Blending in vs. Belonging

A Coaching Power Tool By Michal Antczak, Leadership Coach, FRANCE

What Makes Blending in vs. Belonging Different from the Other Concept?

Your time is limited, so don’t waste it living someone else’s life. – Steve Jobs

Most people experience the need to feel a sense of belonging in their social or professional groups. That need frequently gets confused with the imperative to blend in at the cost of compromising own values or behavioral preferences. That leads to negative emotions, feelings of not being good enough, and anxiety buildup, which may result in excessive stress levels over prolonged periods, burnout, and even depression.

There is, however, a way to build a sense of belonging without having to adopt behaviors that seem to be shared by the majority but are misaligned with our personality. As long as we keep in mind that the same values can be manifested in different ways and remain aware of the existence of cultural orientations that impact people’s thinking and behavior, we can remain aligned with the ethical principles shared with the group we are part of while behaving in ways that come natural to us.

Sense of Belonging

Sense of belonging, defined as a “subjective feeling of deep connection with social groups, physical places, and individual and collective experiences,” is a complex construct made up of 4 dynamically interrelated components: ¹

Competencies for belonging: skills and abilities.

Opportunities to belong: enablers, removal or reduction of barriers.

Motivations to belong: inner drive.

Perceptions of belonging: cognitions, attributions, and feedback mechanisms related to experiences related to connecting.

Competencies for belonging are made up of social, emotional, and cultural skills that enable people to ensure that they behave in ways that are consistent with the group’s social norms and aligned with its cultural values.

Opportunities to belong can be thought of as the availability of groups, people, places, times, and spaces that enable belonging to occur. Special consideration needs to be given to circumstances that may limit these opportunities, for example in multiethnic environments or new professional situations.

Motivations to belong relate to the basic human need to be accepted, seek social interactions, and build interpersonal connections. This need manifests itself through the active seeking of similarities and things in common with other members of their group.

Perceptions of belonging stem from our subjective feelings and cognitions about our past experiences, level of self-confidence, and desire for connection. They function as feedback mechanisms that affect positively or negatively our capacities, opportunities, and motivations for belonging.

Need to Blend In

Blending in, also referred to as conformity, refers to changing one’s behavior to match the responses of others. The motivations for this may be categorized into 2 groups:²

Desire to have an accurate perception of reality. Desire to be accepted by other people.

The need for an accurate perception of reality (or informational influence) stems from the fact that such perception is usually related to some rewarding outcomes. Objective assertion of the accuracy of our beliefs is frequently difficult to achieve, in which case a need to compare them with those of other group members arises. If those are aligned with our beliefs, we gain confidence in them. If they disagree, we lose confidence. Disagreement is usually disturbing, and we are motivated to eliminate it, frequently by conforming to group norms.

The desire to be accepted by other group members is a powerful motivator, which may have at its root multiple reasons frequently associated with the fear of consequences of rejection by the group. It is often described as normative influence and is characterized by behaviors of outward compliance but without a change of the actual underlying attitudes or beliefs.

Contrasting the Two Concepts: Blending in vs. Belonging

Both at work and in private life, people frequently address their need to feel a sense of belonging by giving in to an urge to fully blend in.

In professional settings, for example, people may look up to industry gurus and try to mimic their values, behaviors, communication styles, workplace practices, reading habits, and so on, believing that is the only way to achieve success in the given field. That often leads them to act in ways that are fundamentally misaligned with their behavioral preferences, personalities, and strengths. That in turn may translate into prolonged periods of suboptimal performance or excessive mental effort associated with focusing on improving weaknesses while not leveraging own strengths. The constant feeling that one needs to improve to be good enough leads to growing anxiety and impostor syndrome buildup, eventually leading to elevated levels of stress and potential burnout.

In private life, a similar dynamic occurs. We often make subconscious or deliberate decisions to imitate the lifestyles of people we perceive as successful, influential, attractive, or simply happy, by copying their values, how they act, communicate, spend their free time, etc. These may be at odds with our personal preferences, interests, and takes on life, in which case we may end up consistently suppressing or ignoring important parts of ourselves. That, in turn, may lead to a loss of meaningfulness in life, defined as the blend of coherence (how we understand life), purpose (the goals in life), and significance (the sense that our life is worth living.)³ A permanent feeling of anxiety and unhappiness may creep in.

In both cases, the ultimate goal – feeling a sense of belonging – is not achieved.

Let’s consider taking a different approach to addressing the need to belong. Based on the definition provided above, we may choose to focus on (for example):

Developing competencies for belonging: by concentrating on the outcomes that are important to the group, but focusing on the skills and behaviors that are aligned with our personal preferences.

Creating opportunities to belong: by prioritizing meaningful discussions and relationship building over shallow social media-style interactions.

Actively seeking things in common with the rest of our group: by exploring shared values and principles and discussing goals and desired outcomes with the other members of the group, rather than focusing on their external representations.

Building experiences that create positive perceptions about the situations we are in: by avoiding activities and interactions that are misaligned with our values and behavioral preferences and instead focusing on the ones that really “feel right.”

Very importantly, this approach will help us stay true to the integral parts of ourselves: our values, beliefs, personalities, and core competencies. That should, to a substantial extent, eliminate the potential build-up of stress, anxiety, dissatisfaction, and meaninglessness.

This process can be further facilitated by acknowledging the existence and importance of the differences in cultural orientations that, according to Philippe Rosinski,⁴ drive our “inclination to think, feel or act in a way that is culturally determined.” These orientations may be associated with our nationality, ethnicity, socio-economic background, professional affiliation, etc. Rosinski has built a model, called the Cultural Orientations Framework, which proposes to adopt a structured approach to discovering new cultural choices, objectively assessing cultural differences, bridging diverse cultures, and leveraging cultural diversity. The framework categorizes the challenges that all people, regardless of their background, face in their private or professional lives and lays them out along 17 dimensions which describe the various possible approaches to perceiving important values, concepts, and behaviors:

Sense of power and responsibility:

• Control vs. harmony vs. humility.

Time management approaches:

• Scarce vs. plentiful,
• Monochronic vs. polychronic,
• Past vs. present vs. future.

Definitions of identity and purpose:

• Being vs. doing,
• Individualistic vs. collectivistic.

Organizational arrangements:

• Hierarchy vs. equality,
• Universalist vs. particularist,
• Stability vs. change,
• Competitive vs. collaborative.

Notions of territory and boundaries:

• Protective vs. sharing.

Communication patterns:

• High-context vs. low-context,
• Direct vs. indirect,
• Affective vs. neutral,
• Formal vs. informal.

Models of thinking.

• Deductive vs. inductive,
• Analytical vs. systemic.

The model may be useful for building a sense of belonging. In social scenarios, becoming aware that there are multiple different but equally valid approaches to thinking about and acting on the same social concepts may help us realize that our personal behavioral preferences do not necessarily have to mimic those of the other people in our group. In work-related scenarios, it may help us recognize that the skills expected of us can be manifested in many ways, some of them better aligned with our personal preferences than others. Instead of having to be identical to the others to achieve the expected level of performance (implying we must fix our “weaknesses”), we can get there by making use of our strengths and remaining within the areas of the relevant cultural dimensions that work for us.

In both types of scenarios, deprioritizing the urge to be like others, ignoring our behavioral preferences, stopping the exclusive focus on our “shortcomings” and instead concentrating on applying our strengths in work and private life should contribute to our confidence-building and anxiety levels going down. We will be adding value through different perspectives and approaches while exhibiting the same core principles. We will belong without the need to blend in.

Case Study

Pia is a recognized subject matter expert in her domain – adapting and introducing high-tech products to international markets. Despite her experience and reputation, she feels she is still not good enough to be part of the industry subject matter expertise group and constantly compares the various aspects of her work with what the gurus of the industry published in social media, articles, and books. She feels she needs to do things exactly the way they say they do them to excel. She thrives in and excels at many important aspects of what she does: building and maintaining meaningful connections, understanding cultural differences both in terms of communication styles and market requirements, relating advanced technological concepts to local market specifics, etc. She doesn’t notice that, however, and doesn’t consider it to be any particular strength. Instead, she constantly feels she needs to improve at doing things that she feels are her weaknesses: extraverted, flashy communication, disciplined schedule-driven execution of meticulous long-term plans, and advanced data analytics. After all, the well-recognized authorities seem to be doing these things with such ease. These things don’t come naturally to her and she feels she is making slow progress at a huge personal expense. She has felt stress and anxiety build up over several years and is now almost completely drained and on the verge of serious burnout.

In a series of sessions with her coach, she has started exploring where the belief that she needed to excel at all these activities comes from. How does she know how the others, including the industry gurus, feel about doing them? Why does it feel such a struggle for her to achieve her goals in the same style as they do? Is she comfortable doing things the way her role models do? Are there other means and behaviors that achieve the same goals? How does she feel about those? What are her strengths, the things she excels at while being at ease executing them? How would these strengths complement her professional portfolio? Would they help her compensate for the skills she feels anxious about?

Once Pia realized that she had distinct personal strengths that offered good ways of achieving her goals, she was quick to connect this realization both to her professional world and to make potential changes in her private life. She has admitted she has been trying hard to blend in, think, and behave in the same way she sees and believes her family, friends, and colleagues do, and thus meet their perceived expectations. Anxiety has been building up on many fronts, for many years.

With these observations in mind, she has moved away from the imperative to mimic others and started to focus on identifying the goals and outcomes she wants to achieve, on the values that are important to her, and on the ways of achieving them that fit her personality, behavioral preferences, and strengths. As she is putting her findings into practice now, she has seen her anxiety levels drop and the feelings of depletion and mental drain disappear. She is fresh and energized – she comes across as a completely different person.

Blending in vs. Belonging Case Study Coaching Sessions

The client needs to realize that the need to feel a sense of belonging is natural for most of us, but that it’s not equivalent to the imperative to blend in. During the coaching sessions, the coach should encourage the client to explore the differences between the two concepts, grounding the discussion in their values, personality, and behavioral preferences. Try to have them identify the instances of outward compliance that cause any stress or anxiety, whether related to meeting the expectations coming from their social group(s) or trying to mimic the behaviors of others. Support the client in the discovery of the flip side: building out competencies that are aligned with their personality and preferences, creating meaningful opportunities to explore values and beliefs, and avoiding or minimizing the impact of interactions that sound right but do not feel that way. If needed, encourage the client to delve into the existence of cultural orientations and dimensions to expand their awareness of multiple valid approaches to perceiving the same social concepts and behaviors that enable people to remain grounded in the group’s values and work towards achieving common goals, while staying true to their personal behavioral preferences and focusing on their strengths.

References

Kelly-Ann Allen, Margaret L. Kern, Christopher S. Rozek, Dennis M. McInerney, George M. Slavich, “Belonging: a review of conceptual issues, an integrative framework, and directions for future research”, Australian Journal of Psychology, Vol. 73, 2021, Issue 1: Special issue: “Belonging and Loneliness.”
John M. Levine, “Conformity”, 2020, Encyclopedia Britannica, online version
Alicia Nortje, “Realizing Your Meaning. 5 Ways to Live a Meaningful Life”, positivepsychology.com, 2020.
Philippe Rosinski, “Coaching Across Cultures: New Tools for Leveraging National, Corporate and Professional Differences” (p. 49), John Murray Press, Kindle Edi