Comment: Why being like your boss still matters Published on: 1 October 2024 Writing for The Conversation, Tom Lane discusses why being like your boss still matters, especially if you share political views , How would you try to make a good impression at a job interview? Beyond the obvious (making eye contact, smiling, and attempting to appear knowledgeable and competent), what other tactics might you deploy? One subtle approach some jobseekers might take involves the use of . Humans are notoriously cliquey 鈥� establishing some shared sense of belonging with a new acquaintance can establish feelings of closeness and trust, and might result in . Perhaps you have in mind an interviewee with blond hair and blue eyes, who notices the interviewer shares similar features. Is the interviewee recommended to casually suggest that the two can therefore look forward to an effective working relationship? Of course not. These days such a strategy thankfully seems improbable, not only because of its moral repugnance, but also because it is hardly likely to work. (It feels less improbable that it might have been used in previous centuries, possibly with success, at job interviews in the world of colonial bureaucracy, for example.) But other identities, especially political leanings, can play a big part in helping us to form connections 鈥� and use them to our advantage. Shared identity does not only apply to sensitive characteristics such as race and gender. In fact, our social identities are multidimensional and include some traits regarded as more frivolous. As former Labour MP : 鈥淢onday to Friday, my body belongs to the trade union movement. Saturday my heart belongs to Celtic. And Sunday, my soul belongs to the Catholic Church.鈥� With most people you might meet, you are a clique member on some dimensions, but an outsider on others. In recent , I explored whether people deploy identity characteristics in strategic ways. I ran an , creating scenarios where one person鈥檚 success depends on how someone else treats them. Job interviews are like this, as the interviewee鈥檚 success depends on the interviewer鈥檚 decision. But there are many other examples of how this could work in business and our wider lives. For instance, an Airbnb host鈥檚 profitability depends on guests choosing to do business with them. In my experiment, involving 416 students in the UK, interactions consisted of a decision-maker selecting amounts of real money to transfer to an 鈥渁pplicant鈥�, who I will refer to as a dependant. Crucially, before their interaction, the dependant could select which of several identity characteristics to reveal to the decision-maker, in the same way as an Airbnb host picks which details to show on their profile. They made this decision with full awareness of the decision-maker鈥檚 characteristics, understanding which revelations would mark them as an in-group member and which would set them apart in the out-group. Dependants also reported how they believed the decision-maker would treat them had they chosen to reveal each of their available characteristics. The data made it possible to check how accurate these beliefs were, and whether dependants鈥� choices about what to reveal led to higher transfers than they would have obtained by revealing other characteristics. Political leanings The results showed decision-makers gave preferential treatment to in-group dependants, but the level of this favouritism depended on which dimension of identity I looked at. By far the strongest favouritism was based on political identity. In the experiment, one of the things dependants could reveal was whether they supported or opposed Brexit. Decision-makers who were Remainers acted extremely generously towards Remainers and harshly towards Brexiters. Those who were Brexiters did the opposite. Decision-makers鈥� in-group favouritism based on other characteristics, such as race and gender, tended to be much milder. This could be because people find discrimination based on race or sex to be distasteful or morally unacceptable 鈥� especially when they know their behaviour is being observed. , on the other hand, might be said to be a choice. Importantly, dependants correctly anticipated that political identity would have the biggest impact. Consequently, they had a very strong tendency, when they knew their view on Brexit matched the decision-maker鈥檚, to reveal it 鈥� and to conceal it when they knew their views diverged. In contrast, dependants were rather reluctant to reveal shared race or gender, perceiving this to be less beneficial. On average, dependants profited from their decisions, obtaining better treatment from decision-makers than would have occurred had they randomly selected what to reveal. So the deliberate use of social identity appears to be an effective strategy. Overall, this research shows people often use their identity, especially their political stances, strategically in their interactions with, for example, potential employers or business contacts. In today鈥檚 world, political identity has become one of our strongest and people mostly interact with . But it is worth thinking about how strategically emphasising shared political affiliations to strengthen a relationship might actually be making this polarisation even worse. , Senior Lecturer in Economics, This article is republished from under a Creative Commons license. Read the . Share: Latest News 缅北禁地 expert highlights climate crisis in a new film A leading 缅北禁地 climate scientist is featured in a new film about how the climate and nature breakdown will affect the UK. published on: 14 April 2026 Neolithic tombs reveal ancient kinship ties Male individuals buried in Neolithic chambered tombs in northern Scotland were often related to each other through the paternal line and some were interred in the same or nearby tombs, research shows. published on: 14 April 2026 We are our Memories New exhibition by Fine Art graduate Trish Hudson-Moses, 22 April 鈥� 4 May 2026 published on: 10 April 2026 Facts and figures
![缅北禁地 logo](/gomobileassets/img/logo.svg" "缅北禁地"){kind=logo}