Case Study 3. 1 HY DAIRIES, INC. Discussion Questions: 1. Apply your knowledge of stereotyping and social identity theory to explain what went wrong here. The case covers issues of how perceptions affect individual decision-making process. As an introduction, Syd Gilman, the vice marketing president at Hy Dairies perceived Rochelle Beauport as a potential marketing staff responsible to improve the sagging sales of Hy’s gourmet ice cream brand, thus decided to reward her with a new post of a marketing research coordinator that was taken by him as a valuable post in marketimg field.
Rochelle Beauport, unfortunately had a different perceptions and expectations that leading her into a difficult decision making situation of whether to confront Gilman on perceived discrimination issue or to leave the company. What went wrong in the case were the organizational conflicts that stemmed from merely misperceptions by Syd Gilman and Rochelle Beauport who had differing background, characteristics and work experiences, thus different social identity.
These, therefore had shaped their differing social identity and engaged them in stereotyping. Gilman misperceived that Beauport would like his proposal because he had previously gone through the process which he adored very much without recognizing Beauport’s different self and social concepts as enlisted below. Factors that developed Gilman’s and Beuport’s stereotypical perceptions: Gilman |Beauport | |Male & white |Woman & colored | |Longevity in Hy Dairies |Newness in Hy Dairies | |Hold a top management post Hold a middle management post | |Career ladder boosted by the marketing research coordinator few |Recent experience with a company that denied women or colored | |years earlier |people in top management; women can’t take the heat in marketing | |Natural assumption that Beauport liked the idea as he too felt |management, thus placed them in technical support positions | |very delighted before when accepting the post |Thoughts- inferiority of the new post ( backroom job & not the | | |route for top management in most | | |organizations) | | |Incomplete information; did not know the boss, thus bewildered to| | |protest | Stereotyping is an extension of social identity theory whereby people make sense of who they are based on their group membership(s) that follows three phases; social categorization, social identification ( homogenization) and social comparison ( diffierentiation). [pic] The first is categorisation. We categorise objects in order to understand them and identify them. In a very similar way we categorise people (including ourselves) in order to understand the social environment.
We use social categories like black, white, Australian, Christian, Muslim, student because they are useful. If we can assign people to a category, then that tells us things about those people. Similarly, we find out things about ourselves by knowing what categories we belong to. We define appropriate behavior by reference to the norms of groups we belong to. Gilman had categorized himself and Beauport as Hy Dairies’ workers who shared the same assumptions, values and beliefs as well as organizational processes. However, since Beauport was new to the organization, Gilman’s perception went astray. In the second stage, social identification, we adopt the identity of the group we have categorised ourselves as belonging to. If for xample you have categorised yourself as a student, the chances are you will adopt the identity of a student and begin to act in the ways you believe students act (and conform to the norms of the group). There will be an emotional significance to your identification with a group, and your self-esteem will become bound up with group membership. Again, Gilman had identified himself and Beauport as Hy Dairies’ member that was not true for Beauport who was very new and in different job hierarchy unlike Gilman. Thus, she did not identify herself with Hy dairies and Gilman. The final stage is social comparison. Once we have categorised ourselves as part of a group and have identified with that group we then tend to compare that group with other groups. If our self-esteem is to be maintained our group needs to compare favourably with other groups.
This is critical to understanding prejudice, because once two groups identify themselves as rivals they are forced to compete in order for the members to maintain their self-esteem. Competition and hostility between groups is thus not only a matter of competing for resources (like in Sherif’s Robbers Cave) like jobs but also the result of competing identities. Referring to the case, since Beauport had not identified herself with Hy Dairies, yet maintained her previous social category, she tended to compare unfavorably against Hy Dairies and Gilman as being prejudiced and bias towards her social category; woman, colored and new organizational member. A stereotype is “… a fixed, over generalised belief about a particular group or class of people. ” (Cardwell, 1996). For example, a “hells angel” biker dresses in leather.
One advantage of a stereotype is that it enables us to respond rapidly to situations because we may have had had a similar experience before. This was evidenced when Gilman quickly concluded on promoting Beauport using his past experience as a bench mark. One disadvantage is that it makes us ignore differences between individuals; therefore we think things about people that might not be true (i. e. make generalisations). Gilman, at many incidences did this and the same as Beauport who generalized so many things about Hy Dairies and Gilman that led her becoming demotivated and stressful. 2. What other perceptual error is apparent in this case study? Recency effect and false-consensus effect are two other perceptual errors that are apparent in this case study.
Recency effect occurs when the most recent information dominates the perceptions. (Mc Shane & Von Glinow, Organizational Behavior, pg 78). This perceptual bias was evident in the case when Beauport, who had limited experience in Hy Dairies’ marketing management evaluated Gilman as being prejudiced and biased using primarily the most similar and recent experience she had before in other organization. False- consensus effect or similar-to-me-effect is a widely observed bias in which we overestimate the extent to which others have beliefs and characteristics similar to our own. Gilman who naturally assumed that Beauport’s surprise of the transfer was her positive response is an evidence of false-consensus effect.
This was because, he too had been delighted several years earlier about his temporary transfer to marketing research. This bias occurs to some extent because Gilman associated Beauport as similar to him and he selectively remember imformation that was consistent with his own views. 3. What can organizations do to minimize misperceptions in these types of situations? The perceptual process cannot be bypassed but organizations must make every attempt to minimize perceptual biases and distortions to reduce unnecessary unfavorable work environment that can affect the organization’s performance and success. In other words, it is impossible to prevent stereotype activation but it is possible to minimize it. The possible strategies will be discussed below.
Diversity awareness training to increase awareness of perceptual biases and improve self-awareness can be undertaken that wiould: – Educate employees about the benefits of diversity and dispel myths about people from various cultural and demographic. This, to a certain extent, would make people more mindful of their thoughts and actions. However, this has a limited effect especially on those who have a deeply held prejudices against out-groups. – Make people more aware of their values, beliefs and prejudices in their behavior and actions. The understanding and awareness would make people more open-minded and non-judgmental toward others. Applying Johari Window is one of the techniques or models for understanding how co-workers can increase their mutual understanding, thus reducing perceptual biases.
Meaningful interaction is there to improve self awareness and mutual understanding. This statement is based on the contact hypothesis, which states that, under certain conditions, people who interact with each other will be less prejudiced or perceptually biased against each other. If this takes place there will be less perceptions and sidelined feelings. To affect this, team cooperation is highly necessary which will activate effective communication. Meaningful interactions does more than reduce the reliance on stereotypes. It also improves empathy, that is the sensitivity to the feelings, thoughts, and situation of others. Decision-making accountability can also minimize perceptual biases and reliance on stereotype.
By making people accountable for their decisions motivates them to consider objective information rather than stereotypes. Objectivity is therefore a medicine to underpin stereotyping. Conclusion: The evidence suggests that what individuals perceive from their work situation will influence their productivity more than will the situation itself. Whether or not a job is actually interesting or challenging is irrelevant. Whether or not a manager successfully plans and organizes the work of his or her employees and actually helps them to structure their work more efficiently and effectively is far less important than how employees perceive the manager’s efforts.
Employees do not judge any behavior and decisions in a way that assures common perceptions, nor can we be assured that individuals will interpret conditions about their jobs in a favorable light. Therefore, to be able to influence productivity, it is necessary to assess how workers perceive their jobs. • A stereotype is a socially held mental picture that represents an oversimplified, prejudiced, or uncritical judgment. • A stereotype threat arises when one is in a situation where one has the fear of doing something that would inadvertently confirm a stereotype. • A stereotype threat is cued by the mere recognition that a negative group stereotype could apply to you in a given situation. It is important to understand that the person may experience a threat even when they do not believe the stereotype. • A stereotype threat generates “spotlight anxiety,” which causes emotional distress and vigilant worry that may undermine performance. • A stereotype threat may induce “attributional ambiguity,” for example, a person gets a low grade and asks, “Is it something about me or because of my race? ” • A stereotype threat comes from the environment, not from some defect inside the person and that research shows it can be corrected by an environmental change. • Intergenerational conflict may account for some behavior that is difficult to understand.
