Resistance to collaboration within organisations is rarely attributable solely to individual reluctance or interpersonal friction. More often, it stems from deeper psychological mechanisms that operate at both the individual and group levels. These mechanisms—adaptive in many everyday contexts—can unintentionally hinder cooperation, particularly during organisational transitions such as mergers and acquisitions (M&A).
At the individual level, resistance often originates from cognitive categorisation—a process by which people simplify complex environments by grouping others based on perceived similarities. While this mental shortcut aids in managing social information efficiently, it also gives rise to assumptions and stereotypes. For instance, someone introduced as a senior executive may automatically be associated with competence and authority, while an individual identified as an intern may evoke expectations of inexperience. Such unconscious inferences shape interactions and judgements well before meaningful engagement occurs, quietly eroding the foundations of open collaboration.
At the group level, social identity processes play a similarly influential role. As proposed by Social Identity Theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979), individuals derive part of their self-concept from the social groups to which they belong. This identification fosters in-group cohesion and loyalty—but it can also lead to the exclusion or marginalisation of those perceived as out-group members. Within organisations, these dynamics can manifest as reluctance to collaborate with newly integrated teams or different departments, especially when pre-existing teams share strong internal bonds.
These biases become even more pronounced in contexts of perceived resource scarcity. When recognition, access to strategic projects, or decision-making are seen as limited, collaboration may be interpreted not as an opportunity, but as a threat. According to Realistic Conflict Theory, competition over scarce resources intensifies intergroup tensions, often resulting in defensive behaviours and obstructed cooperation.
Taken together, these individual and social mechanisms form a powerful—often invisible—barrier to collaboration. For organisations navigating change acknowledging and actively addressing these dynamics is essential to create the conditions for trust, psychological safety, and a more cohesive culture.
Mergers and Acquisitions: A Case of Organisational Division
Few scenarios expose intergroup dynamics as clearly as M&As. While often framed as strategic business opportunities, these integrations represent profound identity disruptions for employees. Individuals not only face changes in leadership, processes, and policies, but also a redefinition of organisational belonging.
Employees from the acquiring and acquired firms frequently experience allegiance to their original entities. These loyalties are reinforced by distinct corporate cultures, operational norms, and even language. Without deliberate integration strategies, categorisation processes may drive employees to see “us” (our original team) versus “them” (the new colleagues), resulting in mistrust and reduced collaboration.
The failed Daimler-Benz and Chrysler merger exemplifies this. The companies’ opposing organisational cultures—one formal and hierarchical, the other informal and decentralised—amplified identity conflicts and obstructed cooperation. Conversely, the successful integration of Disney and Pixar was facilitated by a deliberate effort to highlight shared values (creativity, innovation, storytelling), helping employees transcend former affiliations and build a cohesive new identity.
Fostering Collaboration Through Identity Integration
Addressing resistance to collaboration calls for strategic interventions that reshape how individuals perceive group boundaries and redefine what it means to belong within the organisation. Research in social psychology suggests that identity-based strategies are particularly effective in overcoming intergroup bias and fostering collaboration. Two complementary approaches stand out:
a) Constructing a Superordinate Identity One effective strategy is to emphasise a shared organisational identity that transcends former divisions—especially relevant during processes like mergers and acquisitions. By articulating common goals, values, and a collective vision, organisations can reduce the psychological distance between groups. This reframing helps employees shift from an “us vs. them” mindset to a more inclusive “we” perspective (Gaertner et al., 1993; Dovidio et al., 2000). When a newly merged entity positions itself not as a continuation of either legacy organisation but as a unified whole, collaboration becomes more psychologically accessible.
b) Integrating Dual Identities Rather than erasing pre-existing group affiliations, another effective approach is to maintain and honour these identities while situating them within a broader, inclusive framework. This dual-identity model is particularly valuable in multicultural or matrix organisations, where acknowledging local cultures or departmental uniqueness can enhance engagement. For example, the British Airways–Iberia merger preserved the distinct cultural identities of both airlines, while fostering a shared commitment to global service excellence. This strategy promotes collaboration without demanding conformity, encouraging individuals to see themselves as part of both a subgroup and a larger collective.
Both approaches aim to reduce intergroup tension not by denying difference, but by reconfiguring the way difference is understood. Whether through unification or integration, the goal remains the same: to create a sense of shared belonging that supports collaboration, trust, and organisational cohesion.
References
Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Validzic, A. (2000). Intergroup bias: Status, differentiation, and a common in-group identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1), 109–120. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.1.109
Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Anastasio, P. A., Bachman, B. A., & Rust, M. C. (1993). The common ingroup identity model: Recategorization and the reduction of intergroup bias. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European Review of Social Psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 1–26). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1080/14792779343000004
Sherif, M. (1966). Group conflict and co-operation: Their social psychology. Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks/Cole.
beyondgreymatter.com 
Lascia un commento