Uncensored October 25, 2008

I am entirely too concerned with what other people think. Especially the people I care most about. I’m getting better at putting my thoughts out there and speaking my mind. But I always hold back, and yes it is strategic to think before one speaks but I find myself attempting to be agreeable. Not saying all of what I’m thinking or classifying and quantifying my statements. I really become what other people assume me to be at face value.

 

I became exactly what I hate most at dinner the other night. In one-on-one conversation I can redeem my reputation as an intellectual, opinionated woman. However, when in front of a group, I laugh and smile. At one point I think I flipped my hair. I embodied that stereotypical girl-woman who is there for decoration not conversation. Yes, I was the youngest member of this group. The other guests were all absolutely intimidating leaders in business, but instead of having the confidence to be myself and speak my mind I hid behind that ingénue façade and acted the part. Rather than being able to relate a story slowly, I rushed through it, didn’t even bother with comedic timing and did whatever it took to get the spotlight off of me. Instead of people seeing me for who I am or what I wish to be they saw me as a little girl.

 

I want a job, I want to be taken seriously and I am sabotaging myself. I had a prime opportunity to demonstrate how mature and competent I am and instead I threw it out the window. I became the flirt that commands no respect but grovels for attention. As if asking if the group would ignore how I had presented myself all evening. I had on a blazer, a turtleneck, and earrings that matched my necklace. Please keep in mind, I don’t accessorize well. I did everything I could to appear together and adult. Yet, the conversation turns to me and I am terrified. If I don’t freeze up and just hear my heart thudding in my ears, I say something stupid or make light in order to avoid saying something that garnishes displeasure. I am desperate for acceptance and approval.

 

Certainly there are times what behaviors are appropriate and inappropriate. This was an occasion in which I became exactly what I abhor, the stereotypical dolt. I’m sure if there was a tape of me talking I would judge it mercilessly. And maybe that’s my problem, I feel inadequate because I judge myself harshly. No one else has to say something to bring me down because I already feel as if I don’t belong, like a fool, and as if I need the consent of other people to quantify my personal worth. When I dress to go out I don’t wear what makes me comfortable. I wear what I think makes me fit in. Constantly driven to pass for whatever is most attractive to the people I am with or the place we are going. Probably the most devastating realization is that I don’t know myself.

 

I can’t be satisfied if I am not extraordinary and honestly I don’t feel as if I am. I feel rather mediocre and perhaps what is most stunning is that I am constantly comparing myself to others. Worried that I won’t meet some imaginary standard I have created. If something doesn’t work out, I assume it’s because of a personal failing. If I don’t have the job I want, I consider that other people know more about my ineptitude and therefore my position is completely justified. I am a door mat. And worse than that I do it to myself, no one polices me. No one has ever confronted me and said something derogatory or cruel. I have never been in a situation where someone else made me feel like an outsider. I have always been in the in crowd, yet making myself feel as if it were going to crumble. As if any second they would find out I’m not supposed to be here and kick me out. Take their friendship, camaraderie and leave. I have spent my whole life doing that to other people first. Judging and ganging up because they’re on the outside. Yet if people are not receptive to me, I take myself out of the situation before it can harm me. Or open me up for insult. It is a terrible way to live one’s life, constantly questioning their self worth.

 

Of course, to counteract this self pity cycle I make rash decisions to do whatever it is that scares me most. I will take that leap and put myself out there but only after I have found some loophole and some reason why I can get out at any time. I decide I don’t like a person, a group, or a lifestyle choice and therefore can justify removing myself from the situation. If we met, you would never think I am any of these things. I would be exactly the way you wanted me to be. And I am not ok with that.

Literature Review: Professional Psychology October 23, 2008

Topic: Social Perceptions & Attributions

 

Article: Effect of Arbitrarily Assigned Status Labels on Self-Perceptions and Social Perceptions: The Mere Position Effect

 

Citation: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1986. Vol. 50, No. 4, 684-689.

 

URL:http://journals.ohiolink.edu/ejc/pdf.cgi/Sande_Gerald_N.pdf?issn=00223514&issue=v50i0004&article=684_eoaaslosasp

 

Abstract: Subjects in unstructured triads worked on a group decision-making task and then were assigned to one of three status positions (supervisor, worker, or neutral-status observer) for a separate activity that was expected to occur 2 weeks later. The randomness of the assignment was made obvious to the subjects. Subjects’ subsequent assessments of the initial interaction revealed that (a) self-perceptions were unaffected by the status labels, (b) subjects perceived themselves as more leaderlike and more responsible for the group product than the other group members, and (c) observers and supervisors rated supervisors as more leaderlike than workers; in contrast, the workers’ social perceptions were not influenced by positional labels. The data suggest a relation between the self-perceptions and social perceptions of members of a status hierarchy and indicate when status labels will and will not influence evaluations. (By Author)

 

Discussion of Article: The article by Ellard, Ross and Sande explores how much of an impact an arbitrary title has on self perception and on individuals perceptions of others. Their findings indicate that,

 

“1. There was a consistent self-enhancement effect that was not influences by the positional label assigned to the rater.

2. Supervisor’s ratings of workers on the traits scales were susceptible to a labeling effect, although their self-ratings do not appear to have been affected.

3. The trait inferences and responsibility attributions made by the low-status members of the hierarchy (i.e. the worker) were not affected by the positional labels.

4. Observers consistently rated supervisors as more leaderlike than workers were” (685). 

 

This demonstrates the inconsistency of the belief that those that are in management positions are more qualified to lead or supervise than those that work for them. Despite the arbitrary method for choosing who should be in charge, supervisors were still believed to be more leaderlike than the workers. This demonstrates how restricting or limiting social perceptions can be as workers, who simply chose a different sheet of paper were seen as being less capable of leadership simple due to the title they were given. Supervisors were seen in a different light regardless of their personal attributions simply because they were associated with a leadership role and therefore stereotyped as qualified despite having no qualifications what-so-ever.

 

Relevance to Kreitner & Kiniki: This article relates to the reading as an example of how ones professional label can impact social perception. In K&K we learn, “The study of how people perceive one another has been labeled social cognition and social information processing” (KK 207). The authors of this article study how a professional title impacts the way a person is perceived, or more blatantly, how they are judged as qualified leaders or employees.

 

Judgment evaluations were evaluated in this study and confirm what K&K describe as self-fulfilling prophecy, “we strive to validate our perceptions of reality, no matter how faulty they may be” (KK 221). Which means that regardless of the qualifications of the individual because we have been socialized to believe that leaders and supervisors are more qualified we will find ways to see them as such. Psychology tells us that the mind is capable of observing and creating patterns in behavior. We see the patterns in behavior that we are expecting. We perceive someone to be a good employee because we like them or they fit the stereotypical mold of a successful leader, we chose to ignore that this person is only in the office three days a week and infrequently attends staff meetings. In the article the authors argue that, “the label may induce perceivers to think about the target in a particular way,” (685) or because someone has the title of supervisor they are a better leader.

 

K&K go on to analyze performance, “Research similarly has show that by raising instructors’ and manager’ expectations for individuals performing a wide variety of tasks, higher levels of achievement/ productivity can be obtained” (KK 222). This applies to the article by showing that it is possible that due to the title given to the supervisors they raised their activity or leadership capabilities to meet the standards they believe are expected of supervisors. It is also possible that workers de-emphasized their leaderlike skills in order to role play as a stereotypical employee.

 

Personal Experience: This chapter and article really hit home for me personally because I can see stereotypes, social information processing, and the Pygmalion effect in agencies across the state. For instance, every state agency in Ohio is run by a Director, Commissioner, or Chancellor. Individuals in these roles vary in backgrounds and experiences; however every single one of them has a female assistant. This fact may mean nothing, but it struck me as interesting that in the entire state of Ohio there isn’t a single male assistant to a Cabinet member. This can be attributed or interpreted various ways according to our reading. Perhaps no men have applied for these positions (which can also be interpreted on various levels) or the most qualified candidates have only been women. This fact could also be attributed to Sex-Role stereotypes that are applied to certain positions in an organization. It could also be a prime example of the Pygmalion Effect, these women are seen as members of a certain class and are therefore not promoted as frequently as their male counterparts. The expectation by their supervisors is that they will remain in their current roles and therefore these women do little to change careers. The role of the secretary or administrative assistant is not interpreted as a powerful position by society and exemplifies how limiting social perceptions and attributions can be in an organization that fails to recognize the prevalence of such policies.

 

Student Question: Can you describe a situation in your organization in which you or a co-worker were perceived inaccurately? How did you react to this situation? Did this impact your performance or reaction to the other person? Do you feel status labels are used to define success or potential in your office?