One theory that I have always found compelling from more recent psych on this is the uncertainty theory wrt to intergroup cohesion/formation. Basically, just like with the "just world hypothesis," we have a lot of very deep reasons that we want to resolve "group uncertainty." IS something a cohesive group? DO we share a common fate? IS this my ingroup? We actually navigate highly ambiguous group situations a lot, but people show quite a bias to resolve that uncertainty with entitativity
As I work on my book (Psychology of software teams! Stay tuned :D ), I have been reading DEEP in the science of in-group formation/and all the mechanisms of how we rapidly form, question, and re-form groups, and sides; this is sometimes called "coalitional cognition" (Cikara, 2021) and I think it is so important for understanding how we can create healthier organizations -- far more actionable imho than many of the isolated, individualistic stories we've been telling about "productivity"
one thing I'm getting from this is it's a big surprise to a lot of people when "entities" turn out to be owned by a single person/or not following the entity-associated-governance-structures we might imagine for them, which is not really surprising to me actually
Entitativity is a psychological phenomenon that may be worth pondering! aka, we bestow "groupness" and cohesion and internal organization on a lot of things, based on a lot of cues, that may not deserve it