Hardwired Humans. Andrew O'Keeffe
Читать онлайн книгу.
and selfish rivalry). The better organisational design question is to ask, ‘Where do we want the silos to form?’ Large organisations numbering way beyond the normal human number for connectedness will fracture into groups that individuals can most associate with.
The significance of 150 is further demonstrated by what repeatedly happens when small organisations grow towards that number. Consistently, people in organisations experiencing growth toward and beyond that threshold start to say, ‘It’s not as friendly as it used to be’, and, ‘We don’t know everyone like the old days’. Often in these smaller organisations the founders sense but don’t consciously realise the increased complexity that occurs when the organisation grows closer and then beyond the 150 mark. At this point the complexity is not linear—it’s exponential. When the organisation was 20 people then 30 then even 70 the founder knew each person well and was close to the job each person performed. As the organisation grows beyond 100 or so the founder can’t be across the level of detail that they used to be. They also start to rely, or should rely, on another level of management. Often the founder, not realising the significance of the growth, has not put in place the necessary processes, systems and capabilities to manage the growth in a sustainable way.
A significant implication of our clanning instinct is that we have an inherent fear of strangers. Over the millennia of our hardwiring circuitry, strangers mostly meant no good. More likely than not, they represented disputes over territory and competing claims over resources. In large organisations, colleagues outside our clan are like strangers. A ‘them and us’ occurs within the organisation, usually on geographical, functional or business unit lines.
Chimpanzees also display strong ‘them and us’ behaviours. At one point Dr Jane Goodall observed the Gombe community fracture into two groups, perhaps due to the increased population beyond the natural sized group. The smaller breakaway group took up occupation of a neighbouring territory. Competitive group rivalries boiled over into brutal warfare. Over the following two years, the main established group hunted down and killed all members of the splinter group. And these were individuals that up until recently had been part of their community.
While in organisational life our response might be more subtle, the intent is not such a long way from the Gombe chimp actions—we become protective of our in-group, we battle for resources, we talk disparagingly of the other department and conflicts can be more emotional with intra-organisation groups that we should by rights be friends with!
We will talk more about silos and the implications for leaders in the next chapter. At this point let’s look at the implications of the clan size of 150. I won’t go into as much detail as I did for the family-sized leader because the focus of this book is the role of the leader of immediate teams rather than leaders of the ‘village’ or the ‘tribe’.
The implications for leaders
First, the decision-makers in charge of organisational design should take into account natural clan formation in the structure of the organisation. We can create structures where the organisation uses group size advantageously. If we design our organisation according to human instincts we will harness natural energy. If we ignore human nature there’s a good chance we will design dysfunction into the system.
Gore Associates is the highly regarded firm and maker of GoreTex. Gore deliberately uses group sizes of 150. When Gore builds a new facility it provides car spaces for only 150 cars. When the car park starts to reach capacity, it’s time to build a new facility.
I referred earlier to Flight Centre. With its ‘family, village, tribe’ strategy, Flight Centre groups a certain number of family-sized stores or teams together in their geography so that there are around 80 to 100 people in a village. These village groups are encouraged to select nicknames for themselves, to create an identity, and the annual primary recognition awards go to a village group. Flight Centre in effect uses the clan-size concept to foster a healthy sense of rivalry rather than allow the rivalry to emerge in an unplanned and unmanageable way.
Second, senior executives, knowing the natural inclination for bonding is around 150, can guard against behaviours that undermine the cohesion of larger groups. Knowing that intra-organisational rivalries will tend to appear, a chief executive can choose to be watchful and move quickly to stop the behaviour. And for a CEO it’s handy to know that intra-group rivalries are accelerated because of the behaviour of the CEO who favours one division or function over the others which quickly causes cliques within the top team that cascade through the organisation (we will return to this point under the instinct of gossip).
Third, the role of department leaders—leaders of the village-sized group of up to 150 staff—is critical. After a person’s immediate manager, the divisional leader is the next most critical person who provides people with a sense of belonging within their work community. The divisional and department leader sets the culture and provides harmony within the clan. The department leader needs to:
know the names of all their people
know the important things that define them as individuals
know their role and they must know the leader values their role
establish the direction, goals and purpose of the clan
create an environment where the managers pull together
convene social functions so people have a sense of community
coach their first-level managers to address any community freeloaders who are diminishing the community’s efforts and interests.
Fourth, for hierarchical animals like humans, team leaders (including senior executives) should be conscious of the distribution of power in their team. In particular, leaders (and designers of organisations) should avoid the concentration of power in a single direct report. That is, avoiding the formal or informal deputy or 2IC (‘second in charge’) where one person in the team of reports carries extra power differentiating them from the rest.
One CEO shared with me the negative consequences of a structure where a Chief Operations Officer reporting to him had much more power than the rest of his direct reports. The COO had the key operating units and most of the organisation’s staff reporting to her. The imbalance of power in the hands of one direct report weakened both the CEO and also the functioning of the organisation.
Fifth, the first-level leaders of family-sized groups need to connect their team to other family groups in the clan. Team leaders need to manage the natural tension of both providing for their family (so they are not taken for granted or lose out on resources) while ensuring they deliver the outputs on which other family groups within the clan are relying. Team leaders need to ensure that their people are seen and valued by higher-level managers as part of the individuals’ social progression, and to ensure that higher-level management is seen and involved with the team so the team members feel connected and well regarded.
Genghis Khan
Genghis Khan knew the importance of organisational structure. In 1203 he undertook a major restructure of his army using principles closely aligned to human instincts as the basis.
The results of Genghis Khan’s restructure were spectacular. Applying today’s business terminology, we would say he was the leader of a high performing organisation! Here are the highlights of his performance review: He united the Mongol people for the first time in their history. In a 25 year period his army conquered more people than the Romans conquered in 400 years. He organised history’s largest free trade zone (the famous Silk Road). He created the first international postal system. He created a system of international law. He recognised religious freedom and financially supported Christian, Buddhist and Moslem faiths. His creative and fearsome military capability made walled cities redundant as a defence against attack. On the balanced scorecard, his staff were highly engaged and no general ever deserted him throughout his six decades as a warrior.
His organisational challenges were as complex as a modern global CEO’s, with 100,000 warriors spread from China through India and the Middle East across to Hungary and Russia.
Genghis Khan used family-sized