Perceptions and Filters

As an organizational researcher and consultant, I am fascinated with how personal perceptions drive behaviors.  “Perception is a process by which individuals organize and interpret their sensory impressions in order to give meaning to their environment.”¹ Leaders need to understand how perceptions are formed, paying particular attention to accuracy. 

Before I begin, I would like you to try an experiment. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo&feature=related

Please go the YouTube link just above and be prepared to concentrate on a task for a little over a minute.  During this minute, your job is to count the passes of a basketball. Do this before looking at the rest of this blog post.

Read this only after viewing the video:

What is truly fascinating about this simple video is the number of people who miss the gorilla walking across the set. When I play this in my Organizational Behavior class, about 30 percent of the class do not see the gorilla and are surprised when it is pointed out to them.

Another favorite is the picture posted below. What do you see in the sketch? 

The drawing contains both a young and an old woman⁴. Some will see both immediately. Others will see one or the other and are never convinced there is another interpretation. 

Finally, go to the following Harvard website and complete the Implicit Association Demonstration test (IAT):

https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/

This test measures response times when viewing and responding to a picture pair; different reaction times suggest a different evaluation (positive or negative) of the subjects being viewed.⁵ The test attempts to access unconscious perspectives on the target variables. My students have always found this test troublesome because sometimes it is difficult to admit to a negative association when it is socially unacceptable. This site can be of help to leaders and workers by illuminating unconscious beliefs and biases.  The website contains a background link (look at the Q&A) that offers a good explanation of the IAT.

What is the message from these three experiments? The answer, which is uncomfortable for some, is that everyone should be suspicious of the veracity of any personal perceptions that are formed. The reason lies with how perceptions are created. Before a perception of an object or person is made real, the individual interprets it within the context of the presenting situation. Further, the individual can be misdirected because interpretation of events is subject to our past experiences and other factors. When drawing upon the past, the individual forms a perception that is often linked to what has happened before, even if there is no obvious connection to current events.  The mind also facilitates the creation of snap perceptions as a mechanism to reduce effort and simplify judgments. However, there is overwhelming proof these shortcuts can lead to faulty interpretations.

Eyewitnesses to crimes provide compelling evidence. Witnesses are notorious for inaccurate interpretations of events and even naming the guilty party. In some cases this has led to innocents being imprisoned. Part of the problem is that perceptions are not only subject to one's personal biases but also to the influence of others; for example, how the police ask and frame questions of the witness can lead to false remembrances.³ Another interesting study suggests that a CEOs' facial characteristics (width and height) are an indicator of a leader's performance, offering proof that there is a connection between perceptions and a leader's degree of success. ⁶

The problem of faulty perceptions has significant implications for leaders because behaviors are a result of perceptions rather than actual events. One antidote is for the leader to learn about the barriers to accurate perceptions as a means to prevent the problem. 

One common distortion is called a fundamental attribution error.² It is the tendency to assign blame to outside causes (or others) when things go wrong ("I could not make this sale because the product is no good"). However, when things go right, that same individual is just as likely to accept credit ("It was my expertise that led to that sale"). Leaders are particularly susceptible. The follower sees the leader at fault for personal failures (e.g. "I did not do a good job because she did not explain to me clearly what I needed to do"). The leader similarly applies the attribution error, "It is the worker’s fault for not getting it done," rather than "the economy was at fault." It is also rare for the leader to recognize his or her role in worker failures. It is human nature to use strategies to circumvent personal psychological harm.  

The path to an attribution error can be found in cognitive biases. We are all too familiar with the concept of stereotyping: applying a set of characteristics of a group to a person based on his or her membership in the group. This leads to some serious organizational issues because it reflects personal prejudices. Another is when a single trait is used to form one’s entire view of a person. This halo effect could lead to a distortion of our views of a quiet person in meetings (introvert), suggesting he or she is not engaged in the work of the group.²

One additional bias is the notion of perceiving events that are obvious and/or stand out. This means we are more likely to notice the sharp drop in sales of a product but could fail to notice the smaller trend that may have caused the drop. Finally, we have a tendency to seek information that confirms our beliefs and filter out information that might suggest our ideas are inaccurate.²

While these errors are a component of being human, it does not make the outcomes any more palatable for the organization. The leaders of a business need to protect against untrue perceptions, particularly when it comes to hiring practices, performance evaluations and the development of relationships with workers. The leader must actively work to reduce or mitigate these problems or it can have serious consequences.

There is no perfect antidote for faulty perceptions, but I believe the leader can take some steps:  

·         Become conscious of any attribution errors that are being applied to events. Learn more about implicit and explicit perceptions. I have provided a starter list of some the common errors above. 

·         Make a conscious effort to develop and maintain self-awareness of what drives personal behavior. Recognize that workers also need to make the same effort but many are trapped in what they believe to be true rather than what is.

·         Unit leaders and organizations that are not grounded in reality can be more vulnerable to groupthink and other similar phenomena. In addition, decisions that do not rest on a foundation of reality can increase risk and decrease rationality. This means the leader must be vigilant in seeking an understanding of organizational reality.

·         Take measures to test your view of work episodes. This can be as simple as having a trusted outsider interpret events. This person should be asked to tell you what you should hear and not what you want to hear.

The ultimate protection to faulty perceptions is for the leader to recognize that the perceptions and interpretation of organizational events should be suspect; use caution before settling on one’s beliefs. Further, when a leader experiences an event, he or she should realize the barriers to understanding are comprised of a bias-riddled filter and nothing gets through this membrane without intention and attention. 

Please feel free to make comments.

Tri-Delta Leadership will not publish a blog post on Monday, Nov. 26 due to the Thanksgiving holiday. The next post will be on Monday, Dec. 3.

 

References

¹ Robbins, S.P., Judge, T.A., 2012, Essentials of Organizational Behavior, 11 edition. Boston: Prentice Hall, page 57.

² Robbins, S.P., Judge, T.A., 2012, Essentials of Organizational Behavior, 11 edition. Boston: Prentice Hall.

³ Wells, G.L., Memon, A., & Penrod, S. D. (2006). Eyewitness Evidence: Improving Its Probative Value. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7(2), 45 - 75. 

⁴ Image retrieved 11-16-12 and found at:

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ49cUAQFURS5BB3FuVqQsjJKiR-pyfDP1zTUyIFl1oqjpYMHWUZw 

⁵ Bohner, G., & Wanke, M. (2002). Attitudes and Attitude Change. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis, Inc. 

⁶ Wong, E.M., Ormiston, M.E., & Haselhuhn, M.P. (2011). A Face Only an Investor Could Love: CEOs' Facial Structure Predicts Their Firms' Financial Performance. Psychological Science, 22(12), 1478 - 1483.