Contents
Constructing on some kind of understanding different kind of stereotype threat consists of the issues related to confirming a negative kind of stereotype about a single group, we started by further elucidating with the overall scope of the different kind stereotypes threat impacts in companies. It is first crucial examine of the ubiquity of testing in companies, which are at the core of the stereotype threat (Ackerson & Baldwin, 2017). Also, it is important to mention here the psychological contexts of the current stereotype kind of threat on so many targeted employees as a part of the company, consisting fragile domain recognition and overall engagement, decreasing aspirations, rising self-handicapping as well as decreasing the overall openness towards the feedback.
The work environment is a breeding place for any kind of threat towards stereotype. Basically, the concept of stereotype threat is an answer to tests, which is considered as an omnipresent phase of company’s life. At the time accomplishing a yearly performance test by a manager with periodic informal answers from a supervisor, companies are test-intensive culture. People from negative or bad stereotyped groups are usually exposed to cases where negative expectations can be undermined level performance (Bowe et al, 2019). At the same time, majority of stereotype threat-based research over last so many years that has cantered around on academic features. The report will explore the overall implication in organizational establishments.
Stereotype in company
The reason that people are usually are being judged for the steps as well as attitude can be one of the largest issues in a company. Stereotyping is a fixed kind of notion for people that come up with their own set of assumptions as well as judgment right before providing the respective an option to describe the factor for both the actions as well as overall attitude. Stereotype is a closing where every people blocks the options of what people actually are. People usually take in all the data they assume in highly comfortable with and then completely closing it (Bowser, 2017). This is where stereotypes are actually formed.
There are so many diverse types of stereotypes that can further go around as a part of the company. Like as gender, status and many more. All such things are formed since people are not completely open-minded enough to actually accept the reason that all individual is so many in their own method (Bruyaka et al, 2018). There are still companies that can be possess high level of masculinity in the current generation where people have extra mobility as compared to the women. In such companies, they do not have the belief that women have the capacity of performing and men in similar work. Therefore, women are not provided the equal level of opportunity in order to excel. Although, what such companies have completely failed to gain clarity about male and the female have their own strength in respect of their work-based ethics. There are number of researches that show that men are highly assertive, women on the other hand are highly cooperative, men are usually highly attentive, specific as well as logical, women are completely holistic, wide-angle as well as organic (Duguid & Thomas-Hunt, 2015). But right before they reach to realizing the facts, the women will be already leaving the company because towards the feeling taken benefits as well as a lot of unfairness.
Other very common kind of stereotype, which can be found not just in companies however also in the community, will be sexual preference. Until today, gays are still continuously being part of the judgment in the society when they actually making up eleven percent of the current population as well as are still developing.
Psychological impacts of stereotype threat in companies
Stereotype based threat can psychological affecting negative stereotype people by impacting domain recognition as well as engaging, aspirations, as well as open to feedback.
Domain recognition as well as engagement
At the same time, high recognition with stereotypical domain can be triggered level stereotype threat. Such threat can also address to disengaged, a psychological level of defence designing that insulating the people evaluations. By seriously disengaging by threatens the functions, negative kind of stereotyped member of groups avoiding the options of confirm the negative level of stereotypes (Geppert et al, 2016). For instance, women that are low in efficacy level of leadership that are told leaders need a masculine feature to succeed less recognized with the domain of leadership. The reluctance of women to start negotiation can also be an outcome of misidentification with the current domain.
Aspiration
Stereotype level of threat can be highly depressed people career as well as performance objective. In the single study, women exposing to TV commercial showing women in the conventional roles that led them to focus on homemaking roles over accomplishments in defining the future lives of people. In the same manner, the studies also show that women who are seen as gender stereotypical TV commercial were actually less options to choose especially from any kind of leadership role in a current level of tasks (Hamilton, 2015). In the end, stereotype-based threat can also decrease financial level of aspirations as a part of bargaining cases. Companies constantly motivate the workforce to continuously strive towards achieving excellence, and therefore stereotype based threat can lead to negative kind of stereotype set of groups in order to establish wrong and low objective, finally manufacturing suboptimal level of performance.
Self-handicapping
Other examples of psychological consequences of stereotype kind of threat as a part of self-handicapping. Activating of the stereotypes in a culture where crucial tests is considered salient as a part of specific pernicious mix. Instead of putting forward of the efforts as well as defeating of risk, negative stereotyped people can handicap themselves as a part of defensive methodology to give an option explaining for bad performance (Heilman et al, 2018). At the same time, self-handicapping is normally thought to happen as a part of reaction in a defensive form towards negative kind of stereotype about a single group, where it actually can further happen to face some positive kind of stereotypes, like when an individual is expected to work efficiently in any kind competitive work.
Open to feedback
Stereotype based threat can also impact the workforce and their willingness to look for feedback from the supervisors as well as when the overall feedback can not be avoided at all, the overall openness towards it is impacted. In so many examples like in African-American executive, stereotype threat which is further triggered by low level of minor show, was rightly correlative with so many indirect kinds of feedback that look for a reliance on so many cues to gain clarity on how one must be tested (McCaughey et al, 2017). Stereotype based threat can also address towards the feedback that discount or have the tendency to question the rightfulness of all kind of feedback as well as the motives of the providers of feedback. People in the direction of indirect feedback strategies at the time look for the overall costs of direct feedback that are so high. Since looking and using the direct feedback is crucial to improve the overall work performance, completely ignoring the vulnerable producing attitude can restrict accomplishment over the period of time (van Veelen et al, 2016).
Stereotype behaviour in the work environment is based forming so many assumptions about people related to individual’s gender as well as culture, or is related on religious or physical features. At the same time, some kind of stereotyping can be done in an innocent manner or in the zeal, the challenges are based on hurting the feeling of people and developing a work culture in which people actually feel highly discriminated. The concept of discrimination completely open towards organizations up to important productivity challenges, legal issues as well as company PR based struggles (Murašovs et al, 2016).
Stereotype in the work environment
When HR managers actually hear the word stereotype, they initiate thinking based on discrimination as well as harassment challenges. There are so many cultures as well as generational differences which can take the concept of stereotype over the discrimination.
For instance, the young assistant of manager who actually dresses in short clothes can get compliments as well as men may flirt with her in workplace based on the assumption that since she is a personality that come across as chirpy then she may not be very smart. Such kinds of stereotypes related to gender discrimination (Trani et al, 2016).
This also holds true on the basis of cultural discrimination. The new accountant from Korea for example, can have authentic food and can be an easy target for people who actually likes to fun of the heritage from which he came from and his food choices (Naurin et al, 2019). There can be no intention behind harming the emotion, however, unless some people ask him, nobody will actually understand or be able to find out whether it is offensive or not. There can be chances where he does find the whole making jokes part offensive, as to many people normally since it is culturally wrong and offensive. This completely avoids the fact who he actually is and application of it can be based on making wrong image of his skills. Many people may find these kinds of stereotype highly offensive (Peters et al, 2017).
Different kinds of stereotype can occur at every stage of the operation of an organization. It can be based on an assumption that men must do some heavy-duty work and women should just type. Even just some jokes around ethnicity of an individual that is different from rest of the people in workplace can create a negativity around a person’s identity (Patel & Biswas, 2016). All such instances of stereotyping have bad impact on the workforce.
Impact of stereotype on people
People are happy to come back to work as well as have respect and also feel highly safe, they are actually likely to work efficiently. There is higher level of job satisfaction, improving the work conversation to creative answers and less level of anxiety that addresses to high sick days. Thus, so many organizations are doing all possible things that can be build with positive kind of work culture and environment of the company (Sahoo & Lenka, 2016).
In the time, when concepts like stereotyping addresses towards the harassment as well as discriminatory cases, the work culture becomes highly tainted with negative thoughts. Some people feel highly attacked because of the certain stereotype that can feel unsafe. This completely separates the teams as well as stalls high level of creative hard work. People are also likely to have high level of anxiety or get sick usually and not pay attention on work. This further leads to low level of productivity (Rohmer & Louvet, 2018). When it is left unevaluated, the concept of stereotyping with effects on the organizational culture can lead to lawsuits based on discrimination by current or former workforce who actually feel the management and never care about the overall well-being and can even promote the negative or unwanted attitude.
Constructing diverse level workforce
Training based diversity is how organization save stereotyping from actually becoming an issue. In case of diversity training, workshops as well as reviews of role playing of some common kind of scene that can result in negative stereotype cases. As a part of workforce, employees face training where they often see that their own steps, even innocent one is wrong. This is an important part of assisting to construct a workforce that happily accept and gain clarity on one another and also encourage differences in people (Simon, 2017).
From role play scenario to workshops, the next action must contain team building functions that are specifically designed for overall inclusiveness as well as understanding about people and their difference. This can be at a casual party where people should work at one place and construct the bond with the help of teamwork (Stankiewicz, 2017).
In the end, it is important to understand that when an organization is highly successful in constructing a highly diverse work environment that functions as a cohesive team that highly appreciates people and their own individuality, the organization is able to reap some kind of rewards. The level of productivity also rises and the loyalty of the workforce rises and loyalty of employees further increases and the employees are highly dedicated towards performing well (Stoddard & Martin, 2017). Therefore, at the time of removing any actions as well as the impacts of the cultural level of stereotypes in business assisting the success of the organizations
Ackerson, A. W., & Baldwin, J. H. (2017). The Thought Bubble Over Our Heads: Language and Stereotyping. In Women in the Museum (pp. 100-109). Routledge.
Bowe, B. J., Gosen, J., & Fahmy, S. (2019). Personal Choice or Political Provocation: Examining the Visual Framing and Stereotyping of the Burkini Debate. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 1077699019826093.
Bowser, B. R. (2017). Banding Organization, Management, and Leadership Theories to Identify Managerial Strategies. In Handbook of Research on Emerging Business Models and Managerial Strategies in the Nonprofit Sector (pp. 126-151). IGI Global.
Bruyaka, O., Philippe, D., & Castañer, X. (2018). Run away or stick together? The impact of organization-specific adverse events on alliance partner defection. Academy of Management Review, 43(3), 445-469.
Duguid, M. M., & Thomas-Hunt, M. C. (2015). Condoning stereotyping? How awareness of stereotyping prevalence impacts expression of stereotypes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(2), 343.
Geppert, M., Becker-Ritterspach, F., & Mudambi, R. (2016). Politics and power in multinational companies: Integrating the international business and organization studies perspectives. Organization Studies, 37(9), 1209-1225.
Hamilton, D. L. (2015). Cognitive processes in stereotyping and intergroup behavior. Psychology Press.
Heilman, M. E., Deaux, K., Borgida, E., Bersoff, D. N., & Fiske, S. T. (2018). Social science research on trial: Use of sex stereotyping research in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins. In Social Cognition (pp. 76-98). Routledge.
McCaughey, D., McGhan, G., Savage, G., Landry, A., & Brooks, L. N. (2017). Gender stereotyping is alive and well: What are our students learning?. Journal of Health Administration Education, 34(2), 257-275.
Murašovs, V., Ruža, A., Raščevskis, V., & Dombrovskis, V. (2016). Expecting Refugees in Latvia: Negative Stereotyping. Economics and Business, 29(1), 56-64.
Naurin, D., Naurin, E., & Alexander, A. (2019). Gender Stereotyping and Chivalry in International Negotiations: A Survey Experiment in the Council of the European Union. International Organization, 1-20.
Patel, D., & Biswas, U. N. (2016). Stereotyping of Effective Male and Female Leaders: A Concomitant of Gendered Workplaces. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 42(1), 53.
Peters, P., Van der Heijden, B., Spurk, D., de Vos, A., & Klaassen, R. (2017). Social dialogue as a sustainable career development practice to combat (meta) stereotyping. In Shaping Inclusive Workplaces Through Social Dialogue (pp. 209-220). Springer, Cham.
Rohmer, O., & Louvet, E. (2018). Implicit stereotyping against people with disability. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 21(1), 127-140.
Sahoo, D. K., & Lenka, U. (2016). Breaking the glass ceiling: opportunity for the organization. Industrial and Commercial Training, 48(6), 311-319.
Simon, M. R. (2017). AUTOMATIC STEREOTYPING IN MANAGERIAL DECISION MAKING: REASONS, CONSEQUENCES AND MANAGEMENT. Jagran Lakecity University, Mugaliyachap, Bhopal, MP India, 63.
Stankiewicz, D. (2017). Nationalism without borders: Contradictory politics at a transborder European media organization. American Ethnologist, 44(4), 670-683.
Stoddard, B., & Martin, C. (Eds.). (2017). Stereotyping Religion: Critiquing Clichés. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Trani, J. F., Ballard, E., & Peña, J. B. (2016). Stigma of persons with disabilities in Afghanistan: Examining the pathways from stereotyping to mental distress. Social Science & Medicine, 153, 258-265.
van Veelen, R., Otten, S., Cadinu, M., & Hansen, N. (2016). An integrative model of social identification: Self-stereotyping and self-anchoring as two cognitive pathways. Personality and social psychology review, 20(1), 3-26.
