There is a concept that social psychologists refer to as out-group homogeneity effect.
We perceive members of our own group to be relatively heterogeneous, i.e. we see variation. Everyone else, so-called “out-group members”, however, seem relatively homogeneous
In other words, we tend to think of our group as a mosaic and people from other groups as monotone.
People really do see more variation in personality among in-group members, an attitude confirmed by a number of studies.
It’s an intuitive concept. We know the people we spend more time with (our in-group members) better. Although we all have something in common, whether it’s ethnicity, colleagues, family members, we aware of their individual personalities and idiosyncrasies. Because they’re around us all the time, we have to distinguish them from one another.
We have less information about people from groups we don’t have as much contact with, Norwegians, for example. (Full disclosure – I’m a quarter Norwegian.) We’ve heard they eat a lot of fish, win lots of medals at the Winter Olympics, drill for oil. We might know that they’ve descended from Vikings but are now apparently very socially-minded Nordics.
But the view from inside Norway is, understandably, rather more nuanced than the stereotype. They are only slightly more blond and blue-eyed than people in the rest of the world. And there is a raging debate happening right now between citizens who want the country to stop oil and gas exploration (it is one of the world’s exporters of both) as it aims for net zero emissions, and those who point to the potential job losses of such a move. Of course, Norwegians do share similarities, but the population is not a monolithic bloc of Jarlsberg cheese.
A natural response
The out-group homogeneity effect makes sense from a biological perspective, too. My research assistant, Hannah Rosenthal, points out that the farther away you are from a group, the more homogeneous it looks, simply because our eyesight has its limits. This is not just true for the nearsighted. It’s harder it is to make out the details. You see the forest, but not the trees.
Taking the long view, stereotypes and biases have probably served us quite well. They probably saved a few lives.
When our ancestors first encountered a spear-carrying stranger from another tribe, it would have been prudent to first consider them as just like all the other “others” we’d come across. That is, as a possible threat. So, getting into a defensive crouch to size him up would be a smart first reaction. Only after examination, and exchanges, would the other tribe member solidify into an individual, perhaps one to be trusted.
Why it’s a problem
So what? You might respond.
Well, out-group homogeneity effect happens to be a source of bias. It leads to stereotyping, an oversimplified belief that people who share certain characteristics are pretty much all the same.
When we think of outgroup members as being more similar to one another, they risk being stereotyped or seen as interchangeable rather than complex and unique individuals.
This raises also raises an interesting question. Do in-group members feel less need to become more diverse because the inside perspective feels quite heterogeneous already, thank you very much?
When you think about it, it would be odd if such a bias didn’t exist.
This is not an excuse to say, “Hey, what can I do? I’m human, we’ve all got our biases.”
Rather, it is a reminder to reflect on the fact that people in other groups are probably just as diverse as the group you belong to. That applies to groups based on ethnicity, political ideology, nationality, profession, and any other group characteristic you can come up with.
Getting up close and personal, that is, spending time with people from that “other” group is a good remedy
Communication, or rather lack thereof, is part of a power game. Whether we like it or not, calculations connected to power and status seem to lurk behind much of human interactions, as well as policy making (not just politics, as some might think). Not responding is a way of not cooperating, or a signal or non-cooperation. By not responding, one side essentially raises its status at the expense of the other side, at least temporarily. At a minimum, it leaves one side in a state of uncertainty as to what the silence signifies. It is a potent way of saying “I need you less than you need me.”
Silence when there normally should be an answer leaves the other party guessing, speculating as to the reason why. It can even lead to a fundamental change in the relationship, including its termination. To not answer is to break the golden rule of reciprocity. Some might do so intentionally, others unintentionally, but the effect can be similar.
The use of the non-response frequently plays out in the policy and diplomacy arenas. Silence becomes a strategy. It is a way of creating an information barrier.
Not very long ago I was in a country receiving aid from a development bank (like almost all the countries I work in). Years earlier, I had conducted an evaluation of a sector program. Multi-year efforts had been underway to formulate and promote reforms in the sector. This involved convening sector stakeholders at regular meetings to discuss their proposals, concerns, interests, etc. within the framework of the problems that were identified needed to be addressed. However, the agency responsible for managing the sector – related to natural resources – had a reputation for being corrupt. It did not welcome the reform attempts, although it didn’t reject them outright, either. It simply did not respond to invitations to join the discussion forums. Representatives never showed up.
The agency, or at least its personnel, were indeed the stakeholders with the most to lose. Serious reforms would have reduced rent-seeking and corruption, the “excess remuneration” the agency staff were generating for themselves. In not cooperating, in not accepting the invitations to engage in dialogue, they were acting rationally, from their point of view, anyway.
Years later, the sector reforms still have not been implemented and, according to my sources, corruption at the agency continues to flourish. By not showing up, the agency was employing a power play that ultimately worked in their favor, although to the detriment of many other stakeholders who would have benefited (and still can) from reforms.
How to respond to the non-response?
When first confronted with silence in lieu of a response, it is best to consider the possibility that the reason is benign and not intended as an adversarial signal. Perhaps the other person did not receive the message, or received it and is still intending to respond, but is taking a long time. Or, they never got around to responding, and feel guilty about it. Your message may have gone to junk mail. They may have changed their email address. They may have had a death in the family or, God forbid, have passed on to the great beyond themselves. Those are all reasonably good excuses, ranging from the acceptable to the, shall we say, unassailable. They are forgivable sins.
Giving the non-responder a second chance, with a friendly follow-up reminder, is thus a good idea. If you have tried again, and still get no response, however, it may well be time to reciprocate, by “answering” silence with silence.
Have you found yourself in a situation where you asked someone a question, especially in a face-to-face situation, and they simply ignored you? It is not pleasant. On top of all that, there is also a gender angle here, as my astute editor, Kitty Thuermer points out: over the years, women have complained about being professionally ignored, not heard, or marginalized by the men they work with. It is a most aggravating position to be in, and a most effective way of driving the nail in a relationship. (Although maybe we need to make an exception for the long-married couple, for whom a pattern of ignoring the other might be a habit more than anything else.) But in most other circumstances, ignoring someone is a power play, a signal of disrespect. I have rarely seen it used blatantly, I must add, but it is a very strong signal, with often immediate consequences for the relationship.
Sometimes, however, exit from the relationship is not a valid
option. Because of the nature of the professional or personal relationship,
there may be a compelling reason to keep reaching out in the face of silence.
For example, if the other party is in a position of authority in the
organization or network to which you belong, or where in order to move forward,
you absolutely must have a response. If you are in a dependent relationship, or
dependent salary and benefits, you may lack the power to reciprocate.
Still, it is doubtful such a situation cannot persist for
long without some sort resolution, as pressure build to move to a new equilibrium.
When not talking is justified
Sometimes, maintaining silence is about dignity. I recommend
not responding when people make inappropriate and unacceptable remarks. If they
are directing their words at someone else and they is unfair, demeaning, or prejudiced,
then you should, of course, respond. Not doing so would signal acquiescence.
This is not a tactic, it is simply the right thing to (not) do. But stony silence
can be a force for good in these cases.
Thus, talking is not necessarily always a good idea even if one’s intentions are good. Your choice
depends on the circumstances. You need to be discerning enough to know when to
talk and when to zip it. For a lot of
us, that can involve a lifetime of learning. And to re-apply the golden rule: Do not
do unto others that which you do not
want done unto you.
Is more or better communication always the answer? No, of
course not. Communication is not a silver bullet. It doesn’t solve every
problem.
People have different embedded values, opinions, and interests. And if they are strongly held, talking just ain’t gonna change minds. As probably most married (or unmarried) couples have noticed, certain issues don’t simply disappear no matter how much time is spent talking them over. My wife and I have been having pretty much the same conversation —over the design of a minor renovation project — for nigh on half a year, and we’re no closer to resolution, as far as I can tell. (Right now, chances are it will never happen!) This is despite the fact that in most other respects our marital communication seems to work reasonably well, I would venture.
Lincoln’s “hot
letter” routine
There are times when someone else’s problem isn’t yours, and
you don’t want it to become yours by starting a line of communication. There
are also times when you can avoid creating problems by restricting your
communication, when less is more.
This can be to the point where saying nothing at all may be
best for everyone involved. This might be true when, for example, you find
yourself on the verge of a fight, which could lead toward a rift in a relationship,
at work or elsewhere.
Imagine a team member or supervisor has written you email
criticizing your performance or questioning your judgment or abilities. Or they
have said something you find unfair and you are fuming. I’ve been there. In the
heat of the moment, the temptation arises to write them an angry response, explaining,
defending, rationalizing, setting the story straight. Quite possibly the tone
of your response skirts the bounds of what is seemly and professionally
acceptable. You marshal a series of points to make a brilliant argument, but
along the way you start coming across as some combination of defensive,
self-righteous, petty, and oversensitive. Believe me, it won’t make you look
good. It’s not a risk you want to take. However, by all means write that angry email
or text or tweet, but then…before you send it, hit delete.
Abraham Lincoln was a proponent of writing angry letters —
he called them “hot
letters” — but then he would simply not send them. He got whatever
he had to say off his chest, a therapeutic experience. Yet by not sending the
letter he avoided damaging a relationship or making a decision in anger. This
is a most excellent practice. It takes some discipline, but we would do well to
abide by it.
On the virtues of
being bland and brief
Of course, after you’ve written (and deleted) your hot
letter, you may still need to respond in some fashion. However, when you do, the
shorter and more innocuous the response, the better for all involved. I’ve
learned this the hard way.
Nowadays, if someone asks for my advice about what to write when
they are miffed about something, I generally encourage them to let it out all
out, to tell me what is bothering them…verbally. Then I tell them to write
their response but keep it cool, calm, professional, and brief.
Talking serves, among other things, a revelatory purpose. Through
talking (or communicating in some form) people reveal useful information, about
where they stand, their concerns, their values, etc. There is the subject at
hand, of course (e.g. the threat of artificial intelligence (AI) to human employment;
there is the attitude toward that subject (AI is going to be a huge risk); and
there is the way they express themselves, or the oratorical tone (distanced,
passionate, sardonic, etc.).
I’m willing to bet that, all things being equal, the longer
people talk, the more they reveal. And what they reveal comes not only through
words, but also through their body language, signals, etc. some of which maybe
intentional and some not.
In a previous
post, I wrote about how dialogue between stakeholders was such an
important, and yet not overly complicated, solution to many problems — particularly
those involving people or groups with different interests. The post touched on
several reasons why talking things out is so conducive to resolving issues. I urged readers to always consider it as a
potential solution.
The Los Angeles Times, in an article about how the recent horrific Sri Lanka Easter Sunday bombings were enabled by poor communication argued that “Free press and open communication foster debate and combat falsehoods and prejudices, between and within the various groups.”
The many things that talking is good for
To explore the phenomenon a bit further, talking with other people, like some of the most popular things in this world, serves multiple purposes. (Think of the multi-functionality of the smartphone, and before that, the Swiss Army knife, not to mention the mouth or, heck, the human being. I could go on.)
Talking allows you to inform — or misinform, if that is your goal — to explain, to learn, to exchange information, to persuade, to clarify a position, to explore areas of common interest, to negotiate, to connect and build a relationship, even to empower the other side. As to this last example, think of a regime which, after months of anti-regime protests, agrees to meet and talk with the protesters. This significantly enhances the protesters’ credibility. To go back to the assertion I opened with, talking is crucial for reducing uncertainty and doubt by putting more information out there.
The beauty of the live
experience
Unlike one-way or back and forth sporadic communication, with gaps in between, talking face-to-face (or via the various videoconferencing technologies) allows you to gauge the reaction of the person you are communicating with, and to modulate your message “in real time,” so to speak. That way, you can ensure your fellow interlocutor understood you correctly, and, if not, you can immediately modify impressions or correct misunderstandings.
Miscommunication –
communication’s evil twin
Poor communication — especially when it is absent, or only
one-way —
results in one or the other parties resorting to filling in the gaps with their
own imagination or assumptions. Even just small gaps in communication can
create uncertainty. If you’ve ever sent an email (or text) and not received an
answer, you’ll know what I mean. Did the other person not get it? Are they too
busy? Do they prefer to communicate through a different platform? Is it a low priority for them? Are they
oblivious? You don’t really know, and so you end up trying to figure out what
the lack of response means.
An interesting example of many people not communicating is the
United Kingdom’s so far unsuccessful attempt to leave the EU —
an event now postponed until the end of October 2019. It is not a stretch to
say that the latest twists and turns in this ongoing Brexit saga —
with the UK trying to extricate itself from the deep economic and regulatory
embrace of the EU — are very much about communication, and its evil twin,
miscommunication. After over two years of unsuccessfully trying to formulate a
plan for leaving the EU that also commands enough votes in Parliament, British
Prime Minister Theresa May finally decided to talk to opposition leader Jeremy
Corbyn in early April, in a last-ditch attempt to fashion a cross-party
compromise. This was something she had resisted for over two years, and many
have criticized May for focusing entirely on internal Tory party issues instead
of trying to find a consensus that a divided country could somehow live with.
While the likelihood of a satisfactory solution to the
Brexit conundrum doesn’t appear any closer, the fact that May agreed to sit
down with Corbyn was an acknowledgement that talking with the other side
presents a potential way out of the impasse.
The next time you open the newspaper and read about some issue or conflict, keep an eye out for mention of communication, or talks. It comes up quite a lot as a sticking point. Typically, observations will be about communication style, or lack of communication, or the need for communication. One reason Richard Plepler left HBO after it was taken over by AT&T was said to be that HBO and its new parent company had communication issues.
Strategic non-communication?
Of course, keeping people guessing by not letting them know what you are thinking or are planning, can be a tactical move. It can benefit you, and not them. It could simply be due to oblivion on the “silent party’s” part. Or it could be deliberate. This is how communication becomes “weaponized” as part of a power play. Needless to say, it is not pleasant to be on the receiving end of this game, especially when you are not prepared for it. What is the best response in such a case? Tit for tat, i.e. stop communicating yourself? Or seek out the opportunity to talk, knowing that you may be rebuffed? We should not forget, either, that there are also ways of communicating that don’t involve words. In a follow-up post, I will explore some of these options.
Although it is said that humans are social animals — which presumably means that they love to talk and hang out with each other — it is rather striking how often they (ahem…we) mangle basic communication. I find the issue of poor communication, which extends all the to no communication, comes up as a problem in many of the projects I evaluate. The problem can arise between the implementer and project beneficiaries, between the funder and the implementer, between management levels at the same organization. And, of course, at times team members also have their own internal communication problems.
Poor communication can result in all sorts of unpleasant outcomes: people stop cooperating, stop doing what they’re supposed to, misunderstand or distrust each other, get frustrated, get angry. Generally, whatever the cause of the miscommunication, it leaves people unhappy. The situation is unstable; there are dynamics which are pushing it to change.
For example, on a recent evaluation I worked on (whose details I can’t divulge), the project counterparts complained that the consultants who were advising them would disappear for months at a time. They wouldn’t hear from them. They didn’t like being kept in the dark, and when they saw the recommendations the consultants produced, they weren’t very happy. There had been almost no consultation, no input. In short, bad communication.
In another evaluation, the donor organized monthly meetings so the different project leaders could share information. However, communication was reduced to presenting progress reports, which most attendees found terribly boring and not very useful. There was no substantive discussion, no back and forth.
I have also been on projects where the team leader simply would not respond to emails, leaving us in the dark.
Why does communication come up so often as an issue in one form or another? Does it not occur to people that it’s helpful to keep others informed, or to check in with them? Are people just too busy? Or perhaps, do people deliberately withhold information, whether out of an abundance of caution or in order to get some advantage? Really, it could be any of these reasons. Take your pick.
It is
inevitable that when two parties sit down to talk, to work something out, each will
have its own interests. These interests may overlap, but they rarely coincide. This
is particularly true at the policy level, when one, or both, parties are
unhappy with their current situation and want it to improve.
Is talking
really necessary? If one party decides to change a situation unilaterally,
without talking to other stakeholders, in all likelihood this would require
coercion and could lead to an unstable new status quo.
I would argue that, as a rule, it is easier, and less costly, to get the other party to agree to a change by taking their interests into account, as opposed to forcing them to comply with a new policy. It may not always be possible, and opposing interests may lead to full-blown conflict, but it is always worth the attempt.
When is the optimum time to sit down and talk?
Let me propose that a situation is ripe for parties to hold talks when things are veering out of balance, out of equilibrium, and it is in at least in one party’s interest to seek a change. Of course, both parties may be interested in talking, or it could be just the one. In the latter case, it try to might persuade, or even force, the other to engage. The broader objective of talking between stakeholders with different interests is to effect a change.
The new governments of Algeria and Sudan — which replaced those of their ousted leaders, Bouteflika and al Bashir, respectively — may be facing this choice. They will either need to be so strong and ruthless that they force the populace to give in (as many Arab Spring governments in the Middle East have done), or they will need to sit down with opposition leaders and negotiate until a new political system is put into place that everyone can live with. The more powerful the interim governments feel, and the more money and support they get, say, from sympathetic countries, the less they will feel compelled to meet with protesters to address their demands and concerns. In that case, expect the new status quo to be unstable.
Refusing to
talk to others signals that you don’t want to see a change, and/or that you
anticipate losing something as a result.
Of course, there are times when communication may be difficult or impossible, due to language or physical barriers. Although such factors may not be of primary importance, they do also illustrate the value of communication.
The Prisoner’s Dilemma –
communication and cooperation
We can consider the “prisoner’s dilemma” game to illustrate an extreme case — how the failure to communicate leads to sub-optimal outcomes. The prisoner’s dilemma presents a scenario — drawn from game theory — which is based on an inability to communicate and reveals the negative consequences that ensue. Without being able to talk to each other, two prisoners, apprehended for the same violation or crime, will struggle to cooperate. Depending upon the decisions they make, this inability to communicate, can end up hurting both of them.
The dilemma arises because, unable to talk to each other, each prisoner fears the other will betray him or her, and may make a decision which could negatively affect his release.
There are
many variations and applications of the prisoner’s dilemma, including using it for
strategies of cooperating or not cooperating in order to come out ahead in a
game, a competition (in business, for example), or a conflict, and also for
when the game is expanded beyond two parties.
While the game, and the math behind it can get complex, and quite hypothetical in terms of the different outcomes – the larger point is that if the two prisoners could communicate, it is more likely that they would cooperate on an optimal strategy for both, which is generally what it takes to identify solutions that satisfy everyone involved. (Of course, even after agreeing on a strategy, one could still betray the other). Studies have found that, indeed, the ability to communicate reduces the rate of non-cooperation (or “defection” as the academic literature puts).
What I want to draw attention to is the critical factor of communication. Of knowing vs. not knowing what another person’s intentions are. It makes it hard to come to the “right” decision, since you don’t know what the other person wants, what they are thinking. You don’t know where they stand, what they are willing to accept, where they are willing to compromise. Without being able to communicate, the optimal outcome of mutual consensus is out of reach, and both are confined, as it were, to a bad status quo, or “low level equilibrium” (a stable situation that isn’t very good for anyone) as game theorists refer to it. Communication doesn’t automatically erase distrust – the other person may not be sincere, or not keep their word – but it can reduce it.
To return to the context of development work, whether you are in the field, or operating out of headquarters, the inability to communicate with partners, stakeholders or adversaries puts you in a metaphorical prison cell, solitary confinement, only able to guess the other’s intentions. Establishing better communication, breaking out of the metaphorical prison cell, may be the best way of breaking free, and getting to a better, and more stable, equilibrium.
