Hardwired Humans. Andrew O'Keeffe
Читать онлайн книгу.
as Figan in the way they exercise power. Figan’s nephew, Frodo, became alpha male some years later. Frodo was one aggressive alpha, leading through bullying and intimidation.
When I asked Dr Goodall about Frodo, she replied that he always showed the personality of a bully. Even as a youngster, when the other young chimps his age were playing and saw Frodo approach, they would suspend their game because they knew the tyrant was about to destroy their fun. The bully of a kid grew up to be a bully of a leader.
Power is a natural dimension to life for hierarchical social animals. It comes with the domain. The challenge for leaders is to use power effectively. This means using just the right amount of power that is appropriate for your position. We will come back to this and other implications for leaders later. First, we need to discuss the importance of social standing for humans—our standing in the pecking order.
Social standing
With so much riding on our position in the hierarchy, it is little wonder that we place such an emphasis on signs of our social standing and so much energy on progressing in our social group. Social standing, or status in the hierarchy, explains a number of curious behaviours in organisations.
Hierarchy and status explains who keeps who waiting. The team leader might keep a staff member or external supplier waiting yet would not keep their CEO waiting for a second. The CEO might keep a lower level manager waiting, yet this same executive would not dream of doing the same to a Board member. That’s life for social primates. We can of course choose to treat people equally and not keep lower ranking people waiting! They’ll appreciate it.
Hierarchy and status explains why people who have their own office often fight and scream against any move into open-plan design. And it’s why, when forced into an open-plan configuration, some might collect bigger and better pot plants than their neighbours … or they gain the preferred position by the window … or mysteriously procure a leather chair … or sit closer to the Director (who retained their office).
Hierarchy and status explains why in organisational life we naturally tend to have grades and job titles, and along with the instinct of contest and display, it’s why people can be touchy about job titles—especially how their title compares with their peers.
Early in my career I worked as a human resources officer in a manufacturing firm. At the factory there were two car parking areas—one for managers and one for the workers. The managers’ car park was located, not surprisingly, in the privileged position alongside the office block. The employees’ car park was at the edge of the site. Being an eager young HR professional, I had in mind that it would be a grand sign of equality if we removed the managers’ car park.
When one particular young and extremely capable engineering manager heard about my proposal he quickly sought me out. He’d only just gained access to the managers’ car park through a recent promotion and passionately argued to retain it. He enthusiastically made his point: ‘When I first joined this firm as an apprentice I had aspirations to progress. I would know that I had made it when I gained rights to park in the managers’ car park.’ The equivalent to Lubutu’s rock at Taronga Zoo.
Years later, armed with the insight of instincts, I could see his point. It doesn’t mean that there is not a case for egalitarian leadership. It does mean, though, that try as we might to remove symbols of position in the pecking order, they will keep popping up. And any opportunities to progress in our social group are generally extremely motivating.
Hierarchy provides a vital function for complex social animals. It provides the means by which social animals can live and function. Human groups are able to coordinate their efforts because of hierarchy. This applies to work organisations, to church groups, to sporting groups and to political parties. The largest organisation in the world is reportedly the Chinese army with 1 million people and a human group that size can still function—because of hierarchy.
Political parties are a useful study because they are so on display. If hierarchical power is not clearly in the hands of a single dominant individual, then the political party is weakened until that situation is resolved. In the Primaries leading up to the 2008 uS Presidential elections, the Democrat Party had two primary contenders in Senators Obama and Clinton. For the time that the candidature was unresolved the party was divided into two factions. There was rumour and innuendo directed from one candidate to another. There were coalitions and alliances. And the situation continued until Senator Obama pulled away as the preferred candidate and then the party was able to settle its differences and unite. Senator Hillary and ex-President Bill Clinton swung behind candidate Obama. The party became united and the single leader had the power and authority to harness the resources and energy for the campaign.
For organisations, it is reassuring for leaders to know that the natural and necessary pattern is that people work for a manager, the manager in turn works for a boss and on up to the CEO. This reporting hierarchy, formalising the pecking order, allows organisations to function. But it also means that if each leader does not deliver what they need to at their level then the organisation will rapidly become dysfunctional.
Indicators of power
A key aspect underpinning hierarchy and status is the dimension of power differences in groups. In making sense of hierarchy and status in organisations, it’s handy to know the behaviours that are typically displayed by people with high power or low power.
Researchers from Stanford university and the university of California studied the positive and negative indicators of power. They found ‘striking differences in how powerful and less powerful individuals perceive and act within the social environment’. They hypothesised that elevated power provides rewards and freedoms while reduced power is associated with increased threat and punishment.
They listed the attitudes and behaviours typical of powerful people. Some are positive and some are negative. Not all leaders in high-power positions demonstrate these behaviours, but the research revealed the strong tendency for them to do so.
Positive implications of power
On the positive side, when people are in positions of relative power they are more likely to:
initiate ideas and be more direct in their expression of ideas
engage in group activity
express approval and affection
show more gestures and less facial construction
display smiles of pleasure
feel and display positive emotions.
negative implications of power
But when people are in positions of relative power, they are also more likely to:
take what they want for themselves and be quicker at detecting material rewards
treat any situation or person as a means of satisfying their own needs
talk more, speak out of turn and interrupt more
ignore what other people say and want
ignore how less powerful people react to their behaviour
act rudely and be more aggressive
enter the social space of others
tease and be more aggressive in their teasing
stereotype others
eat with their mouths open and get crumbs on their face and table!
Eating and leaving crumbs on their face and table? When I mentioned this one day to a group of business people on one of our zoo workshops, one participant laughed and told a story about her CEO who never interrupts his lunch routine but continues to eat ravenously, always makes a terrible mess of his chin, tie and table in apparent oblivion to his hungry visitor watching on.
The point behind these negatives is that high-power people can. They can talk when they want to even if that means interrupting others;