Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Organisational Behavior Midterm WS+Articles (WS1 - Stereotypes, Prejudice…
Organisational Behavior Midterm
WS+Articles
WS1- Prejudice
Prejudice: The ubiquitous social Phenomenon
Flows from the minority
group to the majority group as well as in the other direction
Anyone can be target of prejudice
Self-esteem
psychologically, segregation did irreparable harm to the self-esteem of African American children
//White doll example
Prejudice defined
Attitude
an affective or emotional component, representing both the type of emotion linked with the attitude (e.g., anger, warmth)
cognitive component, involving
the beliefs or thoughts (cognitions) that make up the attitude
categorize according
to what we regard as normative
Stereotype
A stereotype is a generalization about a group of people in which identical characteristics are assigned to virtually all members of the group, of actual variation among the members regardless
Often stereotyping is
merely a technique we use to simplify how we look at the world
behavioral component, relating to one s actions people don t simply hold attitudes; they usually act on them as well.
Discrimination
an unjustified negative or harmful action toward the members of a group simply because of their membership in that group.
Formal
formal discrimination, they sought to determine if there were differences in what the employer said about the availability of jobs, differences in whether the employer allowed them to fill out a job application, differences in whether or not they received a callback, and differences in the employer s response to a request to use the bathroom.
Interpersonal
interpersonal discrimination against those portrayed as homosexuals. Compared to the way they interacted with nonhomosexuals, employers were less verbally positive, spent less time interviewing them, used fewer words while chatting with them, and made less eye contact with them.
Both positive and negative
Based on membership to a group
What causes Prejudice?
No one knows for sure whether or not prejudice is part of our biological makeup. Prejudice might be built-in part of our biological survival mechanism inducing us to favor our own family, tribe, or race and to express hostility toward outsiders. Conversely, it is also conceivable that humans are naturally inclined to be friendly, open, and cooperative.
aspects of social cognition can lead us to form negative stereotypes and to apply them in a discriminatory way.
Social Categorization: Us versus Them
//Creation of groups
In-Group Bias
differentiation are minimal, being in the ingroup makes you want to win against members of the out-group and leads you to treat the latter unfairly because such tactics build your self-esteem.
Out-Group Homogeneity
"they" are all alike
In-group members tend to perceive those in the out-group as more similar to each other (homogeneous) than they really are, as well as more homogeneous than the in-group members are.
The Failure of Logic
//tu madre
First, it is primarily the emotional aspect of attitudes that makes a prejudiced person
so hard to argue with; logical arguments are not effective in countering emotions.
attitude tends to organize the way we process relevant information about the targets of that attitude. This presents difficulties for the person trying to reduce a friends prejudice.
Suppression and justification of prejudice
I do not want to be prejudicial however I will use the Bible to argue
The Illusory Correlation
The former event, because it is so charmingly vivid, simply makes more of an impression on us when it happens, creating the illusory correlation
//adopting and then conceiving child
seeing what you expect
to see
Can We Change Stereotypical Beliefs?
when people are presented with an example or two that seems to refute their existing stereotype, most of them do not change their general belief.
But when the participants are bombarded with many examples that are inconsistent with the stereotype, they gradually modify their beliefs
The Way We Conform: Normative Rules
Norms are beliefs held by a society as to
what is correct, acceptable, and permissible.
institutionalized racism and institutionalized sexism. For example, if you grow up in a society where few minority group members and women have professional careers and where most people in these groups hold menial jobs, simply living in that society will increase your likelihood of developing certain (negative) attitudes about the inherent abilities of minorities and women.
normative conformity
many people consequently adopt prejudiced attitudes and engage in discriminatory behaviors in order to conform to, or fit in with, the prevailing majority view of their culture
Modern Prejudice
People have learned to hide prejudice in order to avoid being labeled as racist, but
when the situation becomes safe, their prejudice will be revealed
How can prejudice be reduced?
Contact hypothesis
In short, prejudice will decrease when two conditions are met: Both groups are of
equal status and both share a common goal.
6 conditions when reduced
mutual interdependence
, the need to depend
on each other to accomplish a goal that is important to each group.
The third condition is equal status. At the boys camp (Sherif et al., 1961) and in the public housing project (Deutsch & Collins, 1951), the group members were very much the same in terms of status and power.
contact must occur in a friendly, informal setting where in-group members
can interact with out-group members on a one-to-one basis
through friendly, informal interactions with
multiple members
of the outgroup, an individual will learn that his or her beliefs about the out-group are wrong
social norms that promote and support equality among groups are operating in the situation
Mutual interdependence
A common goal
Equal status
Informal, interpersonal contact
Multiple contacts
Social norms of equality
WS1 - Stereotypes, Prejudice & Discrimination
Bird's Eye View
Behavior Component
- Discrimination
Attitudinal Component
- Prejudice
Cognitive Component
- Stereotype
BONUS form literature
Affective component - Emotions
Stereotypes//cognitive
.
certain traits
are assigned to virtually
all group members
, regardless of actual variation
Moderately stable + culturally shared K*
generalization
about a group of people
How Formed?
Through
social categorization
Brain capacity limited --> people grouped by different characteristics
Our K* from past moderates our behavior in an encounter with people of such characteristics
Is useful and necessary
Reduced
Complexity
Provides info -
Heuristic value
- Using common sense(e.g. rule of thumb) instead of scientific test
Makes world more
predictable
and less uncertain
We Automate when we
lack TIME and ENERGY
to make controlled/ deliberate judgments
Out-group Homogeneity
Individuals in out-group are more similar to each other than they really are
"Law of least effort"
maximize cognitive time and energy
by creating accurate attitude about a topic
BUT
while relying on sketchy beliefs
In-group Bias
Special behavior and positive feeling to in-group members
Negative treatment of out-group members
We do not seek nor remember exceptions
Where do they come from?
Trusted others
- e.g. parents, peers, teachers
Implicit and explicit teaching
Social media
- media, TV, News papers, Commercials
Limited exposure
to other groups - life circumstances + out-group homogenity
Affectively neutral - do not initiate action
//however can encourage prejudice
Stereotypes reinforce stereotypical behavior
Stereotype threat
Stereotype threat occurs when someone feels threatened by the possibility of confirming a negative stereotype about their group
Creates
performance deficits
.
Depends on
activated mind-set
.
Pronounced when domain is
important to self
Stereotype Lift
- the opposite of threat
e.g. men performed better on math exam when presented with previous gender differences in resutls
Together, stereotype threat combined with Stereotype Lift exaggerate the performance differences between groups.// men and women math example
When does apply?:
Stereotype must exist
Stereotype must apply to situation
Testing domain must be difficult enough(poor performance can be perceived as confirming stereotype
Stereotype is more harmful when testing domain is considered self-worth
Prejudice
//negative //attitute
negative attitude towards a groups of people based solely on their membership
//Prior to, or not based on actual experience
From stereotypes -->prejudice
Social Indentity Theory
We identify ourselves through the groups we are in
Positive feeling of in-group
Negative feeling of out-group
Motive = self-esteem
//That is why "My' group" is better
//That is why "Your" group is worse
Realistic Conflict Theory
limited resources lead to conflict between groups
//roles reflect social, political, environmental factors and changes
Implicit Association test (IAT)
People are not inclined to say what is on their minds
Unwilling
- purposefully hiding smthg
or
Unable
- unknowingly hiding smthg
Measures attitudes about groups that people are unwilling or unable to say
The test shows that people's implicit attitude that they do not know about(unable)
or
When situation is safe, the prejudice is revealed(unwilling)
Biased cognitive
processing enhances prejudice
Attention
(Limited cognitive resources)
Illusory correlation
- seeing correlations between actually unrelated events - e.g. Muslims and violence
Confirmation bias
- we tend to choose to choose what we believe in(use only arguments that suit us)
How does prejudice
affect
us?
Influence the behavior of
people who do not
necessarily
believe
in them
Influencing the behavior
and performance of a member
of some stereotyped group
What
Causes
prejudice?
Institutional Discrimination
-practices that discriminate legally or illegaly
Instituionalized Racism
Racist attitude held by majority of given society where stereotypes are a norm
Institutionalized Sexism
Sexist attitudes are help by majority of given society where stereotypes are a norm
Normative conformity
tendency to go allong with a group in order to fulfill the groups's expectations to gain acceptance
How to reduce prejudice?
Contact Hypothesis
Allport(1954)
3 Conditions
Both groups are of
Equal status
Both share
common goal
=shared interest
Their contact is
supported by law
or local custom
6 conditions:
Mutual interdependance
Common goal
Equal status
of group members
Having
informal interpersonal contact
Having
multiple contact
with out-groups
Social norms
placed to promote
equality
Justification- Suppression Model
struggle between the urge to express prejudice and need to maintain positive self-concept
-in our own eyes and eyes of others
Processing stereotypes
Automatic
- when appropriate stimulus is encountered
e.g. contact w/ a member of stereotyped group causes stereotypes for that group to be assessed from memory
Controlled
- occurs when there is presence of awareness
e.g. when I choose to disregard or ignore stereotyped information that has been brought up
How to override cognitive processes?
Bookkeeping model
each piece of info gradually modifies belief
Conversion model
powerful, salient piece of info radically changes belief
Subtyping model
new subtype belief is create to accommodate
Self-fulfilling prophecy
When expectation towards a person influences how they act toward that person
This in turn convinces the person to behave accordingly, making expectations come true
Implicit prejudice can be activated by insult or angerment
How we assign meaning: Attributional Biases
FAMILIAR ATTRIBUTION ERROR
Dispositional attribution tendency
leap to conclusion's based on personality rather than considering situation as well
Ultimate attribution error
-making attributions about entire group
Blaming the victim
-tendency to blame individuals for their victimization- seeing world as a fair place
Scapegoating
-tendency, when unhappy/sad, displace aggression onto groups that are disliked, visible and relatively powerless
Jigsaw Classroom
Classroom designed to reduce prejudice
Places children into small , desegregated groups
-makes children dependent on each other
Failure of Logic
Affective
emotions
make prejudice
.
therefore
logical arguments are useless
Cognitive
attitude tends organize the way we process relevant information about the targets of attitute
.
-
Confirmaton bias
-we see only what we want to see
Discrimination
//Behavior
Unjustified negative or harmful actions towards a member of a group, solely because of their membership
Normative conformity
Discriminatory behavior is norm of society
Go along with a group to fulfill groups expectations to gain acceptance
RELATED TO:
sex
race
colour
age
marital status
WS2: Diversity in Teams
Diversity
differences between individuals on any dimension that may cause the perception that another person is different form self
e.g.
national origin
ethnicity
gender
age
sexual orientation
religion
!Characteristics of a group, NOT individual!
Degree of diversity is relative to other groups
Levels of diversity
Surface level
Visible/ External Diversity
things we cannot change
e.g. age, race, gender
Deep level
InVisible/ Internal Diversity
not readily seen and difficult to observe
e.g. - education, skills, work experience, working style
Typology of dirvesity
criteria for these=
job related & discernibleness
Demographic
Less job related(age, gender, ethnicity
readily observable
Functional diversity
less easily discernible
more job-related(education,personality, org commitment)
Inclusion
the sense of belonging
-Diversity is the mix, inclusion is getting the mix to work together well
Why is promoting org. diversity priority?
Better
understanding of market place
//understanding of competitors and products
Better utilization of talent
//
War of Talent
: demand for skill
More creativity, innovation, problem solving
Workforce Diversity
Now- seen as a challenge to adapt employees who are different
Def: Orgs. are becoming more heterogeneous
Age, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc.
Blau's Index: measure to determine diversity of a team
Cultural differences - In-class results
Individualism
Vertical
Individuals want to improve their
individual status
.
distinguish themselves by
competition, achievement and power
Horizontal
Individuals view themselves as
equal
.
Avoid being different
.
Rather than standing out, uniqueness is
concentrated successful self-reliance
Colectivism
Vertical
People focus on
comply to authority
.
Focus to enhance cohesion and
status of in-group
(even if need to sacrifice their own goal
Horizontal
Focus on
sociability and interdependence with others
Culture
Tight
strong norms
low tolerance to deviant behavior
Loose
represent weak norms
high tolerance of deviant behavior
2 Perspectives
//moderators of diversity's effect
Social categorization
Diversity is
bad for performance
Diversity
causes social categorization
the perceptual grouping of people (stereotypic perception of dissimilar others, subgroup formation, intergroup bias)
When will diversity lead to social categorization?
Comparative Fit
The extend to which categorization provides good
reflection of similarities and differences between people
Different diversity dimensions influence salience of social cat.
The more categorization adequately captures similarities and differences between people, the more likely it is to be salient
It captures the effect of multiple category dimentsions
Normative Fit
The extent to which the cat. is
subjectively meaningful to perceiver
The more categorization matches individual's beliefs, the more likely categorization is to be salient
Cognitive accessibility
Perceiver's
readiness to use categorization
The more easily categorizatin can come to mind, the more likely it is to be salient
When will social cat. lead to intergroup bias?
Indentity threat
Group members value a positive and distinctive group identity -->Perceived
threats
to the value or distinctiveness of
group identity would trigger inter-group bias
In-group bias
( people favorable to in-group members)
Problematic group process - communication, lower cooperation, relational conflicts
Diverse groups would perform worse than homogeneous groups
Recognizes categorization salience as key moderator of the extent to which diversity engenders social categorization processes
Information/ decision making perspective
Diverse groups are more likely to posses
range of task relevant knowledge
Elaboration is key
Diversity is good
= broad and deep pool of task-relevant info&K*
.
=different perspectives and networks applied
.
=when better problem- solving, decision quality, creativity, idea generation, motivation are present
Factors which influence the extent of utilization of diverse information:
.
.
-
Task complexity
Individual motivation
Individual ability
Deversity mindset
(understanding diversity's effect)
Process accountability =determinant of processing motivation
the more process accountable, the more diverse info
Expand K*, insight, expertise = perform better than homogeneous groups
group information elaboration
exchange, discussion, integration of task-relevant information and perspectives
Individual's K
= important
+However+
Groups typically are poor users of individual information & concentrate on the K
they have in common
Categorization - Elaboration Model (CEM)
Integrated picture of diversity
Uses to understand the effect of diversity on group performance
Emphasizes interaction between Social categorization and Information elaboration process
Hat wearing agenda:
Hats represent different approaches to problem
Taking advantages of opportunity
Information elaboration plays a critical role
Results in thorough and sophisticated solutions
Hats:
RED hat
: "What are the
feeling
and reactions?"
BLUE hat
: "What are the
goals& objectives
?"
WHITE
hat
: "What are the
information available
"?
YELLOW hat
: "What are the
opportunities
?"
BLACK hat:
"What are the
concerns of the solutions
?"
GREEN hat:
"What are the
new ideas or solutions
?"
FaultLines
Potential divisions within a group
How external and internal attributes
divide groups into sub-groups
, typically along various demographic lines
FaultLine theory
how a combination and configuration of attributes influence team's behavior and ultimately its performance
Leads to competition,
distrust and conflict
Less communication
, information exchange and collaboration
How to overcome FaultLines
By activating leadership- awareness in a team creation
Types of leadership in diverse teams
Path 1:
Task orientation
strong and consistent task-oriented leadership style
strives to remain accessible at all times and provide information that team members need to carry out their day-to-day work
Path 2:**
Relationship Orientation**
emphasis on the culture of team and depth of member's relationships
treating team members with kindness and respect, encouraging a climate of trust and cooperation and providing recognition
Path 3:**
From Path 1 one to Path 2**
Leader begins with task orientation and then encourages teammates to collaborate with one another
Path 4
:
From Path 2 to Path 1
begins by creating trust within the team and together with project, moves to task orientation
creating shared goal + strong identity
Support by HR training and HR policies
Deep- level attributions come to play at late stage team developments
How to lead diverse teams?
Diagnose the probability of faultLines emerging
faultlines are not natural
found in teams which is not too homogeneous nor heterogeneous
task-oriented leadership style in the early
stages of the project.
Focus on Task Orientation when a Team is newly formed
Leaders create opportunity for people to know each other, to bridge faultlines
collaboration and knowledge sharing were strengthened through a host of task- oriented characteristics
Subgroups did emerge, but they revolved around task-oriented characteristics such as functional expertise and education, rather than personality differences
increases the early team effectiveness, it is not as useful for dealing with tensions later, such as around deeper personality traits and values
Learn when to make switch
long term requires switch between task and relationship orientation
if not on time, team will become less effective
Switch to Relationship Building when the time is Rights
when all members of a team have developed specific expectations for the project and have negotiated a widely accepted influence structure, then the time is right to switch to a relationship-oriented leadership style
leader can significantly mitigate faultlines