Imagine the situation: a dozen people
are discussing around a table. Some never say anything (the
“listeners”), while others speak, either on their own initiative
or in reaction to someone else’s opinions (the “speakers”).
Let’s concentrate on how the speakers
react to what other speakers say. A couple of them behave very
differently depending on who’s speaking. In some cases, they
listen attentively, even taking notes, and respond with pertinent
comments. In other cases, they start reading something, shake their
heads, look towards the ceiling, or say something to one of their
neighbours; then, often after a few seconds, they interrupt the
speaker with something that has nothing to do with what was being
said.
Does it sound familiar? It probably
does, because those know-it-all, closed-minded, and disrespectful
people are everywhere. I have observed them all my life.
For me, when dealing with other people
(actually, when dealing with anything at all!), respect is
fundamental. I base all my relationships on respecting and being
respected. One of my core beliefs is that, no matter how better in
some ways I think I might be, nothing gives me the right to dismiss
or even humiliate other human beings.
Are these “dismissers” unaware of
being offensive or are they aware of it but don’t care? And why do
they do it?
Over the years, I have noticed that
some of the dismissers (although not all) are courtesans. That is,
followers. They like to rub shoulders with people in power, and tend
to hop around their “masters” wagging their tails, like little
dogs hoping for a pat on the back or a scrap of food. It’s very
unfortunate that their brown nosing often lifts them to positions of
responsibility or influence. When this happens, they tend to be very
abrupt with their subordinates, while expecting from them
unconditional love. With their behaviour, they perpetuate a culture
of dismissiveness and disrespect.
This train of thought leads me to
considering what is at the basis of power. A lot has been written
about the bases of power since 1959, when French and Raven published
their study titled “The bases of social power”. There are now
several theories along those lines that involve a variable number of
factors. A widely accepted theory is based on the following seven
types of power:
- Coercive power: ability to mete out punishment.
- Reward power: ability to bestow rewards.
- Legitimate power: obtained as part of the position or job one holds.
- Referent power: due to being liked and respected.
- Connection power: ability to influence powerful people.
- Expert power: due to the abilities and skills one possesses.
- Informational power: due to having access to valuable or important information.
I am a bit at a loss in identifying
somebody whose coercive and reward powers do not come as a result of
some other type of power. In organisations and also in society in
general, coercive and reward powers are part of legitimate power.
Somebody you love can reward or punish you without any legitimate
power, but isn’t it because [s]he already has referent power over
you?
For a different reason, I also don’t
feel entirely comfortable with the concept of referent power. I
agree that when you are liked and respected by people, you have power
over them. But how did you gain that appreciation? This type of
power seems to originate, at least to a large extent, from other
powers. If somebody dismisses me from the very start because I am in
no position of power, don’t know powerful people, and is not
immediately apparent what I know and can do, how can I possibly gain
his/her respect?
There are some people that you cannot
help liking from the moment you meet them, either because they are
beautiful and sexy, because of their penetrating gaze, or because of
some other physical features they possess. Some politicians and
actors have this “presence” that makes them the centre of
attention. This seems a subset of referent power, but I would
classify it separately, perhaps with the term “charisma”, to
distinguish it from the referent power that can be acquired over
time.
In most cases, whether you are or not
dismissed from the very start depends on your position (direct or by
connection) or charisma (or both). Unless people have had the
opportunity to learn about you beforehand, they will not recognise in
you an expert and/or a holder of worthwhile information.
Charisma is purely irrational. It’s
mojo. Magic. Sometimes, people call it “natural leadership”,
but it has nothing to do with being able to make good decisions on
the basis of limited information and then follow them up by
motivating people into action. Although, perhaps, without a dose of
charisma, you can manage people but not really lead them. I’m not
concerned about charisma, because being charmed by charismatic people
doesn’t make people dismissive of others.
The dismissive people are those who are
really only interested in what’s good for them. They don’t care
about your feelings or anybody else’s. That’s why they only
listen to the boss, those who can influence the boss, and people who
can tell them something they might use. Everybody else is a
nuisance. Nothing more than a distraction. They have no patience
for them.
These people don’t see others as
treasure chests of feelings, life experiences, emotions, and ideas.
In charities and other volunteer-based organisations, they often are
the zealots who like to be in the “inner circle” and use
efficiency as an excuse for ignoring you.
So far, I have described a somewhat
extreme case of dismissers, but, unfortunately, the world is full of
mild dismissers. That is, narrow-minded people who haven’t managed
to see beyond the confines of their parochial upbringings; myopic
people who perceive novelty and difference as threats rather than
opportunities to broaden their minds.
Indeed, very many tend to ignore,
avoid, reject, or even despise those who appear to be different from
them. It does make sense to link up with people with whom you share
experiences, opinions, or tastes. But I found that the vast majority
of people become defensive when they discover that you have made
important life choices different from theirs. It is as if your
existence were enough to undermine the raison d’ être of their
whole life.
Perhaps I am digressing, but what I’m
trying to say in my contorted way is that, ultimately, the
dismissiveness I have been talking about is nothing else than
selfishness combined with a very common form of obtuseness.
I have a further reflection concerning
expert and informational powers.
When applying for jobs during my IT and
management career, I was almost always been asked to provide proof of
knowledge and experience related to the job I was applying for.
Obviously, why should a company hire somebody who needs training,
rather than somebody else who already knows what it’s all about?
And yet, there is another factor that
is almost invariably dismissed: how quickly can the new hire learn?
How long will it take for him/her to become more productive than
somebody who has previous knowledge of the matter but is inflexible
and slow in learning?
Once, after migrating to Germany, I
applied for a job with Messerschmitt-Bölkow-Blohm in Hamburg. I had
only studied German, ab initio, for four months. And yet, the entire
interview with MBB was conducted in German. I didn’t get the job
because they wanted to have somebody with a better knowledge of
German. How stupid was that? If I could be interviewed in German
after a few months, how long would it have taken me to progress to
the point where my language would no longer be a problem? Indeed, I
then got a job with AEG-Telefunken and quickly became a productive
member of the group.
An endemic problem of our society is
the failure to distinguish between knowledge and intellectual
capabilities. When talking about a computer, very few would confuse
microprocessor speed with memory or disk drive capacity. But when it
comes to human minds, the amount of information that one has been
able to cram into his brain is often considered proof of
intelligence.
We can discuss the validity of IQ tests
to measure intelligence, but one thing is clear: the higher the IQ,
the more a person can perceive complex patterns, analyse problems,
and extract logical information, because that’s what IQ tests
measure. It means that high-IQ people can more easily acquire
technical and scientific knowledge, where the main difficulty is in
understanding rather than remembering.
Then, why is IQ a taboo subject? Is it
because people are afraid that theirs is too low? Is it a
mind-equivalent of most males’ fear of having too small a penis?
