My Friend’s Career Change Decision

I met up with a very good friend, K, recently who shared about her decision to change career. Being somewhat of an artistic nature, she has been learning pottery for several years from a well-known local potter, and also been teaching herself various art forms such as watercolour painting, and drawing portraits. She wishes to pursue a new career in teaching pottery and drawing on a free-lance basis.

When she recounted to me the conversation with her boss about wanting to resign from her current marketing position, I was reminded of the social psychological concept of schemas in action. The boss was actually very shocked to hear about K’s decision. Part of the conversation went something like this:

Boss: I don’t understand…this is crazy! How are you going to feed your family with a career in arts? Have you thought for your parents or not?

K: But this is what I’ve wanted to do for a long time, and I don’t wish to delay anymore. My parents do not have any objections…

Boss: Can’t you pursue your passion on a part-time basis? How much can you make? Is it going to be useful for you in the long run?...

Finally, the boss threw back the resignation letter to K, asking her to consider carefully again. We met on that evening, and K obviously was feeling a bit discouraged by what happened.

Schemas represent our mental structures that we use to organise information about the world. In this instance, the schemas are about attitudes and preconceptions towards so-called artistic pursuits. The boss was having a hard time relating to my friend’s decision because he already had certain schemas about people who choose to work in the field of arts, e.g. that such people are self-centered, irrational, impractical, unproductive and idealistic.

While K tried to convince him that she had a clearly laid-out plan for sustaining her livelihood with her new career, and that she had her family’s blessings to go ahead, he somehow did not hear it. Instead he still thought she was crazy to entertain the notion of leaving the highly lucrative tourism industry. Thus we see that his schemas had acted as filters which screened out information that were inconsistent with them. He jumped to conclusions on the basis of his schemas, and did not support K’s decision. I can only hope that K’s perseverance can outdo the boss’s schemas when she talks to him again soon.

The Scandal

When people’s behaviours are in conflict to the social roles expected of them, it is common to ask “why” so as to understand the observed discrepancies. The recent alleged involvement of the Governor of New York State, Eliot Spitzer, in a high-priced prostitution ring and his subsequent resignation provides an illustration of the social psychological concept of attribution theory, which is concerned with how people infer the causes of social events.

The media reacted to Spitzer’s public apology over his action that “violated his obligations to his family” with little sympathy. For instance:

“The revelation that Spitzer enjoyed the services of a high-end Washington call-girl ring may bring with it federal charges - and likely means the end of an exceptionally maladroit administration… His reputation for integrity is destroyed” (New York Post);

“He stands close to ruin's precipice, this tireless crusader and once-charmed politician reduced to a notation on a federal affidavit: Client 9. Mr. Spitzer cast himself, self-consciously, as the alpha male, with a belief in the clarifying power of confrontation. So often the governor seemed to accumulate enemies for sport, to threaten rivals with destruction when an artful compromise and a disingenuous slap on the back might do just as well” (New York Times);

“One might call it Shakespearian if there were a shred of nobleness in the story of Eliot Spitzer's fall. There is none. Governor Spitzer, who made his career by specializing in not just the prosecution, but the ruin, of other men, is himself almost certainly ruined. The stupendously deluded belief that the sitting Governor of New York could purchase the services of prostitutes was merely the last act of a man unable to admit either the existence of, or need for, limits.” (Wall Street Journal).

Spitzer was elected governor in November 2006, promising ethical reform in New York. Prior to this, he was New York's attorney general, and was known as the Sheriff of Wall Street for his relentless pursuit of financial wrong-doing. His successes in that battle even led Time Magazine to name him "Crusader of the Year" in 2002.

As part of the investigation, a federal wire-tap on a Washington hotel had recorded Spitzer allegedly arranging to meet a prostitute from an exclusive prostitution ring called the Emperor's Club VIP, which operated in cities across the US, as well as in London and Paris. The fact that he had taken a firm line against prostitution in New York during his administration perhaps explains the outpour of media condemnation against his “hypocrisy”. The New York public who were interviewed by CNN were also shown saying that he did not deserve to lead the State given what he had done.

The attribution theory developed to explain how people form dispositional inferences about others is called correspondent inference theory. It details the processes we follow in attempting to infer whether a person’s behaviour is due to that person’s characteristics or to situational factors. It appears that the public’s unforgiving barrage of calls for Spitzer to step down serves to reflect the internal attributions of the case, rather than external attributions (e.g. political conspiracy, bad luck to have been in the wrong place at the wrong time). The social undesirability of Spitzer’s behaviour and the exercise of choice in the matter (i.e. he was not forced to patronise Emperor's Club VIP, and he was even willing to fork out thousands of dollars to pay the call girl) would inevitably cause people to make a dispositional attribution and discount any possibility of external pressure for him to behave in that way.

This is why Spitzer had no option but to resign because the social perception of him (that he does not possess personal integrity) was no longer compatible with the qualities of a State Governor.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7288540.stm