Hardwired Humans. Andrew O'Keeffe
Читать онлайн книгу.
as ever’.
The family paradox
There’s a paradox in this instinct for leaders and team members. On the one hand we have this instinctive need to bond closest with around seven people.
We want our work team to be as if it is family. We know that nothing drives us to distraction faster than if our team is dysfunctional. And in turn, if it is dysfunctional we hold our leader most responsible. This is our natural model.
Yet on the other hand, and here’s the paradox, our work team cannot be our family. Our true family is our immediate family with whom we have our closest genetic bond. Nothing replaces kin, and it is our real family alone that, in the normal condition, endures a lifetime. Our work team cannot fill that role. So when people refer to their team as ‘family’, it’s important not to take that literally. A team leader needs to manage this paradox. People want to work in a functional team where they are secure in their relationships with each other and confident in the support the leader gives them. But there is a line the team leader can’t cross. For example, the team leader shouldn’t talk to people at work with the same candour that they would use with their immediate family. If the leader did, there is a good chance the staff would be aggrieved and resentful—and the leader might be counselled.
Here is an example of the family paradox. Say you are a team leader and you have someone in your team with powerful body odour. Other team members constantly complain to you about the obnoxious smell of their colleague.
If the situation involved direct family members the matter wouldn’t be a problem and would be solved without great thought or sensitivity. A parent or sibling says to the smelly individual, ‘Johnny, you stink. Go take a shower.’ Johnny is unlikely to be seriously offended and the parent/offspring/sibling relationship is at no risk of being damaged. While we want to experience a strong connection with our work team as if we are family, our social boundaries forbid us to talk as directly as this at work, at least without risking offence. The manager in this particular situation must find a more careful and sensitive approach. The stakes are high in the conversation when it occurs.
When I mentioned this scenario to a group of leaders, one of them confessed that this exact situation confronted him some years before and that the way be managed it was not one of his better moments. unable to find a way to pluck up the courage to raise it with the employee, he left a note on the person’s car windscreen that would be seen after work. The individual never appeared back in the office, no doubt embarrassed by the complaint and probably angry with the manager. Few managers would handle this challenge well. That’s how delicate it can be when we are managing non-family.
Awareness of the implications of this paradox assists leaders to be grounded in the reality of what’s possible and what’s not, and as a consequence, to overcome one of the inhibitors to effective leadership.
Dynamics of a newcomer
Managers and zoo keepers have a lot in common. A newcomer to a small group affects the team’s dynamics. We’ve all noticed team members sizing up a newcomer and the new person working out where they fit in. After all, it’s as if someone has joined our family. Even the power of the boss can be affected, for better or worse, by a new arrival. With social animals, like chimps, gorillas and humans, things can get pretty tricky when introducing a new member into the group.
In April 2010 the keepers at Melbourne Zoo began managing the introduction of a gorilla to the zoo’s gorilla community. Damian Lewis is a primate keeper at the zoo and one of the generous keepers who share their experiences with our clients. Several months after the introduction he was sharing the story with a group of leaders—who could readily identify with the dynamics in the family group associated with a new ‘team’ member.
At the time of the introduction the group comprised a silverback male and four females. A fifth female, Mbeli, was transferred from Taronga Zoo. One of the reasons for the transfer was the ‘team’ dynamics of the group. The silverback, Rigo, was not a very dominant leader—not as dominant as you would expect in the normal course of things for gorillas. As a consequence of this lack of power by the silverback, the most dominant female, Yuska, pretty much ran the show. She henpecks Rigo and dominates the females—who support her against Rigo. His lack of leadership confidence reflects his upbringing. He grew up alone, which for social animals like gorillas has left him lacking social skills and not well adjusted to living in a group, let alone being the dominant and mating male. While he got the job of silverback because of his technical capability (his genes), he has shortcomings in terms of interpersonal and leadership skills. Young Mbeli, aged seven at the time, was a socially confident individual and the plan was that she would make a positive impact on the dynamic of the group. What unfolded was startling, yet not so different to a workplace team.
Now, the keepers don’t just throw the individuals together. It’s very carefully planned. For the first month the interaction was limited to visual contact through a glass window so they could see each other but not touch and then with a mesh between them so they could just touch. Then the physical contact started first with the youngest member of the group, 10-year-old Johari, then Rigo and then two of the three adult females. Only the dominant female, Yuska, remained.
At this point Mbeli had been present for over two months. Throughout that time Yuska was aggressively demonstrating, screaming and banging on the mesh. A gorilla with any social awareness would know that Yuska was threatening and trying to put Mbeli in her place. Well, when the keepers opened the mesh to finally allow them to meet, Mbeli took the initiative. She charged Yuska and punched her in the face! Yuska retreated. For good measure, Mbeli took a bite out of Yuska’s shoulder. It was a cat fight.
After three months of separate introductions the group was finally allowed to be together. Yuska chose an interesting strategy to retain her dominant position. At the time of the group first being together, Yuska was in oestrous—the sexually receptive stage of her cycle. For the three years since Rigo had joined the group as the silverback, Yuska had shown no sexual interest in him and for that whole time had refused to mate with him. Suddenly, with the introduction of Mbeli, she changed her strategy and presented herself for mating. She has continued to regularly mate with Rigo even when she is not in oestrous.
Even within a month of Mbeli’s arrival the keepers observed a positive impact on the culture of the group. Rigo’s position was enhanced and Yuska’s much reduced. The females were less inclined to support Yuska so she was no longer able to run the show. It seemed to be a more stable, harmonious group. Rigo was more in charge, which is what a gorilla group expects from its silverback.
It sounds like just another day in the office, right? Well, maybe not in every respect. Damian makes the point that the objective of this gorilla team is simple and straightforward: to reproduce. Yet even such a natural objective gets complicated and derailed by the dynamics and politics of the group.
IMPLICATIONS OF THIS INSTINCT FOR LEADERS
Here’s a snapshot of what we have learned about the family element of the instinct of social belonging.
1 We gain our identity as a member of a small intimate group of around seven people.
2 We carry this as if family model with us into our workplaces.
3 Yet our work team cannot really be family—that’s the preserve of direct family members.
4 Hence a leader in modern workplaces is challenged with a paradox of leading a family size group which desires to act as if it is family but can never be and should not be so.
There are significant practical implications of our natural family condition which, if incorporated into your toolkit, will make managing people easier.
Implication 1. Team size
The size of a team determines whether it is set to be functional or dysfunctional. To be designed to be functional, teams should number around seven members.
If a manager is leading a team much smaller than five or larger than nine, it’s useful to know that there will be some unnatural challenges.
A small team of,