Run beyond the boundaries: Changing the self-limiting beliefs

Last time I suggested that you reflect on the self-limiting beliefs (SLBs) if you would like to make better use of your potential to reach your ideal-self and your dreams. If you have a list of these SLBs that have been blocking you in getting where you would like to be, here are the next steps.

Step 1: Figure out the hidden benefits of the SLBs.
Last time I mentioned that these beliefs have been there because they serve some purpose – so what are the hidden benefits they’ve been providing you with? In other words what are the advantages of holding each of the SLBs? For example, if the SLB is “I am not confident enough”, some of the hidden benefits might be, you don’t take action that might carry the risk of failure or rejection – so you don’t need to cope with failure and rejection, pretty big benefit!
Once you have the benefits listed, also make a list of the costs of holding those beliefs. This should be easier since it was probably part of discovering the SLBs themselves.

Step 2: Flip the belief and look for evidence to support the new version.
Flip it: “I am confident”; evidence: “I did present the product idea to my boss this morning”; “I did hold my ground in answering questions”; “I did take action even though I felt some anxiety” etc… This is a great way of challenging the SLBs.

Step 3: Pick one!
Ask yourself which belief you want to stick with (i.e., “I am not confident” or “I am confident”) which one do you like better, which one do you want: the SLB or the opposite?

Step 4: Use confirmation bias
Consciously set the confirmation bias into action – be the best lawyer you could be to look for evidence in support of this belief. While at it, make sure to overlook conflicting information along the way. This might feel unnatural at first but when you think about it, it is actually something we are experts at (hint: Remember all the times you previously failed to notice how you were being confident?)! But very important point is to be consistent and intentional in doing this. Beliefs take time to change, therefore it is crucial to stick with process and keep a track of the benefits you’re getting from holding that belief (journaling might be a good idea).


Supports & tips along the way...

1. One thing that would support you along the way would be using self-affirmation. Numerous studies (see references) have shown that reflecting upon positive aspects of oneself replenishes resources to exert self-control. And believe me, replacing SLBs with new beliefs requires quitea bit of self-control! Self-affirmations could be thinking or writing about your core values and things you are competent at, or they could be doing things, even small ones, in line with your values.

2. In line with the above point, because self-control is a limited resource don’t try to attempt changing too many beliefs at a time (more on this in a later post).

3. Similar to any task that requires effort, one of your best bets would be to rely on social support. Share your commitment in changing your SLBs with someone whom you know will support you. This helps in three ways. First, it means more accountability to change the beliefs; secondly, another person can help you to do your reality check by being more objective; and lastly, their positive feedback will have similar benefits as self-affirmation.

Enjoy running beyond those self-imposed boundaries and opening up more possibilities for yourself!


References
Schmeichel, Brandon J.; Vohs, Kathleen (2009). Self-affirmation and self-control: Affirming core values counteracts ego depletion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Vol 96(4), 770-782.

Steele, C. M. (1988). The psychology of self-affirmation: Sustaining the integrity of the self. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 21, pp. 261-302). New York: Academic Press.

Are you setting yourself up?

“Rabbits have a powerful notion of their territory. They stay inside the self-proclaimed boundaries no matter what. Even if a coyote chases them to the brink of their known land, and escape is in sight, they will turn around and run straight into the jaws of the predator rather than risk the new ground.”

This was shared in a blog post I read a few days ago. I don’t know anything about rabbits, or if they actually do behave like that but I thought this provides a powerful image about the topic I would like to write about – self-limiting beliefs.

Self-limiting beliefs (SLBs) constitute a core area in my coaching work. Most of the time people complain about external obstacles ranging from circumstances such as workload, to other people such as competitive colleagues . But really, the biggest obstacle that keep them from where or who they want to be are these beliefs they hold on to – consciously or more dangerously, unconsciously.

• I am not creative/extraverted/ambitious enough.
• I am not confident enough.
• I don’t have the necessary skills/experience.
• I can’t handle it.
• I must be perfect.
• I should make everyone happy.
• No one wants to get to know me.

Sound familiar? It is not that we are acutely or consistently thinking or aware of these beliefs, YET they do continue limiting us.

The workings of our minds rely on two types of processing. Controlled processing is the thinking that we are conscious and aware of, that takes up our brain energy and resources. Automatic processing, on the other hand, is the type of thinking that continues running at the background, effortlessly and outside our awareness. To make it more concrete, imagine you are having a meeting with your boss. Formulating an argument as to why you should use a particular strategy involves controlled processing; reading her body language and other nonverbal cues to assess if she is convinced by your argument as you speak are mostly handled through automatic processing. Recent research shows much of our processing fall under the second category, and of course this has powerful implications for our thinking, emotions, decision-making, and behaviors (more on this on another post).

What is important in this context is that many SLBs do operate at the automatic level – they almost act as lenses through which you perceive and evaluate the world and yourself. Inevitably, they influence your goal setting, motivation, and behaviors even when you are not aware of them. One of the best things you could do for yourself is to shine the light of awareness on the SLBs to bring them to your consciousness so you can do something about them. That means you take a step to become aware of the territory you’ve trapped yourself into - unless you would like to avoid the consequences, of course. The consequences, though not as terrible as the one for the rabbits, might include missing out on

• coming close to your ideal self
• taking a shot at your dream job
• meeting some amazing people
• moving forward in your career
• living a fulfilling life

And if you ask me, they’re worth serious consideration. Yet, I bet there will be some serious resistance and a lot of rationalization that will make the discovery challenging, especially because these SLBs do serve some purpose. Their “hidden benefits” include protecting you (and your self-esteem) from rejection, failure, responsibility, or hard-work. No wonder they’ve become automatic over the years! A few ways to “uncover” the SLBs:

• Take a look at you ideal self and ask “What beliefs or stories I’ve been telling myself have been keeping me at a distance from my ideal self?”.
• Make a list of things you really really want(ed) to do; the goals you set for yourself but have been ignoring or neglecting. Do some thinking on why you haven’t been working towards them.
• Reflect on those almost “outrageous” dreams you want to realize – so “out-there” that you didn’t even dare to include them under your ideal self (e.g., running a marathon, setting up your own business). They are great in mining the most powerful SLBs.

Once you’ve done that, you might ask “Now, what?” First of all, acknowledge your accomplishment: awareness is one of the most important steps of tackling SLBs - now you know what your self-proclaimed boundaries are. Next time, some tips & tools to start working on them…

Why do some decisions feel better than others - that is, independent of the outcome?

In an earlier post I wrote about different ways/orientations to set goals and regulate behavior – prevention and promotion focus: First one referring to a focus on absence of negatives, and the latter one to achieving positive things. If you reflected on the questions at the end of that post or completed the Regulatory Focus Questionnaire, you have an idea which one is more dominant for you.

I had also mentioned the strategies to reach these goals. One can either pick a means that will maximize possibilities – an eager strategy; or she can pick one that will minimize potential mistakes – a vigilant strategy.

So far it’s a recap of an earlier post. Here’s what’s new: the fit between the regulatory focus (prevention vs. promotion) and the strategy you use to reach your goals (vigilant vs. eager). Recent research shows that the fit between these two factors has important consequences for motivation, decision-making and the value we get from our decisions.

First, the fit between regulatory focus/orientation and the means to reach the goals influences the motivation. A person with a prevention focus has a stronger motivation to pursue a goal when using a vigilant strategy rather than an eager strategy. For example, a sales manager with a prevention focus will have higher motivation when using a strategy that emphasizes watching out for costs, rather than looking out for profits. If you’re leading a team of people with diverse regulatory orientations that would mean you’re better off to frame goals accordingly, and be flexible in suggesting a mix of vigilant and eager strategies that would map onto both prevention and promotion orientations.

Secondly, when the fit between orientation and strategy is high people feel more alert both when making decisions and after making a decision. They also evaluate their decisions more positively. These two consequences combined could explain why a particular decision can be more satisfying for some than for others independent of the outcome of the decision– both across different people (e.g. in a team) and for the same person across different decisions.

Finally, the fit also has an impact on the value people assign to outcomes. For example, people with prevention or promotion orientations assign a higher monetary value to an object that they have chosen by using the compatible strategy – vigilant or eager, respectively. What does that mean? Your perception of how valuable something increases when your decision-making reflects the fit – you also become more likely to pay a higher amount for it.

These findings have important implications for the enjoyment of goal pursuit. The higher the fit the more satisfaction you’ll get from pursuing your goals. This also means you play an active role in the value you get from an object or a service through your regulatory focus and the strategy you choose to make a decision. You can increase the enjoyment you get from goal pursuit by being aware of your regulatory orientation and by being mindful in choosing a compatible strategy to maximize the fit between the two.

Feeling good about your decision and the outcome of your decision is under your control. The better you know yourself the better you can regulate your behavior and the better you feel! Now, how good is that?

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?