You are an expat, therefore….

Anyone who hasn’t been stereotyped or prejudiced against? The answer is rarely “Me!”. So it’s highly likely that you’ll relate to what I’ll describe in this post - especially if you are among the “people on the move”; a group who gets frequently stereotyped in different cultures, if not anything as “expats”.

Last time, I wrote if you think all stereotypes are negative that’s a prejudice, but then why’s there so much negative talk about stereotypes? From one perspective they are very useful because they help us to categorize and deal with the vast amount of social information that we are exposed to. In that sense they are not too different from other beliefs or knowledge structures we have, or generalizations we make such as ripe fruits are sweet, or German cars are reliable. They help us to process and store the information we have about the world, and to make judgments’ and decisions as we go along.

From the users’ perspective there are not too many downsides to relying on stereotypes – except for making some inaccurate judgments about people from time to time, which might have serious or not-so-serious consequences. Possibly the main reason why stereotypes are treated as the bad guys is the impact stereotyping has on the targets.

We can talk about three ways in which stereotyping influences the targets. First is through the way people explain positive and negative outcomes. Imagine (and for most people – just remember) that you are a member of a stereotyped social group. You are well aware of the stereotype and you know that it includes the belief that your group is not competent in a particular domain (e.g., social skills, math, sports, academics, management). Let’s take management. You’ve just received your evaluation as a manager and it’s rather a negative one. Now, you find yourself wondering how objective your supervisor was in evaluating your performance – does the report reflect an accurate assessment of your skills; or has the stereotype related to your social group played a role? Or think of the other scenario where you’ve got a great evaluation, and you find yourself asking a similar question: Is it really me; or is it the company policy about encouraging minorities? In either case the reasons behind the evaluation will carry some ambiguity. And this ambiguity will have implications for your future motivation and performance.

The second way in which stereotyping can influence the targets is through the anxiety it creates. Typical scenario is that you – as a member of a stereotyped group – are aware of the stereotype that your group is perceived not to be that good in a domain (e.g., Math for women; intelligence and academic success for many minorities or people from lower socioeconomic status etc.,). When you find yourself in a situation that will emphasize your skills in that domain, the thought of not performing well and confirming the stereotype creates anxiety. On top of that add the anxiety about doing something that will reflect negatively on your group – now you have enough anxiety to undermine your performance! This, by now well-established effect – is called stereotype threat and its impacts have been demonstrated from educational settings to workplace.

Finally, stereotypes also have a negative impact on targets through the process of self-fulfilling prophecy. Imagine that your manager, in line with her stereotype of your social group, has low expectations of you. Therefore she assigns low priority goals or projects to you. So you get to display your skills in a limited scope; or following the reciprocity norm, you respond by low contributions to low expectations. What ensues is self-fulfilling prophecy demonstrated by a cycle of low expectations - limited contribution that perpetuates the stereotype.  

How about people’s expectations about YOU as a result of their “expat” stereotype: that you make tons of money; your employment comes at the expense of locals’ employment; you’re driving the housing process/rents up; you are living in their community just temporarily? How has being the target of “expat” stereotype been influencing you?

You might be wondering how to work around it – how to break the cycle. Here are a few suggestions:

 

• Don’t give in to your “saboteur*” who will try to undermine your successes by saying “You got the promotion because you are from Group X”; or who will make you nervous by saying “You know what they think – you’re going to fail because you’re from Group X”.

• Instead, take credit for your very own accomplishments; do your reality check with trusted colleagues. To be at your best, make sure to be honest in your self-assessments and avoid the tendency to consistently blame the stereotypes. Work with a coach to support you in dealing with self-limiting beliefs.

• In dealing with stereotype threat: make a list of times when you did succeed in the domain despite what the stereotype suggests. Enrich your list with examples from other members of your group. Make the list easily accessible for future reference so that dealing with anxiety becomes a very easy task.  

• Be aware of the expectations due to stereotypes and deliberately set targets to go beyond them. Get involved in setting goals for yourself and demand higher goals to show your skills.

• Highlight accomplishments – yours or other stereotyped individuals’ – to encourage stereotype change especially given people’s tendency to regard those cases as “exceptions” to keep their stereotypes intact. 
  

*saboteur : also known as “inner critic”, “negative self-talk”

Do I need to change my stereotype about the Dutch?

Yes, I took too long of a break from writing, and I have many exciting things to write about – from my trip to Turkey, to the inspiring seminar panel “From Diversity to Inclusion” organized by the Netherlands – Canadian Chamber of Commerce and KPMG yesterday. Last time, I had promised to write more about the regulatory focus but I’ll leave that to another post and share some thoughts on the gender diversity topic and social norms this time.

Let me share a “stereotype” I’ve had and partly still have about the Netherlands – the stereotype that motivated me to move to Amsterdam. The components of the stereotype are: tolerant, multicultural, welcomes diversity, progressive, liberal, English language-friendly, individualistic, aware of what’s going on in the world, friendly in a North European way (i.e., easy to start conversations, but difficult to go beyond the acquaintance level), organized, too planned – not spontaneous. You might think “but that doesn’t look like a stereotype, it’s too positive” – well that’s your prejudice against stereotypes, that they are all negative. Well, they are not. One thing stereotypes do is that they create expectancies and we go around looking for evidence to support them (see the post on Confirmation Bias). But I am more interested in what happens when we come across information that conflicts with our stereotypes. And that’s what happened for me this week – part of my stereotype about the Netherlands/Dutch was challenged.

During the presentations of an impressive group of speakers – Avivah Wittenberg-Cox, Dr. Claartje Vinkenburg, Dr. Alison Konrad – I learned that in the Netherlands almost 75% of women in workforce (59% of Dutch women are in the workforce) are on some form of part-time working arrangement. And possibly, as a consequence of that (of course in conjunction with other factors) the representation of women in management positions is among the lowest in Europe. According to a Grant Thornton survey in 2007, only 13% of senior management level positions were held by women in the Netherlands, as opposed to 21% in France, 23% in Poland, 34% in Russia, and 50% in the Philippines.

So what do these numbers have to do with my stereotype? The norms behind this pattern was what challenged the “progressive” component of my Netherlands/Dutch stereotype – Dutch society appears to be quite traditional or do I dare to say, conservative when it comes to the roles of men and women in relation to family and work issues. Family-related responsibilities and childcare are still seen as mainly the responsibility of women, whereas the “breadwinner” role is ascribed to men. 

First-hand I can share a comment made by one of our Dutch neighbors in response to my question regarding if/when she’s going back to full-time schedule “My husband makes enough money, I don’t think I need to work full-time”. I had “sub-typed” her or thought she was an exception until I saw the numbers presented yesterday. Of course the regulations such as the time for maternity and paternity leaves - 16 weeks and 2 days, respectively – do further help perpetuate the gender roles.

According to the research of Dr. Vinkenburg, the Director of the Amsterdam Center for Career Research at Vrije Universitiet Amsterdam, at workplace women are also perceived as being less competent once they become mothers, or as early as they get pregnant. It also becomes (even) less acceptable for them to express being ambitious about their careers. There is also a very real peer pressure going as far as judging them as “bad mothers” with sarcastic comments such as “So, you are the career mom who doesn’t have time to pick kids up from school?” It is always ironic to see the role women play in perpetuating the status quo.

You could ask “What’s wrong with it if women (and men) are happy with the norm?” My concern lies not in pushing people for the egalitarian roles per se, but rather in the impact that the norm has on people who would like to deviate from it. There are women who would like to push their way up in the career ladder and hence, prefer or must work full-time; as well as there are men who would like to work part-time and play a more active role in raising the kids. As social beings, humans’ functioning is very dependent on the social norms – more than we would like to admit.

 
In the light of these norms and numbers, the advantage I’ve once attributed to “The Netherlands being one of the easiest places to raise kids” has taken on a whole different meaning. Flexible working arrangements, which could be seen as an advantage and a sign of progressive work-life balance mentality in many other places, seem to be a liability for the careers of women in the Netherlands. This raises a few questions for me:

• Are most women and men aware of the liability of part-time work arrangement for their careers and families?
  
• To what extent do men and women incorporate the traditional gender roles in their identity? To what extent are they yielding to the social influence/norms – consciously or unconsciously? 
  
• How does the “part-time work” norm influence women who prefer to work full-time? 
  
• How do the Dutch men and women define “work-life” balance?
  
• And finally, should I be revising my stereotype as Dutch being very progressive – at least with respect to gender roles?