Colleagues,
I agree that stereotypes, in most situations, tend to be 'dysfunctional'.
One simple reason for that is that stereotypes, by definition, are not
accurate representation of reality and therefore can bias us in assessing a
certain situation and bring us to base our decisions on wrong assumptions (a
lot of research is available to that effect). At the same time, and with no
contradiction of the first statement, at the fundamental level stereotypes
are inevitable. Stereotyping is an integral part of human cognition and one
of the main reasons for this 'mental shortcut' mechanism is that, for most
of us, the world is too complex to perceive and organize and we constantly
employ various mechanisms such as stereotyping to simplify it (e.g., to
enable better prediction and reduce uncertainty).
Thus, while stereotyping as a process is deep-rooted in the evolutionary
development of our cognitive mechanism, the content of the stereotypes and
the degree to which the process is occurring varies among persons and
cultures and can be modified.
Stereotypes, just like beliefs and actual behaviors, are shaped by
individual level factors (e.g., personality, individual experiences) and by
broader-level factors such as one's SES and culture. Cultures differ in
their values and, consequently, so will stereotypes. Thus, stereotypes
regarding power and sex/gender will tend to be stronger in cultures that
Hofstede called high on Masculinity and are referred to in the GLOBE project
as Assertiveness and Gender Differentiation. Thus, it is possible to
explain/predict, in which cultures gender stereotypes will be more
predominant (for example, S. Korea and Egypt are high on Gender
Differentiation, Brazil and Italy are medium and Sweden & Denmark are low).
Now, I am really not versed in the research areas discussed below, but I
would guess that if these studies were conducted in Scandinavia, the general
results would be much more 'mild'.
Finally, my conclusion is that change in stereotypes is possible and it is
possible to achieve it with educational tools (in my experience, combination
of experiential learning with higher conceptual processing works well). On
the national level, this would involve a gradual change of cultural values,
which is a difficult and very slow process.
Warm wishes,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jacob Eisenberg, Ph.D.
UCD School of Business,
University College Dublin,
Belfield, Dublin 4,
Ireland
Tel: +353-1-716 4774
Fax: +353-1-716 4762
Email:
Jacob.eisenberg@ucd.ie
http://www.ucd.ie/busadmin/
-----Original Message-----
From: Management Education and Development Discussion
[mailto:
MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Jerrold Strong
Sent: 08 May 2006 23:14
To:
MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: Re: Stereotypes
One has to wonder, if, taken from a pure research model, the data supports a
reality that folks are uncomfortable with -- that perhaps the problem isn't
with the data or peoples' thinking but with the researchers's willingness to
accept the data and consider what to do with it.
Calling the idea of these stereotpyes 'dysfunctional' and a 'surface-level
product of ignorance' seems a bit elitest for me. Instead, why do these
stereotypes exist, particularly in such uniformity? Perhaps they are
founded on a basis of reality yet fully explored. Perhaps they neglect a
full appreciation of the diversity and potential of the human experience.
It is curious that the stereotypes, and concern over these stereotypes are
cross-cultural, if I'm reading the posts correctly. That would imply,
maybe, that I need to rethink my thinking, my paradigms, and make sure I'm
not holding on to false or incomplete paradigms before I become the critic
or naysayer.
Shouldn't we work out this data and shed light on this reality instead of
being a judge and dismissing it out-of-hand?
Jerrold Strong, M.A.
Adjunct Faculty, Organizational Leadership
Chapman University
"Change is Inevitable, Growth is Optional"
-----Original Message-----
From: Management Education and Development Discussion
[mailto:
MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU]On Behalf Of Lynn Martin
Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 4:20 AM
To:
MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: Re: Using films to teach leadership
I think the last commentator is absolutely right. These views are implicit,
deeply ingrained and may not be recognized by the holders of these
perceptions.
Recent research at UCE has identified similar stereotypes with words such as
"entrepreneur" "scientist" and "innovator" where images seem uniformly to be
of a middle aged white male. Differences emerged here with entrepreneurs
seen as ruthless, sharp suited with a range of material possessions while
innovators were characterised as scientists i.e., irresponsible bespectacled
meddlers, either with wild hair or bald. Hollywood has a lot to answer for,
perhaps.
A more depressing study last year also asked students and members of other
groups to identify 5 names as role models of an entrepreneurs and
innovators; 5 business sectors which might also be considered to be
entrepreneurial or innovative. Results - All male, mainly US despite this
being an international survey with respondents from the UK, China, India,
other areas of south east Asia, Interestingly, this was true even when focus
groups were held in premises owned by highly successful and dynamic Asian or
female entrepreneurs.
Even worse, when parts of the exercise reviewed quotes and results from
different sectors and using cases such as Bodyshop and L'Oreal, some
delegates really felt that "cosmetics" or the beauty industry should not be
included as that "really wasn't a proper industry", favoring instead auto
and aerospace, nano-technologies etc. Hence female industries too do not
seem to count, however innovative they may be.
Looks like we may have some work to do yet to change such perceptions.
Please, tell me it's better in the USA!
Best wishes
Lynn Martin
Dr L M Martin
Director, Entrepreneurship and Innovation
UCE, Perry Barr, Birmingham B42 2Su
Untied Kingdom
+44 121 331 7260 / 7248
-----Original Message-----
From: Management Education and Development Discussion on behalf of
Lmxlotus@AOL.COM
Sent: Mon 08/05/2006 09:38
To:
MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Cc:
Subject: Re: Using films to teach leadership
In a message dated 5/8/2006 1:49:36 AM Central Standard Time,
terence_laoshi@YAHOO.COM.AU writes:
Speaking of predominantly male leadership models, I teach
students about stereotyping using a movie still with two business executives
at a desk. I ask Ss to nominate who these two people are and what they are
speaking about.
Of course, nine times out of ten the man is nominated as the
boss or other comparatively more powerful individual. Where the two have
equal position status, the male is invariably controlling in the Ss' role
play performances.
Of course, students begin the lesson by avowing that they
DEFINITELY DO NOT stereotype people.
STEROTYPES ARE DYSFUNCTIONAL. THE THIRD CULTURE BONDING MODEL TCB IS
BASED ON THIS POSTULATE (AOM PERSPECTIVES, IN PRESS). MALES AS PREFERRED
LEADERS IS A SURFACE-LEVEL PRODUCT OF IGNORANCE THAT IS CORRECTED WITH REAL
DEEP-LEVEL EXPERIENCE WE FIND ( DEALING WITH DIVERSITY, 2003, INFO AGE
PUBLISHING, GRAEN). THIS IS THE CASE IN EVERY CULTURE THAT WE HAVE STUDIED.
G2