Three fundamental human needs (Part IV): Can we be both autonomous and connected at the same time?

I think this is a question that many people struggle with from time to time. The apparent conflict lies in thinking in terms of "being autonomous/independent versus connected" as if these are two opposite ends of a continuum. If you also see them that way I invite you to take a different perspective – considering them as two different dimensions rather than being the polar opposites of the same dimension.

Being autonomous or independent - the third fundamental need we have - relates to the way we develop ourselves with a vision and goals we set to reach that vision. It is the almost the method/attitude with which we create our roadmap to who we want to be and how we want our lives to be like.

How you create that vision can either take an independent/ autonomous form with you tapping into your unique being, your desires and dreams - in a way very similar to tapping into your ideal-self. Or you could create a vision more in line with the expectations of others (e.g., family, friends, colleagues) and the norms of the groups you belong to (e.g., the company you work for, the society you live in) without too much reference to your unique potential. This latter way is parallel to emphasizing your ought-self when you create that vision.

Being connected relates to having close and intimate relationships marked by stability, emotional concern and continuation into the foreseeable future. That is quite a different dimension than what I’ve described above. Having those relationships does not mean you are not independent anymore. On the contrary, those relationships support you in the journey to your vision.

In other words, being autonomous or independent is a relatively within-person quality; whereas being connected is an interpersonal quality.

When you consider this way of looking at them it becomes clear that they are complementary rather than conflicting. In fact, our research findings show exactly that too. People who are both autonomous and connected experience higher levels of well-being compared to those who fall short in either or both of those qualities. They are less prone to depression; emotionally more stable; and enjoy higher levels of self-esteem and life-satisfaction.

Then it is not a good idea to pit autonomy against connectedness, but rather encourage both. But why are we sometimes tempted to think one would come at the expense of the other?

I think that comes from an assumption we make: “to be connected I need to incorporate other people’s expectations and desires into the vision I create for myself”. And I believe this assumption is partly sustained by the desire to fit in. It is important to become aware of that belief and to question if that is indeed a valid assumption. I invite you to do that with an open mind…

References

Imamoglu, E. O. (2003). Individuation and relatedness: Not opposing, but distinct and complementary. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 129, 367–402. Social Psychology, 142, 333–351.

Kurt, A. (2002). Autonomy and relatedness: A comparison of Canadians and Turks. Paper Presented at the Annual Convention of Canadian Psychological Association; June 2002, Vancouver, BC.

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?