The Case of the Saboteur Colleague

BNET TalkbackShare your ideas and expertise on this topic

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

•  
  1

  JannaRaye

  12/03/08 | Report as spam

  RE: The Case of the Saboteur Colleague

  This scenario is typical of the internal competition that
  is systemic in top-down hierarchies. The perception of
  limited room for advancement discourages
  cooperation, wasting valuable time and resources and
  creating information silos of unshared collective
  intelligence. The negative stress created in these
  environments contributes to a plethora of modern
  health issues from cardiovascular disease to sexual
  dysfunction.
  
  Complexity theory, the study of complex systems from
  weather patterns to group dynamics, illustrates how
  Nature has evolved and adapted to changing
  conditions through internal cooperation. Groups of
  individuals, from bacteria to insect colonies to gorilla
  troops, cooperate internally in order to compete
  externally and survive. Order emerges from chaos in
  these situations, creating pattern integrity and the
  stability necessary for continued survival. Top-down
  hierarchies, on the other hand, create entropy chaos or
  disorder, as witnessed by ongoing the turnover we
  conveniently label as disloyalty.
  
  For decades we've approached these problems as
  behavioral, and certain personality types are probably
  more susceptible than others. A great example of
  emergent systemic behavior is the infamous Stanford
  Prison Experiment of 1971, when students who played
  the role of prison guard exhibited sadistic behavior as
  the prisoners became increasingly depressed and
  showed signs of extreme stress. The experiment ended
  rather quickly, for fear of someone being harmed in
  the process.
  
  While Paul's reluctance to play Daddy is certainly
  understandable, his hands-off approach to the work
  product of his staff indicates a lack of leadership and
  collective agreements. In these situations, personal
  agendas will always supersede collective goals.
  
  What today's organizations need are natural hierarchies
  and a culture of leadership that inspires, guides, and
  mentors staff. In these organizations, leaders are
  conduits of information and resource flows, enabling
  greater collective intelligence. With the guidance of
  "organic" leaders, staff are better able to manage
  themselves, their work products/services, and their
  relationships with each other. Without agreements for
  how work gets done, you're left with assumptions and
  miscommunications, wasting valuable time and
  resources.
  
  We can learn from Nature and start acting more
  naturally by cooperating toward collective goals
  instead. Today's companies cannot effectively compete
  externally while tolerating even "healthy" competition,
  as individuals working against one another in any
  capacity will drain internal resources and degrade
  personal relationships.