Have you ever thought about how important it is for the leader to have psychological balance?
A lack of psychology balance can show up in many ways. However one form of creeping calamity that may infect a leader, and so a team, can be as a result of the leader becoming more and more withdrawn. This can often be due to the leader being uncomfortable around others, for various reasons – none healthy.
If this ‘withdrawal’ is prolonged, it can, in certain circumstances, cause the leader to become distanced from others, and that ‘distance’ can cause problems for the team, and for the leader.
You may well have heard about the Stanford prison experiment. A recent movie dramatised the story of how the experiment’s participants (all students) appeared not to be role-playing, and really seemed to become terrifying ‘guards’, displaying brutal and dehumanising behaviour towards the ‘prisoners’ who experienced not only great distress, but also what appeared to be a form of learned helplessness. This early 1970s research, led by Philip Zimbardo, is often cited as illustrating ‘situational attribution of behaviour’ as opposed to ‘dispositional attribution of behaviour’. In other words the behaviour of individuals was heavily influenced by the situation they were in rather than by any ‘internal’ trait.
Stanley Milgram’s obedience to authority experiments in the 1960s appears to have an interesting resonance with the work of Zimbardo. Milgram’s research highlighted how far people would go to obey an ‘authority’ figure, to the point of (apparently) causing an innocent individual great distress, possible harm, and maybe even death.
Much has been written about what are the lessons to be learned from these two influential experiments, and to what extent they are relevant outside of the laboratory. They certainly seem to suggest that there were strong elements of conformity and deindividuation going on.
What I think is important for the leader to consider is that in basic terms they also highlight what can happen when individuals and groups drift into a ‘them and us’ mindset.
This type of thinking is dangerous and extremely divisive, and when the leader is the cause, the damage is multiplied by a huge amount.
How can the leader cause this?
Well one way is by favouring one team amongst others, or perhaps by isolating teams through, for example, poor communication.
However, I think that the biggest problems arise with ‘them and us’ thinking when the leader adopts a personalised version of that, which could be described as ‘them and me’.
When the leader ceases to (or never even starts to) integrate on a regular, conversational and equal basis with others, the rot can set in. I’ve seen this happen more than once. Here is generally what happens:
1) The leader has probably already had a tendency to isolate themselves due to feeling slightly awkward around people and/or they are beginning to experience delusions of superiority.
2) These early signs are not challenged by anyone, including peers, the boss’s boss, or HR.
3) The leader spends more and more time focussing upwards and/or outwards.
4) The humour, the shared challenges, and the camaraderie dissipates.
5) The team feel despondent and directionless.
6) The leader becomes suspicious of the team, focussing on, and remembering their faults rather than their strengths.
7) The leader begins to dehumanise and demonise the team members, forgetting that these are people with hopes, fears, dreams and aspirations.
8) The atmosphere is toxic. The team and/or the business is in trouble. The type of trouble that no amount of structural tinkering will fix.
The solution?
1) Have a much more holistic approach to leader selection. Look beyond skills and apparent track record. Look for a trail of collateral people damage.
2) If spotted, don’t hire, no matter the time and cost that it will take to start again.
3) Ensure that leaders adopt a genuine open door policy. Leaders must be accessible and must be able to be challenged, albeit in a polite and professional manner.
4) At the first signs of an isolationist approach, nip it in the bud.
5) At the first signs of delusions of grandeur, nip it in the bud.
6) The boss’s boss can help. Peers can help. A real HR person can help (i.e. an HR leader, not the type of HR person who is the last person you would put in charge of HR!)
7) Use coaches and mentors, both internal and external. Don’t use the ones who want to take the money and run. Use the ones who will roll their sleeves up and who will challenge behaviours.
8) Humour really helps. The next time you hear the phrase, ‘Do you not know who you are talking to?’. Please remember the reply, ‘Gosh, can anyone please help, there is someone here who has lost their memory!’.
This is why I think that it is so important to have really well balanced and grounded individuals in leadership positions. It is, above a certain level, much more about who you are, rather than what you know. The Zimbardo and Milgram experiments can remind us that absolute power can corrupt absolutely, and that leaders do not have to flex continually their power muscles. People will tend to want to please. And so the leader must be open to, and be challenged; and they should devote much of their time helping support the team, not using the team as a support to their ego.
For a more in depth exploration of this theme, please listen to the latest podcast which can be accessed from the link below:
<iframe width=”100%” height=”450″ scrolling=”no” frameborder=”no” src=”https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=https%3A//api.soundcloud.com/tracks/281329509&auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false&visual=true”></iframe>
This theme is also examined in the latest video (link below):
Best wishes
Mike