We’ve all, as individuals, been living an implicit narrative. Each one of us can be decoded into an even blend of traits, behaviours and abilities that bring out not only our special endowments but also our inherent incapacities. And this apparent decryption of the ever-so-complex ‘human personality and behaviour’ is constantly being made not just by expert psychologists and behavioural scientists but by fellow individuals we interact with on a day-to-day basis. Just pose the very unassuming question to someone – “What’s he/she like?” – and most certainly you would end up with a fairly detailed, near-accurate description even though the respondent to your question may have been a mere acquaintance to the subject individual.
This stems from two main reasons. First, people can draw remarkably accurate conclusions about others on the basis of very little data; second, they can do this very quickly. In fact, research suggests that even a tenth of a second is enough to make accurate judgements about others. These judgements, made over time and through a repeated interplay of observed behaviours and interactions, solidify into what can be defined as the perception of an individual. Don’t we, time and again, tag others with statements like “She’s a taskmaster”, “He needs to be more assertive”, or “He is an outstanding networker”? Such perceptions or narratives, built over a period of time, function as a lasting and an immensely powerful lens through which all future behaviours are predicted, and hence, particularly in an organisational context, they greatly influence future opportunities, roles, projects and shape the career trajectory of a professional.
At their core, perceptions are formed out of an iterative, dynamic interplay of what we presume, what we observe and how we attribute. Let’s understand each of these in greater depth.
The initial impressions we form about a person are driven largely by the pre-existing filter of our presumptions. Who would you instinctively turn to if you had a complex tech problem to solve – a 23-year-old fresh out of college or a much older employee about to hit their retirement? Possibly, the youngster. We all fall back on such and other common stereotypes, like those based on age, gender, education, culture, and ethnic background. Since our brains are wired to conserve effort, stereotypes act as quick cognitive shortcuts that prime our initial impressions about others. Hiring managers often hesitate to shortlist female candidates for demanding plant roles, citing concerns about shift timings and emergency handling—making assumptions that may overlook individual capabilities and perpetuate gender stereotypes. Such generalisations are often rooted in our own core beliefs, values, interests, social & cultural conditioning and past experiences. Presumptions also indirectly develop from second-hand information or hearsay, especially if it comes from a trustworthy source or someone we admire, respect or hold in authority. In an organisational setting, such information freely flows through the grapevine – if someone says, “She was transferred because she couldn’t handle the pressure,” an impression of underperformance would already be formed even before the employee joins. Our efficient brains actively latch on to such cues and internalise such ‘inherited’ perceptions even before we’ve interacted with the person ourselves.
Such presumptions are often corrected when we interact and attempt to observe demonstrated behaviour. This is an important transition, based on the Fiske and Neuberg continuum model of impression formation, which suggests that initial impressions based on stereotypes and broad categorisations evolve towards more accurate and individuated judgements when there is motivation to dig deeper and gather more information. This new information may confirm or challenge our initial presumptions and further refine our perception of the individual in question. Going back to the earlier complex tech project example, let’s say you hired both the young graduate and the senior employee on the project, and you found that the senior employee showed deeper expertise and up-to-date knowledge; your initial judgement quickly takes a backseat to the demonstrated skill. It becomes difficult to process such behaviours that contradict our assumptions, since, as humans, we all have a strong confirmation bias – a tendency to favour data that reinforces our existing beliefs. This new, conflicting information leads us into what is called a discomforting ‘cognitive dissonance’ because the belief we so closely held on to does not match the reality we’re now observing. This is a real mental tussle – and we solve it by either changing our belief or rationalising the behaviour as an exception to maintain our original belief. If, believing feedback from his last manager, I presume that my new team member is lazy and disengaged and then observe that he is in fact quite positive and contributing, I may dismiss it as luck or a temporary effort to make a good first impression. But, if he consistently keeps challenging my view of him, I might be forced to reconsider and examine my bias.
Lastly, yet importantly, it is vital to appreciate what you attribute the observed behaviour to – does it stem from the personality and traits of the individual or the situation they are in? Harking back to the tech project example, while you might expect the young college graduate to ace the project, he might still struggle due to lack of support or clarity in the task. Meanwhile, the senior employee, though not broadly tech-savvy, may have attended specific training on this very tool—proving that behaviour is not just reflective of personality or ability but also of situation and context. Because behaviour can be influenced by both the person and the situation, we must attempt to causally attribute it to the one that more strongly led to the said behaviour. Making a snap judgement that because a subordinate missed a deadline, she is incompetent or unreliable, avoiding the cognitive effort to process that she was actually covering for an absent teammate and taking on extra workload, is commonplace. Another common human tendency, according to the theory of correspondent inference, is to attribute unusual or unexpected behaviour mostly to the person. If Sarah volunteers to stay back late in the office to complete a project even when not asked, she would instantly become the torchbearer of dedication and commitment in the eyes of her manager, when honestly she was just avoiding peak-hour chaos.
It is this cyclical and iterative coaction of what we presume, observe and attribute that conclusively shapes our perception of others. Left unchallenged, this cycle reinforces itself. To course-correct and reroute flawed perceptions toward accuracy, we should:
Check for biases when we presume: Question our assumptions and examine internal biases like culture, values, interests, and past experiences colouring our initial view. To put this into practice, organisations must build awareness and equip teams to spot stereotypes through unconscious bias training as well as mandate diversity in their decisions. Many firms today have consciously moved to anonymised evaluations and blind screenings to block initial demographic filters.
Observe not once but repeatedly: Collect behavioural data across multiple timeframes and sources to look for patterns. Organisations must institutionalise repeated, documented observations across time through quarterly or biannual talent reviews to base talent decisions on patterns of observed behaviour, not anecdotes. Individual managers can also keep their many biases in check by tracking continuous performance of each team member through monthly logs. Gathering insights from other stakeholders through 360-degree feedback can counter one single observer’s bias, helping build more accurate and informed narratives.
Attribute consciously and astutely: Examine, based on Kelley’s covariation principle, if behaviour changes across situations by checking consistency (does the person always behave this way in the current situation?), distinctiveness (does the person behave this way in other situations?) and consensus (do others behave the same way in the current situation?) to attribute correctly to person or situation. Frequent job rotations and exposure to working in new geographies, projects and teams are a good way to assess whether consistency of behaviour stems from innate capability (person) or environment (situation). An employee who has seemingly been labelled “uncollaborative” is moved from team A to team B and is found to emerge as a strong team player in team B (low consistency), possibly because team B is more supportive and the employee has peers of his age (high distinctiveness). Further, team A turns out to have toxic working dynamics (high consensus), confirming that the employee’s behaviour was purely situational and that they weren’t inherently uncollaborative.
In any organisation, perceptions silently function as invisible architects of career growth, shaping opportunities, leadership potential and professional credibility. How others – peers, managers, or leadership – perceive an employee often influences access to high-visibility assignments, higher responsibilities and further advancement. Strong perceptions built over a period of time can, sometimes, even trump performance or potential in opening or closing the doors of growth. Therefore, as we recognise the weight perceptions carry, let’s also carry the responsibility to get them right.
Authored by: Arushi Khare, Sr. Manager HR (Retail), North – Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.