Of the many ways we risk offending each other, arrogance is among the easiest to trip over by accident, and among the easiest to identify mistakenly. Part of the problem may be the importance of context in choosing how to behave, or how to interpret the behavior of others. Although some behaviors are almost certain to be regarded as arrogant, others can seem arrogant in some contexts, and seem acceptably confident in others. One area of difficulty is distinguishing arrogance from confidence.
The differences between arrogance and confidence can be subtle. Briefly, though, confidence rests on assessments of one's own ability to successfully meet a challenge or complete a task. Arrogance relates to an assertion about — rather than an assessment of — one's own ability or privileges relative to the ability or privileges of another or others. Confidence compares oneself to the challenge. Arrogance compares oneself to others.
Boasting, especially with exaggeration, is probably the most easily recognized tactic of the arrogant, but it's unlikely to be confused with confidence. Other tactics provide more "cover" to arrogant actors intent on asserting dominance with plausible deniability. Here's an introductory exploration of some of the differences between arrogance and confidence.
- Hobnobbing with the powerful
- Face time with the powerful can benefit both parties. For both the more powerful person, and the less powerful but confident person, time together can be an opportunity both to influence and to learn.
- The arrogant Boasting, especially with exaggeration,
is probably the most easily recognized
tactic of the arrogant, but it's unlikely
to be confused with confidenceand less powerful see face time with the powerful a bit differently. For the arrogant it's an opportunity to be seen as spending time with the powerful. And even if not actually witnessed by others, time spent with the powerful can provide material for later boasting.
- Namedropping out of context
- For the confident, mentioning the names of influential people in an appropriate context can be helpful in framing a question, illustrating a point, or validating facts.
- For the arrogant, mentioning those same names can be useful for asserting superiority over listeners by implying a relationship — especially a familiar relationship — with the people whose names are being dropped. Sometimes the arrogant will even imply an endorsement by the person mentioned.
- Knowing it all
- The confident display their knowledge only to the extent needed when asking questions, providing suggestions, or responding to queries.
- The arrogant display their knowledge for a purpose. They use it to establish or maintain superiority and dominance over their listeners, albeit often only in their own minds. In this pursuit, they offer sometimes-trivial notions out of context — or within context if the context can be sufficiently stretched. They steer conversations, situations, and discussions into areas where they believe they can dominate.
- Never acknowledging mistakes
- The confident don't shy from acknowledging mistakes or ignorance, because they understand that growth entails both errors and learning. They view making a mistake as an opportunity to learn.
- The arrogant cannot admit to mistakes or acknowledge ignorance to any extent, because mistakes and ignorance create difficulties for them in their pursuit of dominance of everyone around them.
- Other-deprecating humor
- Self-deprecating humor can ease tense moments by providing everyone a good laugh. The confident can execute it well. But it need not be hilarious — mild wit can be enough. Example: "Whenever I make a mistake, I remind myself that I probably didn't invent that particular way to goof up."
- The arrogant cannot indulge in self-deprecating humor because it conflicts with their objective of asserting dominance over all. Other-deprecating humor fits into the program nicely, even though its humor is lost on all but the arrogant. Example: "Whenever you make a mistake, it reminds me to be grateful none of it got on me."
Mistaking confidence for arrogance is a most unfortunate error. It prevents the people making such errors from availing themselves of whatever the confident person so misidentified might have to offer. The loss is most tragic when the people making these errors do so out of arrogance, as a defense against their own lack of confidence. Top Next Issue
Is every other day a tense, anxious, angry misery as you watch people around you, who couldn't even think their way through a game of Jacks, win at workplace politics and steal the credit and glory for just about everyone's best work including yours? Read 303 Secrets of Workplace Politics, filled with tips and techniques for succeeding in workplace politics. More info
Your comments are welcomeWould you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenZLkFdSHmlHvCaSsuner@ChacbnsTPttsdDaRAswloCanyon.comSend me your comments by email, or by Web form.
About Point Lookout
Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.
Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.
Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.
More articles on Workplace Politics:
- The Costs of Threats
- Threatening as a way of influencing others might work in the short term. But a pattern of using threats
to gain compliance has long-term effects that can undermine your own efforts, corrode your relationships,
and create an atmosphere of fear.
- Management Debt: II
- As with technical debt, we incur management debt when we make choices that carry with them recurring
costs. How can we quantify management debt?
- The Utility Pole Anti-Pattern: I
- Organizational processes can get so complicated that nobody actually knows how they work. If getting
something done takes too long, the organization can't lead its markets, or even catch up to the leaders.
Why does this happen?
- Yet More Obstacles to Finding the Reasons Why
- Part III of our catalog of obstacles encountered in retrospectives, when we try to uncover why we succeeded
— or failed.
- On Ineffectual Leaders
- When the leader of an important business unit is ineffectual, we need to make a change to protect the
organization. Because termination can seem daunting, people often turn to one or more of a variety of
other options. Those options have risks.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming February 8: Kerfuffles That Seem Like Something More
- Much of what we regard as political conflict is a series of squabbles commonly called kerfuffles. They captivate us while they're underway, but after a month or two they're forgotten. Why do they happen? Why do they persist? Available here and by RSS on February 8.
- And on February 15: Four Razors for Organizational Behavior
- Deviant organizational behavior can harm the people and the organization. In choosing responses, we consider what drives the perpetrators. Considering Malice, Incompetence, Ignorance, and Greed, we can devise four guidelines for making these choices. Available here and by RSS on February 15.
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenZLkFdSHmlHvCaSsuner@ChacbnsTPttsdDaRAswloCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.
Get the ebook!
Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:
- Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
- Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
- Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
- Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
- Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
- Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )
Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info