Essay About Facts Of The Case And Rochelle Beauport

Case 1: Hy Dairies
Case: Hy DairiesCase 1: Hy Dairies        According to the textbook, stereotyping is typically a “perceptual process in which we assign characteristics to an identifyible group and automatically transfer those  to anyone we believe is a member of that group” (McShane, Steen, Tasa, 2018, p. 64). As per the facts of the case, her previous employer took a generalization of a certain group, i.e, women, and applied this psychological trait to his subordinate. The employed believed, though contemptuously, that women are generally incapable of bearing the pressures in the workplace. Not only is he stereotyping, but is also displaying characteristics of categorical thinking. Granted, stereotyping is a type of categorical thinking. But what is categorical thinking? Succinctly put, categorical thinking is unconcious categorization of people based on present presuppositions. With the underlying constructs defined, what such problems may exist? The first of which is consistency. Such generalized traits may not be applicable to all who reside in the group, to which he is referring. Just because she is a woman, she may not display all traits, typically inherent to a woman.  This passive thought process may also spell potential problems of prejudicial practices in the workplace as well. Equally so, Rochelle Beauport be at fault as well, perceptually speaking. Social identity theory is when people define themselves by the groups to which they belong or have a emotional attachment (McShane, Steen, Tasa, 2018, p. 61). Surely, Rochelle found her position as the assistant brand manager to be both challenging and fullfiling. This position, in her eyes, seemed to have a more profound impact on the company’s profitability, as opposed to her new position, market research coordinator. She believes that he is demoting her by placing her in the “back room”. She also believes that this position would fail to ascertain her path to the upper-level management. As a result, she attributed this “demotion” to racial and gender discrimination. Gilman also mistakenly believed that she would be enthralled by her new positions without having considered her self-concept and role perception in the workplace. Beauport perceived herself as belonging to a group of highly conscientious individuals, contributing direcly to the company’s profitability. Beauport also displayed symptoms of “attribution error”. Given that her previously employer made remarks about women in the workplace, she decided that her current employer would have done the same given the situation. She falsely attributed her perceived “demotion” to her employer’s personal, yet implicit, beliefs.