Work, Design and Team process: Power and stereotyping

Power and stereotyping

There is a mediation chain between power and stereotyping, mediated by attention. Power has a negative relationship with attention and attention has a positive relationship with stereotyping. The moderator in this relationship is power (high vs. low), the mediator is attention (high vs. low) and the output variable is stereotyping (high vs. low). In short, stereotyping exert control. Apparently, stereotypes exert control through prejudice and discrimination. Those who are stereotyped know this and rightly resist stereotypes for those reasons. The focus here is on how power encourages stereotyping, as well as how stereotyping maintains power. In general there are three reason why people in power stereotype: they do not need to pay attention, they cannot easily pay attention, and they may not be personally motivated to pay attention. To illustrate these relationships between stereotyping and control, two real-life examples are described below that both consider gender stereotyping, although the principles apply to other forms of stereotyping as well.

Case 1: Tales of two women

Jameson worked as a welder in DUK. Women made up less than 1% of the skilled craftworkers. The DUK shipyard has been described as a boys’ club, a man’s world, with ‘Men Only’ painted on one of the work trailers. Prominent in the visual environment were many calendars showing women in various states of undress and various sexually explicit poses. The few women workers were typically called by demeaning or sexually explicit names. Jameson eventually filed a lawsuit alleging sex discrimination due to sexual harassment in a hostile work environment; she won her case at the trial court level. DUK has appealed, and that is pending.

What does this case have to do with stereotyping, control and power?

One answer lies in the social structure, specifically the dramatic power asymmetries between the men and women at DUK. Women as a group were radically powerless: outnumbered, out of place, and on trial. Men thus controlled the work environment and shaped it to their own needs. Essentially, one cause of stereotyping at DUK was the men’s impunity; they did not need the women for any workplace rewards.

Another source of the stereotyping at DUK was the small number of men who not only harassed the women but also were openly hostile. In effect, some men were really ‘bad apples’, such that the one who claimed that women were unfit company at work. Not knowing anything more about these particular men, one can only speculate, but an individual problem seems likely. I speculate that one possible problem was an overriding personal dominance orientation(Fiske, S. T. (1993). Controlling other people. The impact of power on stereotyping. American Psychologist, 48, 621-628)

Case 2: JW

One of the top managers Harvy brought in millions of dollars in accounts, worker more billable hours than anyone in that cohort, was well liked by clients, and was described as aggressive, hard-driving, and ambitious. But this exemplary manager was denied partnership because she was not feminine enough. It did encourage stereotyping of women in several comparable ways to DUK.

How does an analysis in terms of control fit here? Just as in the shipyard, the men were in power at JW, and the women were outnumbered, out of place, and on trial. The men controlled an atmosphere that might best be characterized as an exclusive gentlemen’s club, in which women were guests who were expected to defer to the men’s customs. The men as a group did not particularly need the few women in order to obtain workplace rewards, so again, there was a fundamental issue of resource control (Fiske, S. T. (1993). Controlling other people. The impact of power on stereotyping. American Psychologist, 48, 621-628).

Stereotyping and control

Stereotyping is a group-based cognitive response to another person and it describes people’s beliefs about an individual on the basis of group membership. There are two aspects of stereotyping:

1.descriptive stereotyping: how most people allegedly behave and prefer, and where their competence allegedly lies. For example, peopl believe that women in general are good secretaries and housekeepers, but poor welders, managers, or scientists. In short, a descriptive stereotype is controlling simply because it exists as an anchor in the mind of one person dealing with another. Anchor means that you weigh stereotyping in interaction.

2.Prescriptive stereotyping: how people or groups should think, feel, and behave. For example, women should be nice, African Americans should be spontaneous, and Jews should be good with money.

In one sense, these are flattering stereotypes, but they also demand that the individual either conform or disappoint the holder of that stereotype. The prescriptive aspect of stereotypes acts as a fence.

No one wants to be stereotyped. Stereotypes reduces power over another by limiting the options of the stereotyped group, so in this way stereotypes maintain power. Power is control, and stereotypes are one way to exert control, both social and personal. Because power is essentially control, attention is paid to those who have power. It is a simple principle: people pay attention to those who control their outcomes. In an effort to predict and possibly influence what is going to happen to them, people gather information about those with power. Consider direction of attention in a large organization. Attention follows power. Attention is directed up the hierarchy. Thus, those with less power are attentive to the ones with high power.

Next to outcome control and its attendant motivations, the powerless have less demands on their attention than do the powerful. The powerful have more people competing for their attention than do the powerless and as a result of the natural hierarchy.

Finally, particular individuals, powerful or powerless, seek power and dominance over other people, which should influence how they perceive those others. One form of control is stereotyping.

Attention may be determined by asymmetrical outcome control, capacity overload, and personal motivation, all in ways linked to one person’s actual or desired power over another. Attention then determines who has detailed knowledge of whom and who stereotypes whom. The powerless are stereotyped because no one need to, can, or want to be detailed and accurate about them. In contrast, the powerful are not really stereotyped because subordinates need to, can, and want to form detailed impressions of them.

However, it is argued that the powerful are also victims of stereotypes. But first, as the the powerless stereotype the powerful, it simply does not matter as much; it demonstrably does not limit their behavior as much or control their outcomes as much. It is more an irritation than a fundamental threat, except when subordinates are given the power to evaluate, vote on, or otherwise judge those in power.

Then the powerless have been given some outcome control, and they are by definition slightly more powerful. The other instance of the powerful being stereotyped might be argued to operate when the powerful stereotype themselves or each other. One might argue that the DUK workers stereotyped each other as all liking pornography, or that the PW partners stereotyped themselves as necessarily male.

Data on power and stereotyping from the bottom up

There are three research findings:

1.people pay attention to others who control their outcomes. Attention is increases through interdependence in particular to stereotype-inconsistent information.

2.then people draw inferences from the information they gather. In fact, they construct personality profiles of the person on whom they depend.

3.interdependence increases the variability of impressions across people, so they end up with more idiosyncratic impressions, often less reflective of stereotypes and expectations.

Regardless of whether the interdependence is positive or negative, this pattern occurs. So this shows that attention follows power, at least when people are equally dependent on each other. For example, you know more about your boss than your boss knows about you. It is directed up in organizations. The powerless from more detailed impressions, so they less stereotype. From this perspective powerful people are not stereotyped.

Data on power and steeotyping from the top down

Do the powerful not pay attention to the powerless? The powerful do not need to pay attention, because nothing is riding on the other person; they do not depend on the other, so their attention should be more superficial. In fact, the powerful may not pay enough attention to the powerles. As in the cases: the powerful managers simply had no need to attend to the relatively powerless women as unique individual subordinates.

How intentional and responsible are people?

At a moment when you have power over one anther, you can be held responsible for our attention or inattention to the other person. Intent can be defined by two factors: choice and attention.

If people have alternatives, if there is more than one way to behave, according to a reasonable person, then one condition is met for recognizing intent.

Attention is if people keep the chosen alternative in mind they can be said to intend the one they follow. For example, of one is dieting and thinks about the box chocolates, one finds them harder to resist than if one’s thoughts are focused on elsewhere.

This analysis of intent applies to stereotyping: people’s tendency to stereotype is intentional because:

-they demonstrably have alternative ways of thinking about people, as members of a category or as unique individuals, everyone can do this.

-people can implement their alternative ways of thinking about other people according to how much attention they pay to those other people.

So, attention is central in whether or not people do stereotype. This suggests that people with power can overcome the tendency to stereotype the powerless by the very prosess of attention.

In conclusion there is a mediation chain:

Power (-) ; attention (+) ; stereotyping : the more power you have, the less likely you are to pay attention to others and your environment, and as a result you stereotype more.