Hardwired Humans. Andrew O'Keeffe
Читать онлайн книгу.
of ten ( arban; granted, slightly more than the ideal 5-9 range). No matter what their kin group or tribal origin, they were ordered to live and fight together as loyally as brothers. No one could ever leave another behind in battle as a captive. As in the family model of the day, the eldest took the leadership position in the group of 10, but the men could also choose another to be their leader.
This legendary warrior was serious about the role of the family-sized group. His law recognised group responsibility and group guilt. The family group was responsible for ensuring correct behaviour of its members. Giving a whole new dimension to performance management, a crime by one could bring punishment to all!
He used clan-sized groups as his next layer. Ten of the squads formed a company (zagun) of 100 men, one of whom they selected to be their leader. Ten companies formed a battalion ( mingan) of 1,000 men. Ten mingan formed a tumen of 10,000, the leader of whom was chosen by Genghis.
He also had an elite personal bodyguard numbering … wait for it … 150 soldiers!
It’s really not surprising that Genghis Khan would organise his ‘workforce’ according to human instincts. Given that we are talking about the human condition, that knowledge was as available then, 800 years ago, as it is today. It’s just that sometimes we forget and tend to overcomplicate things.
Families and clans are a key part of our survival strategy as a species. But social groups of smart animals can only function through a hierarchy or a pecking order. We now turn to that aspect of human instincts.
Instinct 2. Hierarchy and Status
This instinct helps explain why:
my boss keeps me waiting but never keeps their own boss waiting
status symbols keep popping up
technical professionals with little interest in the ‘people stuff ‘ still accept a promotion to manager
powerful people can do strange things.
IT WAS LIKE THE PLOT out of a bad movie. In November 2008 the CEOs of the three uS automotive companies (Ford, General Motors and Chrysler) went to Washington seeking government funds to keep their organisations out of possible bankruptcy. Despite the desperate state of their businesses driving them to beg for money, they each flew in and out of Washington in corporate luxury jets. Not a good look.
On one level their behaviour was just plain dumb. On another level it reveals a significant human dimension that not just one, but all three no doubt highly intelligent leaders demonstrated such astonishing behaviour that was so out of touch with the moment.
The three CEOs arriving in their $36M aircraft at a round trip cost of 70 times more than a commercial flight begins to make sense if we look through the lens of power and status. The thought of taking a commercial flight like everyone else was obviously something they couldn’t contemplate, and even if their advisors were brave enough to suggest it, the advice was obviously rejected. Yet still they didn’t get it. From the frosty reception they received, one would presume that the CEOs would make a wiser choice next time. Well, hardly. The second time they travelled to Washington they went in hybrid vehicles, still wanting to differentiate themselves from ordinary folk. While we might marvel at their insensitive behaviour, it can be explained if we understand the tendencies of those who hold high-power positions.
Power is central to the functioning of human groups. Human groups function because of hierarchy. The same is true of chimpanzees. Chimps are hierarchical animals, meaning that within their community there is a pecking order. In chimp society the top of the hierarchy is occupied by a male, the so-called alpha male.
Lubutu, the current alpha male of the chimps at Taronga Zoo, became the alpha at the young age of eight years. He was the oldest male at the time when Gombe, the then alpha, died. Lubutu’s acclimatisation to power gives first time leaders some valuable lessons. When Lubutu became the alpha he appeared to lack confidence. His leadership style was best described as passive. He did not exert the appropriate power of his position and he refused to intervene in squabbles amongst members of his community; he would literally look the other way! Like the experience of many a first-time leader, some of the members of his community supported his ‘appointment’ and some didn’t. One of the females, Shiba, for instance refused to accept him as alpha, indicated by her refusal to submit to him—she refused to be dominated by him. He was still just a boy, so he didn’t have the physical strength to back himself and exert his position. But as he physically matured he grew into his role and appeared more comfortable in using the power of his position. Now almost ten years in the role, he has grown into a very constructive leader who uses power appropriately to the apparent benefit of his community—the Taronga group is a productively reproducing, reasonably harmonious group that replicates behaviours typical of wild chimps.
Lubutu’s key leadership strategy is to be friendly to the females and their offspring. He invests time in grooming sessions with the females. He lets the infants play with him and spends time with the teenagers. Consequently, the females (the majority of his community) appear to like Lubutu. Certainly they get to show their preference for him over the rival males.
One day in August 2009 Lubutu was temporarily absent from his ‘organisation’. Lubutu’s absence reminded me of a conversation with a HR director when she told me what happens when her CEO is away from the office on business trips: ‘When our CEO is away the executives go feral!’
Lubutu had gone to the vet for a vasectomy. He was out of the community for a mere half day. But that’s long enough for aspirational males to take advantage. Beta male, Shabani, seemed to rejoice in his good fortune to have Lubutu out of the way. When Lubutu did return to the exhibit he was no doubt uncomfortable from the operation. Shabani, presumably sensing his discomfort, displayed aggressively over Lubutu who had a reduced capacity to fight back. With hair hackled in a fierce display, Shabani screamed at Lubutu then chased the weakened alpha and, when he caught him, bashed him.
Lubutu may have thought his days as alpha were over as he hung on by a thread late into the afternoon. With night approaching, the 19 chimps filed into their night den. What happened next is fascinating and reveals the benefits of Lubutu’s friendly leadership style. Shabani is habitually and unpredictably aggressive, often attacking the females and infants to force his will. In the night den the female chimps expressed their preference for their leader by gathering around Lubutu and groomed him reassuringly. They turned their backs to Shabani who was ostracised like an unwelcome stranger. By the next day Lubutu had regained his strength, was still the alpha and continued the unending task of holding the top job.
This demonstration of support by the chimp community might explain Dr Goodall’s observation that constructive alphas usually endure as leaders for around ten years, but bullying and intimidating alpha males tend to last for only about two years.
One of the most constructive leaders of the Gombe chimps was Figan, and the one who appeals to me as the standout leader over these 50 years of Gombe research. When Dr Goodall and I met in late 2008 I was keen to hear more about Figan and she added to what I already knew from her books. Figan was alpha in the late 1970s and early 80s and one of the most powerful males Dr Goodall has observed (he also had the support of his brother, Faben, so anyone who challenged Figan had to be prepared to take on both brothers in coalition). Figan’s outstanding attribute was that he used his power constructively and did not bully or intimidate his community (at least relatively speaking for an alpha chimp). But he did use his power to insist on appropriate behaviour. As Dr Goodall wrote, ‘I suspect that many would-be aggressors, anticipating the displeasure of their boss, exercised more self-restraint when he was around.’
The observed outcome of Figan’s leadership style is persuasive. Dr Goodall writes that his style ‘helped to promote and maintain an atmosphere of social harmony among the members of his group’. During Figan’s reign most of his interactions with members of his community were relaxed and friendly. ‘He was so clearly dominant over them that, except when there were moments of tension such as during a reunion, he had no need for violent demonstrations of strength and mastery.’
Not