An Invisible Filter Dictating Who Gets a Seat at the Table

Imagine you are tasked with hiring a strategist to steer your company’s long-term vision, a role requiring big-picture thinking and an understanding of the "why" behind every move. If forced to choose between someone in their 40s and someone in their 20s, or a former CEO and a veteran police officer, who would you shortlist?

New research from Ashli Carter, a Senior Lecturer in Columbia Business School’s Management Division, reveals that we are likely to make decisions based on construal level stereotypes, a previously unrecognized dimension of social bias. While you might be familiar with stereotypes regarding warmth and competence, Carter’s work demonstrates that we hold remarkably consistent beliefs about how different groups process information.

The findings, authored alongside University College London Professor Felix Danbold and New York University Professor Batia Wiesenfeld, are as striking as they are concerning. Across studies involving nearly 4,000 participants, researchers found that people consistently stereotype wealthy individuals, middle-aged adults, and spiritual gurus as abstract, visionary thinkers. Conversely, the poor, young adults in their 20s, and even high-status professionals like lawyers and police officers are pigeonholed as concrete thinkers, better suited for the "here and now" of implementation.

These mental maps are not just idle thoughts, but rather help dictate who gets a seat at the table. In an interview with CBS, Carter explains how these hidden assumptions create a new mechanism for inequality in the modern workplace, and what leaders can do to ensure they aren't overlooking their team’s true potential.

Columbia Business School: What drew you to this research, and why are construal level stereotypes so important to be thinking about?

Ashli Carter: Construal refers to how we represent the world around us: we can all construe things in a big-picture way, thinking abstractly about the long term and the reasons why things are happening. We can also construe things in more detailed, concrete ways, focusing on the short term and the "how" of a situation. And while individuals can have tendencies towards more abstract or more concrete thinking, what we were interested in was whether—even though we are all capable of doing both—people hold stereotypes about how entire groups construe the world. Our research found that people do indeed have consistent and strong stereotypes about whether entire groups are more abstract or more concrete thinkers.

CBS: Looking through your data, were there any specific patterns that really stood out to you as particularly striking?

Carter: What was really striking was that even though everyone can construe more abstractly or concretely based on situational demands, people held very consistent stereotypes about how entire groups of people think. Some of the patterns that really stood out to me were that different age groups and different class groups are perceived very differently. We also saw different stereotypes around various professions; while some of those made sense, others were surprising to see in their consistency.

CBS: How do these types of stereotypes actually play out in the real world?

Carter: This was one of the most important questions for us—how these stereotypes actually impact the opportunities individuals receive. Some of the strongest stereotypes we saw were that people in their 20s are seen as being very concrete, detail-oriented thinkers, but not abstract thinkers who focus on the big-picture or the long-term. We also saw that people consistently stereotype those from wealthier backgrounds as the ones who think more abstractly, while people from poor backgrounds are seen as thinking more concretely about the here and now. You can certainly see how that shapes opportunities; while young people or those from lower-class backgrounds can absolutely lead and think big-picture, they may not get the opportunities to do so because of these group-based assumptions.

CBS: How can leaders work practically to mitigate these kinds of biases within their own team or organization?

Carter: For managers who hope to make sure different folks get opportunities and can really shine, I would advise two things. One is to focus on individuals and their specific capabilities rather than making assumptions based on their group membership. Pay attention to how individuals actually speak—do they tend to describe the big-picture and what’s possible, or do they focus on the details? That will shed light on their actual cognitive strengths and what roles they might be suited for. 

Second, give people the opportunity to stretch their skills. For example, just because you are middle-aged doesn't mean abstract thinking is naturally easy; everyone needs the support, resources, mentoring, and opportunities to stretch in those ways.

CBS: What do your findings suggest about social cognition?

Carter: While we are used to discussing stereotypes like who is seen as warm or competent, what we think about how others think is also incredibly influential. Because abstract cognition may be seen as rarer or more valuable, these biases can create a new mechanism for inequality, where certain groups are overlooked for strategic planning or leadership tracks. Managers should be aware that every individual has the capacity for both abstract and concrete thinking, and acting on these faulty group-based assumptions can limit your organization's potential.