter of TTF, so the “social identity” of TTF is something we are helping create. However, there is a lack of collaboration, cohesiveness and support within the team, largely due to my boss’s lack of engagement, unfortunately. Thus, her leadership is not strong nor has she emerged as a real “leader” at all this summer. 

This has resulted in a lack of social identity for me personally, and within TTF as a whole. I have worked hard to collaborate with the other interns and my boss, hopefully promoting more of an identity, culture and collaborative environment, yet my efforts have not been matched by my other colleagues nor my boss. It is hard to be the only one putting time and energy into establishing a chapter of a non-profit. In other words, my efforts only go so far given I am one person and do need help and guidance, which I am not receiving. It is interesting to observe this theory in action in a rather unexpected, and unfortunate, way. Since there is little to no group identity, there has been very little leadership from the “leader”, the CEO, my boss. Or, is it the other way around?