CONFLICT MANAGEMENT The Psychology of conflict and conflict ...

13. SOCIAL IDENTIFICATION IN INTERGROUP MERGERS 399
carrier). The merger was initiated by a government decision. When implemented,
the merger followed an absorb integration pattern (Mottola, Bachman,
Gaertner, & Dovidio, 1997). That is, the domestic airline was formally
acquired by the international carrier, and the merged airline retained the
name and many defining features of the former international carrier (see
Rosson & Brooks, 2004). The acquired organization was therefore assimilated
into the acquiring organization. Furthermore, the merger was implemented
such that the premerger status structure was largely retained to the
extent that members of the premerger organizations remained segregated
and distinct in their work tasks. In fact, two years into the merger, low-status
group members reported finding it more difficult to become involved in
the activities and work previously done by members of the other premerger
organization in comparison with members of the higher status group.
It was first hypothesized that members of the low-status group would
show poorer adjustment to the merger than members of the high-status
group, both in terms of perceived fairness, individual outcomes (e.g., perceived
threat, job satisfaction), and group-related outcomes (e.g., in-group
bias, identification with the new, merged organization). Second, it was
hypothesized that patterns of adjustment would follow different routes
over time for members of the low- and high-status groups (e.g., Taylor &
McKirnan, 1984). More specifically, as members of the low-status group
are likely to realize the implications of the merger (e.g., less permeability
and social mobility than first expected, opportunities failing to materialize)
and as their disadvantaged positions within the new, merged organization
consolidates, their adjustment to the merger (in terms of perceived
threat and job satisfaction) was expected to decline over time. Inversely,
as members of the high-status group realize that the instability brought
about by the merger does not threaten their advantaged positions and as
their superior positions within the new, merged group can be confirmed,
their adjustment to the merger should increase over time. Third, based
on empirical and theoretical propositions which have stressed the role of
recategorization and superordinate identification in the process of adjusting
to a merger, it was expected that identification with the new, merged
organization would mediate the associations between conditions of implementation
(e.g., perceptions of fairness) and adjustment to the merger (e.g.,
in-group bias, changes in job satisfaction and in threat; see Figure 13.2).
The present analyses focus on data collected among 215 participants
who completed both questionnaires. Time 1 data were collected three months
after the implementation of the major changes associated with the merger,
whereas the Time 2 data (collected two years later) were collected soon
after the merger agreement had been formalized. The 215 participants
did not differ from those who had completed only either the Time 1 (N
5 662) or the Time 2 (N 5 465) questionnaire. The sample consisted of
154 long-haul fleet staff (former employees of the international carrier)
and 61 short-haul fleet staff (former employees of the domestic airline).
Participants were employed across the full range of ranks of pilots in the