The Eagles and the Rattlers standing guard on the Arkansas state line.
In this blog series, which has focussed on the research behind how groups and teams work, we’ve been following the Robbers Cave experiment that was conducted in 1954. The experiment brought together two groups of twelve year old boys to study intergroup relations (Sherif, 1961). You can read previous episodes in the series here.
Bringing the Eagles and Rattlers together
The researchers conducting the Robbers Cave experiment had created a situation where the two groups, named the Eagles and the Rattlers, were warring with each other. The relationships were so bad that two groups conducted destructive raids on the other team’s cabin, had food fights, called each other derogatory names and wouldn’t sit near each other at meals when given the opportunity. The Eagles and Rattlers were enjoying their adventure camp as long as they stayed away from each other.
The plan to bring the groups together consisted of creating a series of challenges that could not be completed without the groups pooling their resources and efforts. It was thought that by having a superordinate goal (i.e. a goal that can only be achieved if both groups work together by pooling their skills, efforts, and resources) that it would reduce the tension between the Eagles and the Rattlers.
Challenge number one: No water
The first challenge was to shut off the camp’s water supply by stuffing a sack in the outlet of the water tank feeding the camp. The two groups were divided into four groups of six and sent off separately to find and fix the problem. They followed the pipes that fed water to the camp and all four groups ended up at the water tank on the top of a hill. They found the main tap was blocked by the offending sack. The Eagles and Rattlers took it in turns for 45 minutes to try and remove the sack but found they didn’t have the strength. It wasn’t until a Rattler suggested that one of the Eagle’s staff members was bigger and could remove the sack more easily. This was successful and the water started to flow.
On the suggestion of the Rattlers, The Eagles were allowed to drink first as they had no canteens (old fashioned term for water bottle) with them. The groups started to informally mingle when the tap was successfully cleared. Some of the random collaborative activities included catching lizards and making wooden whistles. The division between the groups had started to break down after the successful solving of the common problem of a disrupted water supply. Unfortunately the groups went back to name calling and food fighting that night so the activity didn’t sustain itself. However the need for water was a strong motivator to get the groups to drop the animosity for a moment.
Challenge number two: No food
After having limited success at bringing the two groups together through the water supply challenge, the researchers organised another crisis. They faked a mechanical problem with a truck that was leaving the camp to collect food for the evening meal. In reality the truck was fine to go and collect the food but the researchers were observing how the Eagles and Rattlers would react. The Rattlers suggested pushing the truck up the hill to get it started but that was futile for a group of 12 year olds. A tug-of-war rope which had been used in previous competitions was left strategically near the truck. The Rattlers suggested to use the tug-of-war rope to pull the truck up the hill, “20 of us can pull it for sure” said one of the Rattlers. They knew they had to work together to achieve this.
They wrapped the rope around the bumper to form two ropes and the Eagles took one side and the Rattlers the other. The first attempt failed as the truck rolled back down the hill. The groups started again but this time the Eagles and Rattlers were mixed between the ropes as they focussed on the task rather than making sure they were standing next to their own group members. This time they got the truck started (or the researcher turned the key properly) and there was much celebration “We won the tug-of-war against the truck!” was a common cry from both sides. The researchers observed “Intermingling of members of the two groups and friendly interaction between them”.
Coincidentally that evening the truck got stuck again and the Rattlers and Eagles got straight into problem solving mode. Again the tug-of-war rope was used and the placing of Eagles and Rattlers was randomly along the ropes. Unlike the first time they used the rope when it was Eagles on one side and Rattlers on the other. In the context of freeing the food truck the groups quickly became one group.
Once the food arrived the meal preparation was cooperative as well, a combination of Eagles and Rattlers cooked the steaks and both groups were interspersed when it came to sitting down and eating the meal. Something that hadn’t happened before. Sherif put it down to the two groups having a common, or superordinate, goal to work on. In this case it was the need to get food - a strong motivator.
Overcoming the problems of the stuck truck and blocked water supply resulted to a reduction in name calling, the listing of members of the opposing group as friends, higher character ratings for the opposing group and lower character ratings for their own group. In the end there was no significant difference between ratings given to the ingroup and outgroup. The feeling of us and them was starting to even out to the point where they were starting to become just “us”.
Structured or unstructured group contact?
Is there evidence that this type of unstructured get together works in reducing tension and conflict? The Robbers Cave researchers found in earlier attempts of the experiment that just bringing the Rattlers and the Eagles together didn’t break down the wall between the two groups. But Robbers Cave sparked a wealth of research on how we bring groups together. In a major review of the research that has studied whether contact reduces prejudice, it was was found that indeed it does but it needs to be structured (Pettigrew and Tropp, 2006). We get a bigger change when we bring together people with a structured approach. The review by Pettigrew and Tropp included 515 studies from across cultural groups and contexts (work, schools, laboratories, tourism).
Just bringing people together, particularly when they don’t know each other, can produce negative outcomes. In these situations people feel uncomfortable and anxious and it subsequently can increase the bias between the groups (McInnis and Page-Gould, 2015). Imagine two opposing groups protesting at a public rally. One might start chanting, so the other group starts up to drown out the noise of the first group. Then one group might start throwing water bottles at the other group and so the missiles start going back and forth and then law enforcement steps in and on it goes. This interaction of the groups coming together has everyone coming away with a more negative view of the other side.
While the example is extreme, the same applies for example when two work groups come together after a company restructure. The idea of “let’s get everyone together” is a good one but you have to ask yourself to do what? And how are you going to achieve that? Group contact needs to reach a threshold where individuals are given time to spend with each other and the more frequently they get together and the better quality the interactions, the more likely it is that their prejudice and bias will be reduced (Hayward et. al., 2017).
Four factors to help bring groups together
The four factors developed by Gordon Allport to reduce prejudice between groups and supported through 50 years of research (Pettigrew, 2006; Pettigrew and Tropp, 2008) are:
Equal status of the groups in the situation While groups don’t have to be equal outside of the situation in which they are interacting, it’s important that they perceive themselves to be equal while they are together. This usually means that everyone feels they have equal opportunity to contribute and have a say and that what they contribute has equal weight. All group members should have equal access to information about the topic at hand where possible.
Common goals for the groups to work on The groups have to develop a shared understanding of what they are trying to achieve and this becomes the main purpose of the groups coming together. The Eagles and the Rattlers had to deal with what the researchers called superordinate goals. These are goals that can’t be completed without both groups pooling their resources and efforts. One example was pulling the broken down truck out of trouble, the fact the truck wasn’t really broken down didn’t matter, the groups got together and solved a problem and this is also one of Allport’s key principles to reducing prejudice between groups. Common goals increase an individuals identification with an organisation (Sveningsson & Alvesson, 2016) and for the group it creates a sense of common identity (Dovidio et. al, 2017).
Institutional support, such as having the support of authority Many groups exist in a hierarchy and it is important to have the support of the hierarchy to progress with whatever work the group is required to do. So if a work team wants to come together to work on a project or improve a process it needs the support of the organisational hierarchy, as these initiatives can be halted very quickly by senior staff.
Intergroup cooperation, which includes the removal of competition The attainment of the common goal needs to be dependent on the groups cooperating. This means they cannot be competing in a win-lose situation. The credit needs to be shared and participating groups need to be clear as to the benefit they will receive by being part of the process.
The analysis of the research showed that all these conditions don’t have to be present to achieve a reduction in bias but having all factors present will create a bigger improvement in group relations. Group interactions are best to be structured to meet these four conditions, as they don’t always just happen by chance. The improvement in relations also extends to individuals that have the same characteristics of the out-group that they haven’t met or aren’t part of the interactions. So if the finance and marketing teams got together to improve working relationships, any success of the intervention will extend to individuals who were unable to make it on the day.
Superordinate goals
The second of Allport’s principles of creating superordinate goals was an important factor in bringing the Eagles and Rattlers together. The researchers gave the two groups a number of problems which required them to work together and took out the elements of competition, which had been fuel for the conflict that occurred. The connections were made by working on a superordinate goal. A defining feature of such a goal is that it serves the interests of both groups.
Research on superordinate goals has equated them to values and meaning at work, and meaning at work leads to greater engagement (Hochli, 2018). Superordinate goals have a longer view and are less concrete than the specific goals that help move towards a superordinate goal. For example two separate work teams or groups may come together and create the super goal of:
“Working as one team for the good of our clients and provide an enjoyable workplace for all staff”
This will then require more specific sub-goals such as:
Create an action plan before the year starts that clarifies work priorities and who is responsible for what
Develop a client feedback process by the end of next month and report on it each month
Have a coffee/lunch catch up with team members we don’t know. Commit to one a month.
Does team building work?
No doubt you can think of other sub-goals in this example but the super goal gives the team members reason to commit to the sub goals. Corporate visions have a similar purpose and have been shown to predict growth (Baum and Locke, 2004). Sometimes we call these actions a team charter or a team mission and one benefit is that it helps improve clarity about why you are doing what you do. In terms of a team interventions, an in depth analysis of all research studies on the effectiveness of team building found that goal setting and role clarification had the biggest effect on team outcomes such as performance and personal relationships (Lacerenza et. al., 2018).
Why does contact between groups work? Contact reduces prejudice and bias by increasing knowledge about the other group, reducing intergroup anxiety, and increasing the ability for group members to ‘step inside someone else’s shoes’ (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2008).
Leaders role in bringing groups together
When leaders are dealing with two groups and the leader is seen to be aligned to one group it is important that leaders recognise and celebrate the unique and distinctive nature of the two groups. In previous episodes we've covered how we join groups to confirm our identity and promote our distinctive nature (“I’m part of this group, but I’m NOT one of THEM!”). Support of change is more effective when leaders emphasise that each group provides a unique and necessary role to make the collective group function (Kershaw et. al., 2021).
This message points out the need to collaborate without a loss of identity for either group. Simply stating “we’re all one and the same now” can backfire as it doesn’t recognise past identities and the distinctive characteristics of each group. Consider where the groups overlap, and don’t overlap, and communicate this. Better still get the groups to discuss these points and create a map of roles and functions. This type of cooperative and collaborative practice helps shift groups from ‘Us and Them’ to ‘WE’ (Dovidio et. al., 2017).
So what happened to the Eagles and Rattlers?
After a sometimes tumultuous two weeks of competition and then a move towards cooperation how did relations between the Eagles and Rattlers end up? It turns out the boys decided they would travel home together in one bus, instead of in separate buses, like they did on the way up. The Rattlers still had five dollars they’d won from an earlier competition and decided it would go to malted milks for everyone, Rattlers and Eagles alike. The young can teach us a lot about forgive and forget.
Summary
A structured approach to group contact is more effective than just ‘bringing groups together’, which can sometimes make relationships worse.
There are four factors that help bring groups together:
Equal status of groups
Common goals
Institutional support
Cooperation, as opposed to competition
The more of these factors that are dealt with the greater the reduction in bias
Superordinate goals are effective in bringing teams together and creating goals is one of the more effective team building activities according to research. The other is clarifying roles between team members
Superordinate goals lead to a stronger connection to the organisation and higher levels of engagement
Allow groups to keep elements of their identity when workplace change occurs. A fear of losing group identity, which extends to the individual, can lead to resistance of change.
Next week
There are vast amounts of literature and conflict and how to resolve it. We’ll use the current climate of social polarisation and how we can use values and empathy to bridge the gap between individuals and groups in the workplace.
References
Baum, J. R., & Locke, E. A. (2004). The relationship of entrepreneurial traits, skill, and motivation to subsequent venture growth. Journal of applied psychology, 89(4), 587.
Dovidio, J. F., Love, A., Schellhaas, F. M. H., & Hewstone, M. (2017). Reducing intergroup bias through intergroup contact: Twenty years of progress and future directions. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 20(5), 606-620. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430217712052
Hayward, L., Tropp, L. R., Hornsey, M., & Barlow, F. (2017). Toward a comprehensive understanding of intergroup contact: Descriptions and mediators of positive and negative contact among majority and minority groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43, 347-364.
Hewstone M, Swart H. (2011) Fifty-odd years of inter-group contact: from hypothesis to integrated theory. Br J Soc Psychol. 2011 Sep;50(3):374-86. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8309.2011.02047.x. PMID: 21884537.
Höchli B, Brügger A, Messner C. How Focusing on Superordinate Goals Motivates Broad, Long-Term Goal Pursuit: A Theoretical Perspective. Front Psychol. 2018 Oct 2;9:1879. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01879. PMID: 30333781; PMCID: PMC6176065.
Kershaw, C., Rast, D.E., III, Hogg, M.A. and van Knippenberg, D. (2021), Battling ingroup bias with effective intergroup leadership. Br J Soc Psychol, 60: 765-785. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12445
Klein, C., DiazGranados, D., Salas, E., Le, H., Burke, C. S., Lyons, R., & Goodwin, G. F. (2009). Does Team Building Work? Small Group Research, 40(2), 181-222. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496408328821
Lacerenza, C. N., Marlow, S. L., Tannenbaum, S. I., & Salas, E. (2018). Team development interventions: Evidence-based approaches for improving teamwork. American psychologist, 73(4), 517.
MacInnis, C. C., & Page-Gould, E. (2015). How can intergroup interaction be bad if intergroup contact is good? Exploring and reconciling an apparent paradox in the science of intergroup relations. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(3), 307–327. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614568482
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751–783. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751
Pettigrew, T.F. and Tropp, L.R. (2008), How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta-analytic tests of three mediators. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol., 38: 922-934. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.504
Sherif, M.; Harvey, O.; White, J. B.; Hood, W. R. & Sherif, C. W. (1961), Intergroup Conflict and Cooperation. The Robbers Cave Experiment [1954] , University of Oklahoma Book Exchange , Norman
Sveningsson, S., & Alvesson, M. (2016). Changing Organizational Culture? Cultural change work in progress. 2nd edition. Routledge.
Comments