In a series of famous experiments, social psychologist Henri Tajfel showed that strangers could be divided into groups on almost entirely arbitrary grounds, such as their ability to estimate the number of dots on a chart or their preference for a particular type of abstract art. Even when people were assigned to groups by something as random as a coin toss, they quickly began favouring their own group when asked to distribute rewards.

If people can develop an “us and them” mentality based simply on whether someone likes a particular artist, it is hardly surprising that workplaces create powerful identities of their own. New employees often begin referring to their employer as “we” almost immediately, sometimes even during the job interview.

But employees in large organisations rarely have just one identity at work. They may identify with the company, their department, their team and smaller groups within it. These layers of identity can be important. A research meta-analysis by Michael Riketta of the University of Tübingen and Rolf van Dick of Goethe University found that, on average, employees identify more strongly with their immediate work group than with their organisation as a whole.

This is understandable. Working closely with the same colleagues, sharing routines and solving common problems naturally creates strong bonds. Departmental identity can be particularly powerful. At a company event, for example, someone asked what you do is more likely to hear the name of your department than simply “I work for the company”.

Strong identification with a smaller group is not necessarily harmful. Organisations need departments and teams to divide up responsibilities, and a degree of competition between teams can even be productive. But these identities can also make collaboration across the wider organisation more difficult.

When problems arise, employees may be quick to blame another department. Budget decisions can become battles over winners and losers, while information can remain trapped within departmental silos. Research by Jeanine Pieternel Porck of Oklahoma State University and her co-authors, for instance, suggests that stronger identification with a work group is associated with a weaker understanding of the organisation’s overall strategy.

Creating a bigger sense of belonging

For managers, the challenge is therefore to preserve the strong bonds within teams while also encouraging employees to identify with the organisation as a whole.

An experiment involving football supporters offers a useful illustration. Researchers led by Mark Levine of Lancaster University examined whether Manchester United supporters would be more willing to help someone wearing their club’s shirt than someone supporting a rival.

Participants were first reminded of their identity as Manchester United fans. Later, they encountered a jogger who appeared to have fallen and injured himself. The participants were more likely to help when the jogger was wearing a Manchester United shirt than when he was wearing a Liverpool shirt or an ordinary top.

The researchers then repeated the experiment with another group of United supporters, but this time they reminded participants that they were football fans rather than specifically Manchester United fans. The result changed. Participants were equally likely to help someone wearing either a Manchester United or Liverpool shirt.

The experiment has its limitations, and it is hardly a heart-warming story given that someone wearing a plain shirt is left without help either way. But it demonstrates an important point: people can be encouraged to think beyond their immediate group by giving them a broader identity.

The same principle applies in workplaces. Employees will naturally form close relationships with their immediate colleagues, but managers need to ensure that they also see themselves as part of the wider organisation.

That could involve bringing employees from different teams together through joint projects, social events or even the design of the workplace. More importantly, employees should understand how the work of their department contributes to the organisation’s broader goals.

People are quick to create an “us and them”. Building a sense of “us and us” requires considerably more effort.