Intergroup Development

How to Build Effective Intergroup Development: A Practical Guide for Organizations

Did you know that organizations with high levels of intergroup development and cooperation consistently outperform their competitors? Research shows these companies achieve higher production levels and greater financial gains while fostering increased creativity and improved staff morale.

When groups within an organization collaborate effectively, the entire system benefits. However, without proper interventions, teams often fall into dysfunctional competition that undermines organizational goals. Intergroup development in organizational development focuses specifically on increasing communication between work-related groups, reducing unhealthy rivalry, and building interdependence. Various intergroup development interventions, such as conflict resolution meetings and rotating membership strategies, can transform how teams interact. Essentially, what is intergroup development? It’s the structured process of improving relationships between groups that must work together to achieve organizational objectives.

In this practical guide, we’ll explore proven techniques for fostering effective intergroup relationships, from Blake and Mouton’s conflict resolution model to strategies that promote openness and establish common objectives. While intergroup development meaning might seem abstract, the applications are concrete and the benefits are tangible. By the end of this article, you’ll have actionable steps to implement in your organization, regardless of where you are in your organizational life cycle.

Understanding Intergroup Development in Organizations

Intergroup relationships form the backbone of organizational effectiveness, yet they often receive less attention than individual team dynamics. Organizations consist of multiple groups that must interact effectively for optimal functioning. Let’s explore the technical foundations of this critical organizational development area.

What is intergroup development?

Intergroup development represents a specific organizational development intervention aimed at improving working relationships between different groups within an organization. Unlike team building, which focuses on enhancing relationships within a single group, intergroup development concentrates on building connections and improving interactions between multiple groups.

This intervention type addresses a fundamental organizational reality: departments and divisions must cooperate to achieve collective effectiveness. The process typically involves structured activities designed to increase communication between work-related groups, thereby reducing dysfunctional competition and fostering interdependence.

Furthermore, intergroup development acknowledges that differences in objectives, values, and interests naturally occur between groups. Rather than attempting to eliminate these differences, effective interventions create frameworks for productive collaboration despite them.

Intergroup development meaning in organizational context

In organizational contexts, intergroup development takes on additional significance as it directly influences operational efficiency. Studies indicate that intergroup development interventions can be effective at any organizational life stage, though their impact manifests differently depending on an organization’s maturity.

The organizational meaning of intergroup development extends beyond conflict resolution. It encompasses the creation of sustainable interaction patterns between departments that might otherwise operate in isolation. This becomes particularly important as organizations grow larger and departmental interactions deteriorate due to competition for limited resources.

Additionally, the concept of intergroup relational identity plays a crucial role. Unlike collective identity approaches that ask group members to abandon their distinct identities, intergroup relational identity allows groups to maintain their uniqueness while simultaneously embracing a shared identity with other groups. This balance between distinctiveness and unity serves as the foundation for productive intergroup dynamics.

Why intergroup development matters for team performance

The impact of intergroup development on organizational performance is substantial and multifaceted. Organizations implementing effective intergroup interventions experience several key benefits:

• Enhanced teamwork and cross-functional collaboration between different teams
• Reduced conflicts through relationship-building between members of different groups
• Diminished silos and increased integration leading to greater innovation
• Improved communication resulting in fewer misunderstandings and reduced tension

When intergroup conflicts remain unresolved, organizations face serious consequences including poor communication, refusal to cooperate, decreased client satisfaction, and disruption of workflow. Consequently, addressing intergroup dynamics becomes essential for maintaining organizational health.

In contrast, when intergroup development succeeds, organizations avoid the pitfalls of working in silos—a situation that hinders innovation by preventing cross-pollination of ideas. The elimination of isolation fosters creativity by bringing together diverse perspectives for collaborative problem-solving. In addition, proper intergroup development prevents duplication of effort that occurs when groups work on identical projects without coordination.

Above all, the significance of intergroup development lies in its ability to transform potentially destructive conflicts into productive exchanges. As noted by researchers, well-managed intergroup conflict creates an environment where issues can be discussed openly with objective language, turning potential obstacles into opportunities for organizational growth.

Structured Intergroup Development Interventions

First and foremost, effective intergroup development requires structured intervention approaches to systematically improve relations between different organizational units. These interventions offer systematic methods for reducing tension, improving communication, and fostering collaboration across group boundaries.

Blake and Mouton’s Intergroup Conflict Resolution Model

Robert Blake and Jane Mouton pioneered one of the most effective frameworks for managing intergroup conflict. Their model identifies five distinct conflict handling styles based on two key dimensions: concern for people and concern for results. This approach is particularly valuable when relations between groups are strained or overtly hostile.

Blake and Mouton’s conflict management styles include:

• Forcing (high assertiveness/low cooperativeness)
• Withdrawing (low assertiveness/low cooperativeness)
• Smoothing (low assertiveness/high cooperativeness)
• Compromising (moderate on both dimensions)
• Problem-solving (high assertiveness/high cooperativeness)

Among these, problem-solving stands out as the preferred method when seeking mutually beneficial outcomes. The model emphasizes that effective conflict management should aim to minimize affective conflicts while maintaining a moderate amount of substantive conflict.

Steps in the Intergroup Feedback and Action Planning Process

The intergroup intervention process typically follows a structured sequence designed to build understanding gradually. Initially, leaders from both groups meet with a consultant to confirm their willingness to improve relations—commitment at this stage is limited to exploring possible improvements.

Subsequently, the intervention unfolds through these key steps:

1. Preparation: Groups meet separately to generate lists about perceptions and expectations.
2. List sharing: Groups come together to share their lists without discussion, focusing only on clarification.
3. Private reflection: Groups reconvene separately to process what they’ve learned.
4. Joint problem-solving: Both groups identify priority issues that still need resolution.
5. Action planning: Together, they develop specific action steps with assigned responsibilities.
6. Follow-up: A scheduled meeting ensures accountability for implementing agreed-upon actions.

This process often reveals that many areas of disagreement stem from misperceptions and miscommunication rather than fundamental differences.

Use of empathy lists and bug lists in group sessions

A notably effective technique within intergroup interventions involves the creation of specialized lists that facilitate honest communication. During separate sessions, each group creates:

• A positive feedback list noting what they value about the other group
• A bug list detailing behaviors or attitudes they find problematic
• An empathy list predicting what the other group will say about them

Indeed, these lists serve as powerful tools for surfacing issues that might otherwise remain hidden. The empathy list, in particular, encourages perspective-taking—a critical skill for reducing intergroup tension.

When the groups reconvene, they share these lists without immediate discussion, allowing everyone to absorb the information without defensiveness. This structured approach creates psychological safety while still enabling honest feedback.

The intervention culminates in joint problem-solving where subgroups with members from both original groups work through specific issues. This integrated approach ensures that solutions reflect diverse perspectives and build intergroup commitment to implementation.

Rotating Membership and Joint Activity Techniques

Beyond structured interventions, organizations can implement practical ongoing techniques that fundamentally reshape how groups interact with each other. These approaches create sustainable patterns of collaboration by breaking down barriers between departments through shared experiences and aligned objectives.

Rotating membership to reduce group silos

Job rotation serves as a powerful intergroup development technique that systematically dismantles organizational silos. These silos typically form over time as leaders develop a “turf protection” mentality, believing the function or team they lead becomes synonymous with their identity. Job rotations effectively counteract this tendency by periodically shifting personnel between departments.

As Karunesh Prasad notes, “Job rotations help break those kingdoms which get created over a period of time in the organization”. This practice enhances overall organizational effectiveness while keeping employees engaged and interested. Moreover, with each rotation, the baseline capability of the organization moves upward as knowledge and best practices spread throughout the system.

Organizations can implement this technique through:

• Short-term secondments where employees temporarily work in other business units
• Quarterly rotation of team members (as practiced at Spotify)
• Monthly leadership exchanges where managers experience different departmental challenges

Adrian Waters of equalsten.com suggests that rotating resources through other business units on short secondments helps employees understand how the wider business operates. Accordingly, this cross-pollination of perspectives reduces the isolation that breeds misunderstanding between groups.

Joint task forces for shared goal alignment

Creating cross-functional teams focused on specific missions represents another effective intergroup development intervention. At Spotify, they group hundreds of engineers into “squads” – small cross-functional teams concentrated on specific missions like improving search results. Each squad functions as its own mini startup, setting sprint goals that align with broader company objectives.

These mission squads, typically formed with executive sponsors and rotating quarterly, bring together diverse perspectives while maintaining accountability. Alexander Westgarth of WineCap Ltd points out that “this approach can break down silos, improve collaboration, enhance understanding of roles and lead to more effective problem-solving”.

Joint key performance indicators (KPIs) across business units represent another tried-and-tested method for ensuring alignment. When departments share performance metrics, their incentives naturally align toward common organizational goals rather than competing priorities. Henceforth, these shared metrics create interdependence that fosters collaboration rather than competition.

Common enemy interventions to foster unity

The “common enemy” technique leverages psychological principles to unify otherwise divided groups. Research demonstrates that a common threat can lead to decategorization at early perceptual levels of social categorization. Scientists have empirically established this effect across varying target categories (race, gender, religion/ethnicity) and different threat types (terrorism, disease).

In organizational settings, the “enemy” need not be another group of people. Instead, it could be framed as a challenging market condition, an ambitious goal, or even as Nature itself. Altogether, this approach works because it shifts focus from internal differences to external challenges requiring unified response.

Nevertheless, some experts suggest reframing the concept from “common enemy” to “common cause” for more positive, sustainable results. As one expert observed, “If humans became such a powerful species on this beautiful blue planet by being cooperative, and if we are destroying life on the planet by being competitive, then maybe ‘a common enemy’ in the question could be replaced with ‘a common cause’ instead”.

Whereas competitive approaches might yield short-term unification, cooperation-focused framing creates more sustainable intergroup harmony. Organizations implementing this technique should carefully select causes that genuinely require cross-functional effort, avoiding manufactured crises that might ultimately breed cynicism.

Diagnosing and Managing Intergroup Conflict

Identifying early warning signs of intergroup conflict allows organizations to address issues before they escalate into larger problems. Effective diagnosis and management require understanding both the symptoms and underlying causes of intergroup tension.

Characteristics of dysfunctional intergroup dynamics

Dysfunctional intergroup relations typically manifest through several recognizable patterns. Primarily, groups may isolate themselves, withdrawing from collaboration with other teams. This isolation fosters mistrust between departments, creating environments where negativity flourishes. Research shows that dysfunctional conflict leads to five key problems:

• Loss of focus on organizational goals
• Group isolation and development of silos
• Erosion of trust between teams
• Spreading negativity affecting productivity
• Miscommunication hampering coordination

At this point, previously productive relationships deteriorate as teams compete for limited resources, respect, or organizational esteem. Once established, dysfunctional intergroup dynamics can create psychological and structural changes that make groups resist de-escalation.

Walton’s diagnostic model: conflict issues and consequences

Walton developed a comprehensive model for diagnosing intergroup conflict based on four essential elements. This framework helps third-party facilitators systematically analyze conflict situations. The model examines conflict issues, underlying causes, manifestations, and consequences.

Through Walton’s lens, intermediaries can identify whether conflicts stem from incompatibilities in economic interests, power differences, value disparities, or unmet needs. The model emphasizes that effective intergroup development interventions must address both objective differences and subjective perceptions simultaneously.

Balancing emotional and substantive conflict sources

Intergroup conflicts typically involve two distinct types: affective (emotional) conflicts and substantive (task-related) conflicts. Emotional conflicts center on interpersonal tensions, whereas substantive conflicts focus on disagreements about work processes or resources.

Research indicates that affective conflict reduces team effectiveness by up to 50%, coupled with substantive conflict’s 25% reduction. Therefore, effective intergroup development requires minimizing emotional conflicts while maintaining moderate levels of task-centered disagreement.

To clarify, not all conflict is detrimental—functional conflict can identify project weaknesses and improve outcomes. For instance, when manufacturing and engineering teams disagree about product specifications, their debate often leads to superior designs, provided it remains focused on tasks rather than personalities.

Implementing and Sustaining Intergroup Development

Successful implementation of intergroup development requires more than just understanding concepts—it demands concrete actions to ensure lasting results. Organizations must establish specific mechanisms to transform theoretical approaches into sustainable practice.

Assigning responsibilities and setting follow-up timelines

The transition from intervention to implementation begins with concrete action steps. After groups have shared their perspectives and identified priorities, they must generate specific action steps for resolving conflicts, assign clear responsibilities for each step, and record deadlines by which the steps should be completed. This structured approach ensures accountability rather than leaving outcomes to chance.

Follow-up meetings represent a crucial element often overlooked in intergroup interventions. These meetings, typically scheduled 3-6 months after initial interventions, create accountability and allow teams to evaluate progress on action items. As one organization development expert notes, this timeline creates sufficient opportunity for meaningful change while maintaining momentum.

Creating norms for openness and reliable communication

Equally important, creating conditions that promote openness serves as a foundation for sustainable intergroup development. Teams should explicitly establish norms—shared rules that shape interactions—covering aspects like communication preferences, meeting practices, and conflict resolution approaches.

Reliable communication signals refer to using language understood by all parties involved in intergroup exchanges. Effective norms might include:

• Active and respectful listening without interruption
• Starting meetings with personal check-ins
• Creating safe spaces for sharing work in progress
• Setting clear expectations around availability

Using third-party facilitators for neutral mediation

Finally, third-party interventions often prove invaluable for navigating complex intergroup dynamics. Neutral facilitators help diagnose problems accurately, manage emotions, and guide productive discussions. Whether internal or external to the organization, these facilitators must remain impartial while helping groups address both substantive and emotional conflict sources.

The selection of facilitators carries significant implications. Internal facilitators understand organizational context but may face perceived bias, whereas external mediators offer complete neutrality but require orientation to organizational culture. Hence, organizations must carefully weigh these tradeoffs when implementing intergroup development initiatives.

Conclusion

Effective intergroup development stands as a cornerstone for organizational success. Throughout this guide, we explored how structured interventions transform dysfunctional competition into productive collaboration between teams. Organizations that master these techniques consistently outperform competitors through enhanced creativity, improved morale, and stronger financial outcomes.

Blake and Mouton’s conflict resolution model offers a practical framework for addressing intergroup tensions. Their problem-solving approach creates win-win scenarios that benefit all parties involved. Additionally, the feedback and action planning process provides a step-by-step method to surface misperceptions and build mutual understanding between groups.

Rotating membership emerges as a powerful strategy for dismantling organizational silos. This technique spreads knowledge across departments while strengthening interpersonal connections. Similarly, joint task forces align diverse teams toward shared objectives, fostering unity rather than division. The common cause approach further strengthens these bonds by directing collective energy toward meaningful challenges.

Diagnosing intergroup conflict requires attentiveness to early warning signs. Walton’s diagnostic model helps identify both substantive disagreements and emotional tensions that undermine teamwork. Remember – not all conflict damages productivity. Moderate task-centered disagreements often lead to superior outcomes when managed properly.

Sustainable intergroup development depends on clear accountability mechanisms. Assigning specific responsibilities with concrete timelines ensures that good intentions translate into meaningful action. Open communication norms and neutral third-party facilitation further support this transformation process.

We believe implementing these intergroup development strategies will significantly enhance your organization’s collaborative potential. Rather than allowing departments to operate as isolated entities, these approaches create a cohesive system where distinct groups maintain their unique identities while working effectively together. The result? A more resilient, innovative organization prepared to thrive amid complex challenges.

FAQs

Q1. What are effective strategies for improving intergroup relations in organizations? 

Effective strategies include organizing team-building activities, conducting intergroup workshops, implementing job rotation programs, creating joint task forces, and establishing common goals or causes. These approaches help foster collaboration, promote understanding, and break down silos between different groups within an organization.

Q2. How can managers enhance intergroup performance and cooperation? 

Managers can improve intergroup performance by using techniques such as implementing clear rules and procedures, facilitating member exchanges between groups, creating linking roles, forming cross-functional task forces, and decoupling competing interests. These methods help align objectives, improve communication, and reduce unhealthy competition between groups.

Q3. What is intergroup team building and how does it work? 

Intergroup team building is a structured process where different groups within an organization work together to improve their relationships. It typically involves groups separately listing issues, then jointly prioritizing problems and developing action plans. Follow-up meetings are held to assess progress and ensure continuous improvement in intergroup relations.

Q4. What are the key components of effective intergroup development interventions? 

Key components include structured conflict resolution models (like Blake and Mouton’s), feedback and action planning processes, rotating membership techniques, joint activities, and the use of empathy and bug lists. These interventions should also involve assigning clear responsibilities, setting follow-up timelines, and creating norms for open communication.

Q5. How can organizations diagnose and manage intergroup conflict? 

Organizations can diagnose intergroup conflict by recognizing characteristics of dysfunctional dynamics, such as group isolation and erosion of trust. Using diagnostic models like Walton’s can help identify conflict issues and consequences. Managing conflict involves balancing emotional and substantive sources, minimizing affective conflicts while maintaining moderate levels of task-centered disagreements, and using neutral third-party facilitators when necessary.