Expectancy Violation theory in Networking

Networking. It is one of the most important, if not the most important, part of any sales career. But what if you have never had to network before? What if you get high anxiety in situations where you know no one and are more comfortable keeping to yourself? Speaking from experience, I know networking is hard for many people. This blog will be a guideline to helping young professionals get into the groove of networking and how to not violate expectations.

The first item to note is personal space. Our personal space is important to us as human beings. Do any of you remember the rule we learned early on about being 18 inches away from people so you don’t violate other’s personal space? Maybe that was just my weird geography teacher attempting to give us some great advice. But he was right. People like their space. Personal space is typically defined by culture. For example, in Japan people bow and do not shake hands. But in Europe many people kiss each other on the cheeks. But in the United States it is typically a hand shake. I probably would not walk up to someone at a mixer and kiss them on the cheek or bow; I would give them a nice firm handshake. If I did bow I would probably be violating their expectations because I would be violating their personal space.

The next item is Expectations. We all expect certain outcomes and occurrences. We predict what is going to happen, thus creating expectations. Expectations go hand in hand with the context of the situation. We expect our family to give us hugs. We expect to shake someone’s hand when we meet them. How does it affect you when those things don’t happen? First of all, your expectations will be violated, which will then lead you to question the situation. Are they mad at me? Did they not want to shake my hand?

Another good example of this is if you were standing alone at a mixer and just walked up to a group of people in an intimate conversation. They are close, talking softly, and have themselves shut off from the rest of the group. They are expecting to not be bothered and put those non-verbal messages out there for everyone to see. If you went up and tried to start a conversation, you would probably make them uncomfortable. On the flip side, when attending mixers and networking events you expect to meet people. You know when you attend those events you are going to be shaking hands and sharing business cards. We all have expectations of how to behave. If I go to a networking event and I don’t meet anyone, my expectations are violated.

We all have a way of behaving with other people in different situations. Depending on what those situations are we have different expectations. In conclusion, remember personal space, and also remember your expectations of the situation you are in. Networking isn’t the easiest thing in the world to do but if you follow the norms, you will do just fine. 

Muted Group Theory and the television show Mad Men.

Men and women have always had their differences. Researchers and scientist have been studying their differences for a long time. In one of my prior blog entries, I explored the Genderlect theory that explains how men and women communicate in their own language. Since we already established that we speak different languages, have we ever thought about which gender has the communicative power in society? In this blog entry we will discuss and apply the muted group theory.

Muted group theory suggests that there are different groups within society that are muted due to a more powerful group. Majority of the time, this is related to men and women; men being the power house for language, politics, and other communication outlets and women being the muted or silent group. Not only are women the subject of being mute, but minorities are also considered mute groups. These groups are mute because they usually end up conforming to the more dominant group due to their feeling there is no other option. I find this theory interesting because in today’s society we are taught to treat everyone equally and everyone should have a fair shot. But it would be naive to not acknowledge the realness of this theory in modern society.

Let us apply this theory to an awesome television show, Mad Men. Mad Men is a show based on a New York advertising agency in the 1960s, and of course heartthrob, Don Draper. This show is my new study buddy for applying many gender communication theories. Obviously, the 60s was a time of revolution for many groups and minorities and this show illustrates muted group theory very well. While there are women in the office, the majority of them are secretaries waiting on the men. In the last season Don ends up falling in love with his secretary, Megan, after he takes her on vacation with him to watch his kids. Megan initially didn’t feel comfortable going, but Don insisted. One example of the power he has over her and her job. When they got back Don announces to everyone that he and Megan are going to get married.

What is the big deal?  After Don announces the big news, Peggy and Joan talk with each other privately. Peggy is a copy writer, and Joan is director of agency operations. These two women have higher up positions at the company. Joan recently just got a higher position of director but of course, no pay because the company supposedly couldn’t afford it. She did not speak up because she felt there was no point, she would not win. She is part of the muted group. The two women are talking about how big of a joke the news was about Don and Megan. Then Joan says to Peggy “He is going to make her a copywriter, he won’t want to tell people he’s married to his secretary.” Pay attention to that statement. To me, this is telling that Megan will only get to be a copywriter because she is married to Don, not because she deserved it. Don, the man, has the power to put her in that position.

In this last episode Don and Megan get into a huge fight, initially over orange sherbet. Orange sherbet you ask? Yes, kind of. Megan is a revolution baby. She is much younger than Don. She is also much more independent than Don’s first wife, Betty. Betty is a home maker and basically takes care of their children. Megan is an independent kind of gal. Don is always telling her what to do, or think, or like, hence the orange sherbet. They are on their way to meet with a client a couple of hours away and Don tells her they have to stop at this place to get the best Orange Sherbet. They get there; the waitress comes by and asks if they would like any dessert. Megan asks for some pie, Don interrupts and says “no pie, how about a double orange sherbet”. The story goes on but that is a great example of muted group theory. Don ends up leaving her at the gas station with Megan screaming at him to not leave her there. He leaves because that is what he wants to do.

This application may be a little outdated but is still relevant to this theory. Let’s keep in mind that the 1960s really weren’t that long ago. There are still muted groups running around everywhere. It is important to remember this theory especially if you are considered part of a muted group. This is the way many societies work, and it is good to acknowledge there are people out there who do not have as strong of a voice as others. 

Communication Accommodation Theory and interviewing

Have you ever analyzed the way you speak to different people? What words you chose? How you say those words? Believe it or not, we all accommodate our communication styles depending on the situation we are in. We shift speech patterns in order to fit in with the person we are talking with or differentiate ourselves from that person. This is called communication accommodation, when you adjust your communication style in order to fit the style of the person you are speaking with. This theory explains why we speak differently in work situations versus speaking in casual situations.

            This theory is broken down into two parts; convergence and divergence. Convergence is when we change our speech styles to be more like the person we are speaking with. In essence, when we elect, knowingly or unknowingly, to communicate in the same way the other person communicates.  The way we accommodate our communication by convergence, is by the way we change our pitch, the words we choose, and also our non-verbal communication. Divergence is when we accommodate one group’s speech style to define differences in another group’s communication style. In divergence, the differences are often emphasized and made to differentiate themselves from another group to establish some sort of identity.

            A great example of communication accommodation theory is how we speak during an interview and how we normally speak with friends. Everyone, when interviewing, tries to convey themselves as the best version of themselves. Isn’t that interesting that we put on a scene to try and sell ourselves as someone we are not in order to get the job? Let’s play this out. You get a phone call from the person who will be interviewing you and change your tone to a respectful, excited sound and automatically accommodate your speech to the way the person you are speaking with is speaking. Now that you have the interview set up, you practice answering questions, thoughts of what to expect run through your mind and you try to be as prepared as possible. Since you have pre-determined expectations of how the interview may go, you are already thinking of how you are going to accommodate your communication to fit what the interviewer is looking for.  You answer all the questions right, accommodating your speech to be like the interviewers and you get the job. I would argue that it is almost impossible not to accommodate communication in an interview. It is important to be yourself, but if you spoke to the interviewer the same way you speak with your best friend, you might not get the job.

            When talking about convergence of our communication styles, we must also talk about the divergence of our communication styles.  People are not trying to attempt to disagree on a subject but more of a way people choose to separate themselves from a group. This can be a way a group or person to establish their identity in the world. An example of divergence can also be seen in an interviewer and in interviewee situation. While we attempt to accommodate our personal communication style to gain favor with the interviewer, there is divergence in the status of power in that particular situation. The interviewer runs the meeting, determines the outcome and holds the power of communication, diverging communication styles. They will ask you questions about your past job history, personal goals, strengths and weaknesses and many more questions conveying they are the communicative power in that meeting.

            We all accommodate our communication styles in one way or another. It is important to remember the value in accommodating our communication to the situations that arise and the people we are speaking to. Next time you interview with someone, keep this theory in mind. 

Cognitive Dissonance Theory: an explanation of why we seek consistency within our views on life and our decisions.

From politics to relationships, conflicts are an inevitable part of human existence. We often associate conflict with other people. But, have you ever thought about the inner conflicts we go through on a daily basis? Often we have values and beliefs instilled in us from birth. Those values and beliefs help shape our thoughts, actions, and behaviors. What happens when those thoughts, actions, and behaviors do not match up? It can feel like your brain is in a tug of war with what is the right or wrong choice. This is called Cognitive Dissonance, the distress you go through when making a decision that does not match up with your opinions and views.

Let us relate this theory to a recent comedy that came out not too long ago, Horrible Bosses. The whole movie is based on three guys who decide they are going to try and kill their bosses. The first guy Nick, played by Jason Bateman, has been working like a mad man for a promotion from his horrible boss.  The next is Dale, played by Charlie Day, who works as a dental assistant to a man-eater, vixen dentist, who is obsessed with sleeping with him. Finally, there is Kurt, played by Jason Sudeikis, who works for his recently deceased boss’s cocaine infused, out of control, playboy son. You can only imagine how much dissonance is going on in this movie. When applying this theory, it is not the situation where the dissonance occurs, it is the mental process that one goes through when dealing with a decision made as a result of the situation.

Nick, Dale and Kurt go through Cognitive Dissonance when in the situation, as well as when deciding if they want to follow through with killing their bosses or not. A great example of Cognitive Dissonance is in a scene where Nick’s boss calls him into his office to talk about the promotion he has been working hard for. His boss pours some whiskey into a glass, as if he planned on drinking it. He asks Nick if he would like some. Nick replies, “its 8:15.” His boss then calls Nick out and says “What? A grown man can’t have a drink when he wants to?” and offers Nick the glass. Nick takes it out of courtesy with no intentions of drinking it. Of course, Nick asks his boss “Aren’t you going to have some?” and his boss replies “its 8:15 in the morning, I’m not a drunk.” Nick goes to put the glass down but his boss insists on drinking the 20 year old whiskey. At this moment, and throughout this whole scene, Nick is going through Cognitive Dissonance. Nick is going to do whatever his boss tells him to do in order to get the promotion he has been working for, regardless of it matching up with his morals and values. He goes through the process of reassuring himself that if he just does this one thing he will be closer to receiving that promotion. The mental battle he goes through to justify his actions is Cognitive Dissonance. 

After going through Cognitive Dissonance, the guys decide they don’t want to kill their bosses. After getting some “intel” on their boss’s lives, they decide they cannot go through with killing them because of their morals and values. But then Nick’s boss ends up killing Kurt’s boss and Dale blackmails his boss so that she will stop harassing him.  It all worked out in the end, but the process of getting there was mentally exhausting. Having to constantly reassure themselves that killing their bosses was the only option,  hanging out with people with the same views and same situations, and thinking the only way to eliminate their dissonance is to murder their bosses are all examples of how Cognitive Dissonance played a role in this movie.