The Power Of The Roles We Take: A Very Old Study And Related Thoughts

I recently had a rather painful meeting with a group of friends that I all admire.  I need to keep things vague to protect both the guilty and the innocent. But I was amazed -- perhaps flabbergasted is a better word -- to see how my friends who had taken and devoted enormous energy to their leadership roles couldn't help but defend their every move.  They denied problems that seemed obvious and when they could bring themselves to actually acknowledge a glaring problem,  they minimized its impact and quickly turned conversation to how minor this problem was compared to all the other truly wonderful things they were doing.  

Then it hit me.  Well, of course, I know why this is happening.  As numerous psychology studies show,  people generally have self-serving biases, are motivated to present positive and flattering self-images (to themselves and others), and the roles we play in life are so powerful that they can quickly overwhelm our ability to process information objectively and can reverse any previously critical or negative views we once had about those roles. 

The lesson, of course, is that we all need to be very careful about the roles we take in life -- the organizations we join and lead, the kinds of people we hang out with, and the like -- because even if don't like the people and the values they represent, and perhaps just take a job because we need or want that job -- odds are that we will become more (or much) like the people we are around and the values associated with the positions we hold. 

 In particular, I was reminded of a very old study called "The Effects of Changes in Roles on the Attitudes of Role Occupants," which was published by Seymour Lieberman in Human Relations in 1956. The study was fascinating in that Lieberman was able to gather data during a "naturally occurring experiment" where people who worked in a manufacturing company switched roles -- in some cases moving from a worker to foreman and in other cases, moving from a worker to a union steward.   The numbers were not large, only some 58 people changed roles.  But the magnitude of the effects were quite large, especially among the new foremen. They changed their attitudes markedly, turning pro-management, pro-company, and anti-union within 6 months of taking their new jobs.  For example, 70% of the new foremen reported seeing the company as a better place to work than the did when they were workers, while only 26% had no change in opinion. 74% believed that the union should have less say in setting standards than they did when they were workers.  And on and on. The new union stewards also expressed stronger pro-worker and pro-union sentiments than when they had been workers, but the effects were not as pronounced. 

Then, there was an interesting twist that Seymour Lieberman took advantage of; as a result of a downturn, about a third (8) of the 23 workers  who had been promoted to foremen were then demoted to workers, while the other two-thirds remained foremen.  The numbers here are very small, and while modern studies have replicated related findings with more rigor, it is still interesting to see that the 8 workers who returned to being workers soon developed pretty much the same anti-management and pro-union sentiments as their fellow workers; but those who remained as foreman retained their pro-company and pro-management attitudes.

I am writing about Lieberman's old study partly for sentimental reasons, as it was done at The University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research, where I hung out and sometimes worked as a doctoral student.  It was was one of the first research papers I ever read about the power of roles and how they can erase and reverse opinions and attitudes that we believe are core parts of who we are and aspire to be.  

My old warm memories aside, there have since been many other studies on the power of situations to overwhelm our personalities and attitudes (indeed, you could argue that the power of situations over personalities is an assumption that drives many if not most experiments done by psychologists). Again, the lesson is that we all need to be very careful of the roles we take and realize that they will probably change us more than we change them -- I am not trying to be fatalistic, but this is an evidence-based statement.  Sometimes this is a good thing, especially when we join a group composed of noble and skilled human-beings.  But every manager and leader out there ought to be aware that no matter how self-critical and self-aware you might be, the very act of taking leadership role will likely make you defend and support your organization more vehemently than the facts likely justify.   At moderate levels of reality distortion, this probably isn't a bad thing as it instills confidence in yourself and others.  But the damage can be severe when you and your company are screwing-up royally, and you can't see the flaws or any good reason to make repairs.

Comments

[kare anderson]

On the upside, Bob points to the power of appointing ambassadors for a firm, becoming the "becoming" face of the firm is a self-fulfilling prophecy that can burnish the brand of the firm... and those who are given that role, living up to their best side more of the time

[Sarah]

It is definitely true that our job can influence and change who we are, but that shouldn't have anything to do with admitting your mistakes and correcting them. The more senior and influential your position, the more important it is to be able to monitor yourself and admit when you have have taken a wrong turn. If find (as a project manager) that using online project management software (I use Clarizen) helps me to focus on what I am supposed to be doing, and helps me work out when I have gone off track. I have also learned not to take on any project management roles that I am uncomfortable with, since as you so rightly say, it does alter who you are. And I am happy with who I am.

[Larry Ford]

I can't resist. Lao Tzu, founder of Taoism, circa the 6th century B.C. "The way to do is to be." When we take on a role, voluntarily or not, the way to best fulfill that role is to become it. My, what we have learned in 2600 years. Happy Holidays, Bob.

p.s. There are some other quotes of his that you might like. "Anticipate the difficult by managing the easy." and "Great acts are made up of small deeds." and "He who controls others may be powerful, but he who has mastered himself is mightier still." It seems your belief #13 is spot on.

[George Lehman]

I understand that the context of our roles has a large impact on our attitudes and beliefs. I have a bit more trouble with the implied assumption that we can actually pick our roles, rather than having them foisted on us, and that as we do that we can anticipate the impact of that decision.
For example, when you (Bob) selected the role of fun and edgy management blogger did you have an accurate understanding of how this role would change you?
It seems to me that people like you who are willing to put themselves in the public eye are hugely impacted by public response to their work. I find it hard to imagine being able to accurately predict that impact.
By the way I love your blog. It is the only one I will let onto my Google home page.

[Tom]

As a former union leader and association president my attitudes did change when I because part of the management team. I always protected and supported my workers in a fair way; however, I found myself compromising my values to "suck up" to my boss, the owner of the company, by working a regular 60 hour or more week, not taking vacation time and loosing it yet making sure my direct reports took their time off, advocating for raises for my direct reports yet failing to do so for me (12 years without a raise and then had to fight for it with the CEO). On the other hand I developed higher expectations from my direct reports and tolerated their excuses less and less.

[Helen]

Great points.... in the medical academic world there is much debate about conflict of interest especially in the national organizations writing policy guidelines. I think a similar issue to the points you make here occur with respect to conflict of interest. Just getting a travel grant or small honorarium can have a big impact on a doctor's view of the pharmaceutical's product.

[Suzanne]

Excellent post in light of the mess at Penn State.

I definitely saw this in my own life as my attitudes about the unemployed and how they got to be so changed dramatically when I joined their ranks. It was, as they say, a real eye opener. It'll be interesting to me to see if I change my attitude once again if I ever am able to find a decent job, although I hope I will take with me what I've learned.

[Maria Helm]

Very interesting points. So, if you want to build bridges between workers and management, clearly temporary role swaps do not have lasting change. (Although they might help temporarily, or in small ways permanently if changes are influenced during those swaps.) So, is there some other way to incorporate those bridges into daily practice...to foster more understanding between workers and management...like building in more feedback, influence, and transparency? Or, is the push/pull between the two groups inevitable, and possibly useful?

[davidburkus]

Great post Bob. You help provide me some evidence behind what I've done with my career. I was hired out of college to work in the pharmaceutical industry, always assuming I wanted to go into management. Eventually, as I got to understand what they did better, I didn't want to do it. I went back to school and, ironically, now run a website about leadership and teach management at university (while still having no desire to manage any part of my department).

A weird route, but it allows me to stay passionate about good bossess, without becoming a bad one.