Wk 2, IOP 470: Group Communication Worksheet

FRED MASSARIK

IRVING R. WESCHLER

Empathy Revisited' . . . .the Process of Understanding People.

Mike Corey walked into his office, fifteen minutes behind schedule. Through the glass partition Mike caught a glimpse of his boss. Arthur Blick looked up briefly as Mike slid into his chair. A number of signs obscured the full view: "Tomorrow We Finally Have to Get Organized," "THIMK," "Wait Till Next Time—^You Have Done Enough Damage for Now." Mike tried to look inconspicuous, though his mind was working rapidly. He was late for the third straight day. Oh, there were good reasons all r i g h t . . . one day his wife needed to be driven downtown and she wasn't ready—one day he had a terrible headache . . . and then . . . t o d a y . . . . His thoughts shifted abruptly—it really didn't matter as long as Blick was in a good m o o d . . . . Mike had some

' The area covered by this article has heen suhject to systematic study only in very recent years. It is still much in flux, and few findings of certainty are as yet availahle. As we seek to lay out some of the prohlems, methods and results with which this re- search is concerned, we are much aware of the tenta- tive nature of our comments. The technically-inclined reader is urged to examine R. Tagiuri and L. Petrullo, Person Perception and Interpersonal Behavior (Stan- ford: Stanford University Press, 1958); F. Heider, Psychology of Interpersonal Relations (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1958) ; and U. Bronfenhrenner. J. Harding and M. GaUwey, "The Measurement of Skill in Social Perception" in D. C. McClelland, et al.. Talent and Society (Princeton: Van Nostrand Co., 1958).

very definite ideas about what kind of guy his boss was. Usually he wasn't a bad sort; busi- ness-like, but human too. If you had a big prob- lem, he probably would listen. Still he was so dam changeable, and you had to hit him "just right" if you wanted to get along. This morning Blick seemed preoccupied . . . he looked up as if he hardly saw you, yet the way he spun back to his desk telegraphed "bad news."

• • •

This was Jean Krugmeier's first day on her job. She liked being an employment inter- viewer. People were interesting, and it would be a novel experience to sit behind a desk all day. The initial two interviews proceeded un- eventfully. The third applicant wanted to be foreman of the shipping gang. He was a young, burly 250 pounder who said that he used to work in the steel mills near Gary. He spoke loudly, with much self-assurance. "Some sort of a bully—a leering Casanova of the hot-rod set," Jean thought. Jean always did dislike guys like this, especially this sort of massive redhead. Just like her kid brother used to be— "a real pest!" The more he bragged about his qualifications, the more Jean became annoyed. It wouldn't do to let her feelings show; inter- viewers are supposed to be friendly and objec-

MR. MASSARIK is Acting Assistant Professor of Personnel Management and Industrial Relations, at the University of California, Los Angeles. MR. WESCHLER is Associate Professor of Person- nel Management and Industrial Relations, also at The University of California, Los Angeles. Both authors are members of the Human Relations Research Group of the Graduate School of Business Administration and Institute of Industrial Relations, UCLA.

36

EMPATHY REVISITED 37

tive. She smiled sweetly, even if she did have a mild suspicion that her antagonism might be coming through. "I am sorry, we cannot use you just now," she said. "You don't seem to have the kind of experience we are looking for. But we'll be sure to keep your application in the active file and call you as soon as something comes us. Thank you for thinking of applying with us."

LOOKING AT SOCIAL PERCEPTION

These anecdotes serve to illustrate the all- pervasive role that social perception plays in our lives. Forming impressions of people is a part of our daily experience, yet we rarely single out the process for explicit considera- tion.

Mike Corey was very much concerned with making the correct perceptual assessment of Arthur Blick's mood for the morning. Of course, he reacted without specifically worry- ing about his empathy.' He did what came naturally. The physical obstructions in the glass partition between the two o£Bces were not the only barriers between these men. Mike's own views, attitudes, and feelings contributed to the di£Bculties, and so in turn did Blick's behaNaor, which provided Mike with only a limited amount of information (or cues). The fact that the entire relationship was set in the context of a given office situation both aided and impeded the extent to which Mike Corey could accurately perceive the relevant aspects of his boss's personality.

Jean Krugmeier probably does not think of herself as a prejudiced person. She may asso- ciate the term "prejudice" primarily with racial intolerance. She argues vociferously that people must have an "open mind." Still, like all of us, she too has "blind spots" and uses "shortcut thinking" which gives her a distorted picture of reality. Her feelings about burly red-

' In this context, we shall treat as synonymous the concepts empathy, understanding of people, social sensitivity, and accuracy in social perception.

headed men are very much like any other prejudice. They are supported by a stereotype that, in essence, says: "All of them are alike!" Thus, Jean's feelings may be irrational, her mind may be closed, and her social perception less than accurate because she subconsciously prevents relevant information about people "of this sort" from reaching her.

The Iltusion of Objectivity

Most of us pride ourselves on our ability to look at people in a dispassionate, objective manner. Yet the psychological realities are that every time we have a personal contact we do form favorable or unfavorable impressions that influence our social behavior. We all have some positive or negative feeling in our inter- personal experiences. We do like or dislike in varying degrees, even if we are not always will- ing or able to recognize our true feelings.

Social perception is the means by which people form impressions of and, hopefully, understand one another. Emphathy, or social sensitivity, is the extent to which they succeed in developing accurate impressions, or actual understanding, of others.' Social j)erception is not always rational or conscious; thus it fol- lows that empathy is not necessarily the result of conscious, rational effort. For some, it may just seem to "hapjjen," while others may de- velop it only after much training and living experience.

Three basic aspects of social perception must be considered: (1) the perceiver, the person who is "looking" and attempting to understand; (2) the perceived, the person who is being "looked at" or understood; and (3)

'Many complexities are involved in the actual measurement of social sensitivity. The definition given here is a kind of practical shortcut, useful for most everyday applications. For a consideration of the con- ceptual issues, see, for example, N. L. Cage and L. J. Cronbach, "Conceptual and Methodological Problems in Interpersonal Perception," Psychological Review, LXII (1955), 411-422; and L J. Cronbach, "Processes Affecting Scores on 'Understanding of Others' and 'Assumed Similarity,'" Psychological Bulletin, LII (1955), 177-193.

38 CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW

the situation, the total setting of social and nonsocial forces within which the act of social perception is lodged.' We have already en- countered "perceivers" Mike Corey and Jean Krugmeier, and their respective "perceived" counterparts, Arthur Blick and the burly job applicant.

T h e Perceivers and the Perceived

Perceivers and perceived need not be single individuals. Entire social groupings may do the "looking" or may be "looked at." We can, for example, conceive of the social perceptions existing between two rival departments of a corporation, with each department viewing the other with possible hostility or competitive jealousy. Similarly, we may distinguish social perceptions among small work groups, among large companies, and even among nations. In- deed any group of people, as well as any given person, can be a principal participant in the process of social perception.

The perceiver and perceived are not billiard balls on a flat table top. Their interactions do not usually produce obvious one-to-one cause- and-e£Fect relations, for the perceived and the perceiver both possess personalities of great complexity. Social perception develops in the give-and-take among these personalities-in- action.

'RTiat is termed "personality" for the indi- vidual may be viewed as a unique pattern of "group characteristics" for the social group- ing, be it work group, department, company, or nation. This pattern does not result from a simple addition of the personalities of indi- vidual members, although these individual per- sonalities do have an impact. Rather, the social grouping's "personality" results from its formal and informal traditions, and from its accepted ways of "doing things." For example, some groups operate rigidly "according to the book;" others are more flexible and free-

' This approach is in harmony with Robert Tannen- baum and Fred Massarik, "Leadership: A Frame of Reference," Management Science, IV, 1 (October 1957), 1-19.

wheeling. Some groups are highly integrated, with close and supportive relationships exist- ing among their members; others are torn by antagonistic cliques and by intense rivalries. Some groups set high and constant standards for the admission of new members; others are more open and lax in their membership re- quirements."

Patterns of Perceiving

The process of social perception can be graphically portrayed in a variety of ways. If / stands for "individual," and G for any group- ing of individuals (and if the arrow stands for the act of perceiving), we may consider such relations as the following:

Perceiver to Perceived

Type-A I —> I (Individualto Individual) Type-B I -^ G l Individual to Grouping) Type-C G -^ I (Grouping to Individual) Type-D G —> C (Grouping to Grouping)

Our anecdotes were of tlie Type-A variety— one individual perceiving another individual. Jean Krugmeier's perception of the job appli- cant, however, was influenced by a Type-B per- ception, her view of all burly, red-headed men—a view that she as an individual held for a broader (though tenuous) grouping of per- sons. Under conditions beyond those already described, Mike Corey may be perceived in a Type-C relationship by his fellow employees, a grouping that may view him with envy and anger because of his ability to get away with lateness without apparent untoward conse- quences.

Type-D perceptions become important par- ticularly in attempts to analyze the nature of complex organizations, such as large sections

'Among the better-known approaches to the anal- ysis of a group's personality is that of J. K. Hemphill and C. M. Westie, "The Measurement of Group Dimensions," Journal of Psychology, XXIX (1950), 325-342. Many sociologists have also made important contributions in this area; see, for example, Robert Dubin, The World of Work (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1958) ; and Melville Dalton. Men Who Manage (New York: John Wiley and Sons, in press).

EMPATHY REVISITED 39 or departments, entire firms, or other entities composed of various subgroups. For instance, a management consultant may wish to assess the way in which the Sales Department views the Credit Department—how the Reseach Sec- tion sees the Development Branch—or how Employee Relations relates to Wage and Salary Administration—and vice versa.

The four types of perceptual processes noted so far are relatively straightforward: Type-A, interindividual perception; Type-B, an indi- vidual's perception of a grouping; Type-C, a grouping's perception of an individual; and Type-D, intergroup perception. Yet in each type countless obvious as well as hidden distor- tions can and do occur which prevent the per- ceiver from obtaining a faithful image. These breakdowns in communications, which we shall need to explore further at a later point, magnify their effects when we consider what might be termed higher-order perception.

As Mike Corey, for instance, forms his per- ceptions of Arthur Blick, he also considers the way in which Blick reciprocates. In other words, Corey is very much concerned to know how Blick feels about him. Corey makes as- sumptions about Blick's view of him which may or may not be correct. He may "think" that Blick hardly saw him, when—if he were to probe Blick's true reaction—he might learn that Blick saw Corey very well indeed and was actively annoyed with his repeated tardiness. The extent to which one accurately recognizes someone else's reactions to oneself defines a special kind of social sensitivity—the ability to assess correctly what another person "thinks" about you.

Above, we are dealing with a "perception of a perception." We may conceive of a theo- retically infinite series of social perceptions that begin as follows:

1. First-order perceptions: how the perceiver views the perceived (as illustrated by T}'pesA, B, C, a n d D ) .

2. Second-order perceptions: how the per-

ceiver "thinks" the perceived views the perceiver.

3. Third-order perceptions: how the per- ceiver "thinks" the perceived views "the perceiver's perception of the perceived," etc.

By the time we reach third-order percep- tions, the pattern has become immensely problematical. Any further higher order adds to the complexity. Fortunately, most of our actual perceptions governing interactions with others probably do not get more involved than those defined by the first or second order.

One Empathy—or Many?

There may be several different "empathies." Some perceivers seem more skillful in seeing beneath the surface and in ferreting out correct perceptions from vast networks of superficial psychological defenses. Others are more cap- able in hurdling the abyss that separates their actual observations of cues from the more remote recesses of behavior that they are seek- ing to understand. Some excel in painstakingly accumulating fragments of perceptual evidence and piecing them together. Others have a unique capacity for the elegant sweep that pulls together quickly and accurately a broad com- plexity of social phenomena.

Understanding social groupings rather than individuals involves unique problems and may require different skills of perception from those needed in understanding individuals. The talent for sizing up group opinion is probably different from the "diagnostic skills" needed for understanding a specific employee. An executive of a large corporation, for instance, may excel in accurately assessing opinions and attitudes of union and work force, but he may need to shar{)en his skills in empathizing with his fellow corporate officers.

The probable existence of several "em- pathies" is not surprising if we consider the diversity of the factors at work. We have avail- able a tremendous variety of cues that we may

40 CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW

draw on in order to understand how another person thinks or feels, and these make differ- ential demands upon our skills to draw in- ferences that will yield accurate perceptions.

Cues: Raw Material of Perceiving

Cues are often direct: through words, ges- tures, facial expressions, and sjjecific be- havioral acts, they are transmitted to the per- ceiver (interpreter) directly by the perceived (communicator), sometimes consciously, sometimes subconsciously. At other times, the perceiver gets his insights second hand—as by gossip, through reference letters, or by com- ments overheard during a coffee-break.

Some cues are more obvious in their appar- ent meaning. A broad smile and a friendly hello usually reflect a clear expression of per- sonal warmth, while a vague wave of the hand is considerably more ambiguous and thus more difficult to interpret.

Some cues are more clear-cut than others. A girl's approximate age—the beautician's art notwithstanding—is likely to be more easily assessable than the meaning of a Mona Lisa- like smile; and despite best intentions, it may be virtually impossible to base an analysis of a person's basic psychological motivations on a casual martini-clouded social contact.

The psychological leap to be made from the cues available to what we seek to understand presents another consideration. As Mike Corey viewed his boss Blick, he had knowledge of Blick's customary office behavior. He had ob- served Blick before and under roughly similar conditions. Past cues provided a good base of present generalizations. On the other hand, Mike Corey might want to join Blick's country- club set. There he would need some insights into the latter's social behavior. Corey would search for some implicit theory, derived from Blick's on-the-job reactions, the only reactions with which he is actually familiar. He would try to extrapolate from Blick's available pat- tern of cues into a relatively distant and differ-

ent situation, and risk empathic failure in the process.

The Perceiver's Background

The perceiver brings to the task of under- standing others two sets of interrelated char- acteristics: (1) his general background, de77io- graphic characteristics; and (2) his unique self, personality characteristics.

Demographic characteristics are those broad sociological aspects of the individual which, for the most part, are easily definable, specific, and outside tlie more subtle ebb-and-flow of personality as such. Age, sex, nationality, re- ligion, number of siblings, occupation, and economic level are illustrative.

^Tien the psychologist Ronald Taft' re- viewed studies on the relation of certain demo- graphic attributes to social perceptual skill (especially empathy for individuals rather than for social groupings), he formed conclu- sions such as the following: (a) ability to judge emotional expression in others increases with age in children, but does not seem to in- crease further with age in adulthood; (b) sex differences in empathy are negligible, but there may be a very slight edge in favor of women.

Thus it seems that when dealing with adults, such as those encountered in business, age alone provides no free ticket to social percep- tual wisdom. Although—hopefully—age may bring increases in some areas of technical knowledge, the process of getting older in and of itself does not lead to heightened empathy. Further, there does not seem to be much sub- stance to the widely held assumption that women are "better judges" of people tlian men; the controversy on this point is not fully resolved.

More significant relationships emerge from an analysis of dynamic personality character- istics. Taft's attempt to find common threads in the web of available research leads him to

" See R. Taft, "The Ability to Judge People," Psy- chological Bulletin, LII (1955). 1-23.

EMPATHY REVISITED 41

postulate rather substantial association be- tween emotional adjustment and empathy. A person's emotional adjustment hinges prima- rily on how he sees himself and how he feels about himself—it is closely linked to his self- concept.

One's self-concept provides a kind of psy- chological "base of operations" that inevitably a£Fects relations with family, friends, business associates, and strangers. Some aspects of the self-concept are at the surface of personality; these are the publicly held attitudes—the things we don't mind telling other people about ourselves and our views of the world. And there are some feelings about the self of which we are aware, but which we do not want to share with others—these are the privately held attitudes to the self. And buried still deeper are the subconscious and unconscious aspects— feelings about "who" we are and "what" we are that somehow we cannot face up to, even to ourselves. The theories of psychoanalysis and depth psychology deal at length with these "disassociated" parts of the self, which as subtly disturbing, often powerful sources of internal turmoil may affect and hinder a per- son's efFective functioning.

BARRIERS AND AIDS T O E M P A T H Y

The individual who has resolved most of his internal conflicts appears in a better posi- tion to direct his energies to the understanding of others. He is likely not to meet "booby traps" of his own unconscious devising that prevent accurate perception. The healthy per- sonality is based upon a fundamental self- acceptance at all levels—public to unconscious. It relies on an openness to experience, a willingness to respond realistically to relevant cues; it exhibits a lack of dogmatism and a capacity for responding to the world flexibly and dynamically. When we are under pressure, or in a state of anxiety, we are less likely to perceive accurately the motives and actions of

those about us. It is only when we have reached a fair give-and-take balance between ourselves and the world that we are in a secure position to venture important human relations judg- ments.

In light of this, is it likely that in a Nirvana of perfect psychological equilibrium all social perceptions would be accurate? On the basis of what we know, the answer is no. In order to understand others, there must be some driving force, some motivation, some problem. Such cause or problem implies the existence of some tensions within the perceiver. In a fully tension- less state—in a hypothetical state of perfect adjustment—there could be no reason to care about understanding anything or anybody. As a result there would be little meaningful social perception or social interaction. As too many cooks are said to spoil the broth, too many tranquilizers seem to spoil the well-springs of human understanding. X T̂iile excess tension reduces empathy, its complete absence induces a state of apathy.

T h e Special Case of Self-Insight

Empathy and self-insight tend to go hand in hand, although the evidence is by no means all in." Fortunate, they say, is the individual who knows how much or how little he truly knows about himself—who is aware of his own capacities, limitations, motivations, and atti- tudes.

The sole tool that we bring to the task of understanding others is our own personality. The cues we receive from the outside must be processed through the perceptual equipment that is "us"—through lenses of our own back- ground and expectations. If we are to be suc- cessful in assessing the meaning of cues that impinge on us, we must become aware of the

' See, for example, J. S. Bruner and R. Tagiuri, "The Perception of People" in G. Lindzey (editor). Handbook of Social Psychology, II (Cambridge, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1954), 645- 646.

42 CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW

distortions that may be introduced by our "built-in" perceptual equipment.

A realistic view of our perceptual limita- tions, and of the kinds of aberrations we tend to introduce in what we see and hear, should help us to make allowances in interpreting the world around us. If, for instance, we are aware that people who seem to be weak and submis- sive make us irrationally angry, we may be able to develop safeguards against our own un- reasonable anger and ultimately gain a more realistic understanding of the motivations of the otlier person.

Self-insight does not come easy. Many fac- tors mitigate against it. Central among these is our system of psychological defenses—the ways in which we systematically and uncon- sciously protect ourselves from facing what might be real or imagined threats to our per- sonal security.

These protective distortions—which fre- quently concern our perceptions of others— help us make reality more palatable. There is no human being alive who is without some pattern of psychological defenses. Unfortu- nately, the cost of excessive utilization of de- fenses is the progressive removal from reality. Without some controlled and mild forms of self-delusion, adjustment of the ordinary every- day sort may be difficult. Yet the defenses that we bring into play as we seek to understand ourselves and others seduce us into various states of unreality; they make us see that which is not there, and hide that which might be apparent.

In our illustrations of Mike Corey and Jean Krugmeier, not much may have been at stake. However, similar processes, affected by the dis- tortions of psychological defenses, influence decisions of major importance: for example, the selection and promotion of top manage- ment personnel, the establishment of budgetary commitments, the theme of advertising cam- paigns, or the assessment of company perform- ance.

T h e Force of Attitude One particularly pervasive pattern of per-

sonal defenses found in industry, which inter- feres with the process of understanding others, is characterized by a high degree of authori- tarianism, with concurrent rigidity in percep- tion and intolerance for ambiguity. The au- thoritarian person seems to need to view the world in clearly defined segments, some strictly black, others strictly white. He does not make much room for gradations—things are clearly good or abominably bad, people friendly or hostile, nations with us or against us. Thus, the authoritarian unconsciously fails to recog- nize subtle but significant interpersonal phe- nomena, because he is unable to evaluate shades of gray for what they are.' Extreme non- authoritarian personalities—"nothing is defi- nite—all is a matter of shading"—also en- counter difficulties in understanding others since they too have a singularly single-minded view of what Uie world and its inhabitants are like.

The attitudes with which we approach the task of understanding others, then, do a great deal to determine just what we will be able to see. Attitudes basically serve as organizing forces that order in some preliminary manner the potential chaos and complexity confront- ing us. They give meaning to what we are pre- pared to see and hear. As such, they serve a necessary and useful function.

"Playing the Odds"

The question of whether the holding of stereotypes is necessarily detrimental to accur- ate social perception deserves consideration. If we define a "stereotype" as an inaccurate per- ception of a given grouping, it follows logically that stereotypes are hindrances. But, more gen- erally, we do need to be able to type people by means of broad and flexible generalizations.

'See T. W. Adomo, E. Frenkel-Brunswik, D. J. Levinson, and R. N. Sanford, The Authoritarian Per- sonality (New York: Harper & Bros., 1950).

EMPATHY REVISITED 43

In that sense, a realistic view of a group of individuals (a kind of "accurate stereotype") may increase the odds for accuracy in our per- ception of others. Thus we may make assump- tions about the characteristics of a specific company's board of directors, about the honor graduates of a college, or about women secre- taries. We frame enlightened guesses concern- ing die manner in which a directive will be interpreted by first-line supervision, the way in which a sales campaign on bottled beer will be received by the housewives in Suburbia, or how the new profit-sharing plan suggested by the union's bargaining committee will strike the company attorney. This kind of "typing," while based upon prior perceptions of indi- viduals and groups, necessarily is a kind of oversimplification; still its use in a consciously wary manner is a constant necessity if we are to relate to people.

Since understanding people involves relative probabilities of being right, caution is always in order. We must ever attempt to remain open to a constant flow of new information which may help us alter our perceptions in the light of changing circumstances. It is the danger of fossilization—the pitfall of "hardening" -pei- ceptions irrationally—that needs to be avoided.

Link Between Perceiver and Perceived

The personality of the perceived also deter- mines the success of social perception. Ulti- mately it is the relationship that emerges be- tween perceiver and perceived \s-hich becomes crucial. Communication linking the two—the sending and receiving of messages (involving feelings as well as content)—becomes raw ma- terial underlying the process of understanding others. Cues are messages from the perceived to the perceiver. In each instance, the perceiver "samples" certain small units of behavior that come from the perceived. While these samples in a statistical sense are neither random nor necessarily representative, they form the basis for generalizations that constitute predictions

about the behavior of others. As communica- tions develop, a person becomes both perceiver and perceived—sending and receiving cues of great variety and with high speed.

In the relationship between perceiver and perceived it becomes important for the per- ceiver to elicit cues from the perceived which will do the most to reveal, on a sample basis, the relevant aspects of the perceived's feelings, thoughts, and potential behavior. This ability to break through a person's outer veneer, to penetrate false fronts, has two facets: (1) the perceiver's skill in facilitating the "sending" of cues by the perceived, and (2) the perceiver's skill in picking up and interpreting properly the cues that have been sent.

Jean Krugmeier, for example, by eliciting fully the attitudes and aspirations of her job applicant might have succeeded in bringing to the surface relevant cues that might have made possible a more sensible evaluation of his potential. She might have reduced the appli- cant's defensiveness by proving herself recep- tive to his comments and accepting of him as a person, by listening for his feelings as well as meaning, and by communicating to him her understanding of his point of view.

As we engage in the process of understand- ing people, our hope for ever increasing ac- curacy rests partially with our ability to get feedback on how others view the accuracy of our perceptions. We must remain in tune with the reactions of others—not in order to be- come blind automata, but rather to double- check and review the validity of our own per- ceptions.

T h e Danger of "Expertise"

Usually we receive feedback from members of our own reference groups—our families, friends, and business associates. These are the people whose opinions about us usually matter to us. Especially parents and close relatives who have provided us with experiences which make us what we are often continue to give us,

44 C.'VLIFORMA MANAGEMENT REVIEW

as Robert Bums so aptly put it, "the giftie . . . to see oorsels as ithers see us."

At times, the validity of our insights and un- derstanding of people is assessed by experts, by psychiatrists or psychologists who have been trained in personality diagnosis and be- havior prediction. Unfortunately, research has shown that some of these expyerts, in spite of their intellectual grasp of interpersonal rela- tions, are rather inept judges of people. This startling paradox has some rather persuasive explanations to account for it. First, intellect alone—though a slight help—does not guar- antee empathy. More importantly, for some people too much knowledge is a dangerous thing! For them, there exists the danger of overreaching. They are confronted vdth the ever present temptation to read into cues com- plex "deeper" meanings which in reality may not be there at all. This is the pitfall of imagin- ing psychological ghosts behind each casual remark, simply because of some intellectual predisposition to make interpretations at more esoteric levels.

For experienced clinicians, the process of feedback here again proves to be a partial safe- guard. If all too often our views of others, though psychologically "sophisticated," find no confirmation, either by the subject of our perception or through the preceptions of other observers, we may suspect that we are over- reaching in our search for perceptual accuracy.

T h e Situation: Arena for Feelings

Regardless of the specific situation in which social perception takes place, some positive feelings of varying intensity will be exchanged between perceiver and perceived. These feel- ings condition the process of social perception. They set up halos which reduce the accuracy of empathic judgments. If we believe that some persons "can do no wrong," if we are enamored of their righteousness and virtue, if we blindly approve of everything they do—we will be unable accurately to assess their less desirable

characteristics or behaviors. The inverse is equally true; pervasive hostility and prejudice also obliterate any chance for a realistic ap- praisal of people's positive characteristics.

A more subtle manifestation of the impact of feelings on perceptual accuracy can be found in the process of naive projection (eis- suming similarity), the attributing by the perceiver of his own characteristics to the perceived. If few cues are available to the per- ceiver, if he is unable to utilize those that are available, or if his feelings toward the other person are in fact similar to those he has about himself, projection may become his significant modus operandi. The vacuum that might be filled by meaningful cues is taken up by as- simiptions implying that the perceived re- sembles the perceiver.

Assuming similarity to another person is neither intrinsically a barrier nor a block to accurate social perception. If the perceived really is much like the perceiver with respect to the characteristics involved in the judgment, assuming similarity is clearly warranted. Al- though some unique psychological perceptual skill may or may not have been at work, ac- curate social perception will result.

One can visualize an extreme situation in which the major prerequisite for social percep- tual accuracy is the knack for picking out associates who resemble us with regard to rele- vant personality dimensions. If we succeed in this selection, be our choice conscious or un- conscious, all we may need in order to under- stand them is to assume that they are, more or less, replicas of ourselves. Obviously, reality rarely permits this uncritical, though conven- ient, approach. More likely we may find that we assume similarity where none exists, thus hindering social sensitivity by the unwarranted assumption.

A blind assumption, on the other hand, that we do not resemble others (or a particular "other") can also lead to misperception. In most cases, the perceiver and the perceived do

EMPATHY REVISITED 45 share in common some attitudes, feelings, and similar personality characteristics. The chal- lenge confronting us is to recognize those ele- ments that we have in common with other indi- viduals, while at the same time noting the dif- ferences that make us unique. Likewise, when dealing with many people, we need to learn to discriminate the relevant differences among them, while remaining aware of the similarities which they, as a group, share. Thus, as a par- ticular boss considers a group of subordinates, he must ask—and answer—these four ques- tions:

1. In what respects is each of these persons like me?

2. In what respects does each of these per- sons differ from me?

3. In what ways do all these people resemble one another?

4. In what ways is each of these people unique from every other? Clearly, this is a large order.

The relative stress with which people relate to one another also influences their untimate empathy toward each other. As superiors, for instance, we may find it relatively easy to size up properly the feelings and attitudes of our subordinates; as subordinates our anxieties may becloud our perceptions of our superiors' intent and attitudes. The well-known phenom- enon of "seeing red" when angered and the notion that "love is blind" represent classic illustrations of the befogging effect of strong emotions on social perception. Most accurate social perception, it seems, occurs under con- ditions which do not involve extremely charged feelings.

Because each individual approaches the task of social perception in his own particular situa- tion, his personal receptivity will be influenced by the nature of this situation. An executive who operates in an environment of "yes-men" may come to be attuned to hearing "yes," even if the real sound is more like "maybe." An amusing cartoon series of medical specialists

on vacation shows a plastic surgeon fascinated by the Sphinx in Egypt, a urologist intrigued by the shapes of swimming pools, and a gyne- cologist marveling at the fertile life in the farm's pigsty.

The broader culture, too, provides certain expectations and highlights specific types of cues. The "Man in the Gray Flannel Suit," the "Rate Buster," the "Organization Man," the "Huckster," the "Tycoon"—all of these are cul- tural t)'pes which are readily found on the American business scene, and whose existence is t)'pically recognized by those of us who share a common cultural heritage.

Pay-Off for Empathy

\^Tiatever its correlates and roots, empathy provides a "road map" defining properly the social world confronting the perceiver. There is no guarantee, however, that even the most understanding perceiver will be able to behave appropriately, even if his road map is clear and accurate. He further requires an adequate repertoire of behaviors—behavioral flexibil- ity—to provoke the kinds of action that will most effectively attain the goals he seeks.

Social sensitivity and social effectiveness do not necessarily go hand in hand. In The Out- sider, Colin Wilson' draws die portrait of the cultural hero who sees too much, whose per- ceptions penetrate all too well, but who tragi- cally lacks the customary social skills for func- tioning within the reality that he perceives.

"Seeing too much," if not buttressed by an appropriate range of available behaviors, can indeed prove a threat to self and others and thereby reduce ultimate social effectiveness. In terms of actual pay-off, having too much em- pathy may well be as detrimental as having too little. Seeing the surrounding social world in proper perspective is useful only if knowledge can be successfully implemented by action.

As an executive faces the myriad decisions

"Colin Wilson, The Outsider (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1956).

46 CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW

he needs to make, it becomes quite clear that he must master two tasks: he must leam to see accurately the human, as well as the in- animate, factors of the total scene; and he must acquire the skills of action which, while based upon accurate perception, tap well-springs of behavior that ultimately lead to the successful attainment of personal and organizational goals.

Social effectiveness can be developed. For some people, dealing with feelings is as easy as recognizing and manipulating facts. For others, the world of emotions is mysterious in- deed. The improvement of social skills is a many-sided challenge. Neither intellectual learning nor emotional experience alone suiEce. Nor is the heightening of social sensitivity the sole sacrosanct cure-all. Experiences are

needed that reach the full personality. In- creased social effectiveness depends on a "tool- kit" of appropriate behaviors, in addition to enhanced understanding of social situations. Special clinically-oriented training experi- ences'" hold promise to bring about integrated intellectual, emotional and behavioral learn- ings that can make for greater effectiveness in dealing with others.

"'Sensitivity Training is one approach designed to improve a person's social sensitivity and behavioral flexibility. For a description see, for example, Irving R. Weschler, Robert Tannenbaum, and John H. Zenger, Yardsticks for Human Relations Training, Adult Education Association Monograph No. 2 (Chi- cago: Adult Education Association, 1957). Similar programs sponsored by the National Training Labora- tories in Group Development are described in numer- ous publications, especially those authored by Leiand P. Bradford.

/ / a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer.

Henry David Thoreau