work—our need to bond intimately with a few people. These people become our ‘as if ‘ family and we want that group to be close-knit and functional. Many of us even describe our teams as being ‘just like family’.
Given the critical role of family for the human condition, it is not surprising that our organisations are, or at least should be, built upon family-sized work groups of around seven people. This was the natural size of family in primitive days—mum and dad, perhaps a grandparent and a few children. The range in this group is five to nine, or seven plus or minus the standard deviation of two.
‘Seven’ is significant for the human brain. The working memory of the brain has, on average, the capacity to handle seven items. After seven, plus or minus two, we tend to make mistakes. Seven digits of a telephone number are quite easy to remember, while eight is challenging for the average human. up to seven is the number of people that work in a syndicate team at a conference—eight is quite dysfunctional due to the increased mathematical combinations. In a study by physicist Peter Kline of Medical university of Vienna analysing the size of a committee that is the most dysfunctional, the number that stood out as the worst was the committee size of eight.
Seven or so people as a group is the size that can best create a sense of intimacy. The Economist magazine asked Facebook to test whether the technology of social networking revealed any trend of people’s intimate contacts. In the research conducted by Dr Cameron Marlow, the ‘in-house sociologist’ at Facebook, The Economist reported:
… What also struck Dr Marlow … was that the number of people on an individual’s friend list with whom he or she frequently interacts is remarkably small and stable. The more ‘active’ or intimate the interaction, the smaller and more stable the group.
Thus an average man—one with 120 friends—generally responds to the postings of only seven of those friends by leaving comments on the posting individual’s photos, status messages or ‘wall’. An average woman is slightly more sociable, responding to ten. When it comes to two-way communication such as e-mails or chats, the average man interacts with only four people and the average woman with six …
The analysis concluded that despite the capacity of online social networking sites, humans ‘still have the same small circles of intimates as ever’.
The family paradox
There’s a paradox in this instinct for leaders and team members. On the one hand we have this instinctive need to bond closest with around seven people.
We want our work team to be as if it is family. We know that nothing drives us to distraction faster than if our team is dysfunctional. And in turn, if it is dysfunctional we hold our leader most responsible. This is our natural model.
Yet on the other hand, and here’s the paradox, our work team cannot be our family. Our true family is our immediate family with whom we have our closest genetic bond. Nothing replaces kin, and it is our real family alone that, in the normal condition, endures a lifetime. Our work team cannot fill that role. So when people refer to their team as ‘family’, it’s important not to take that literally. A team leader needs to manage this paradox. People want to work in a functional team where they are secure in their relationships with each other and confident in the support the leader gives them. But there is a line the team leader can’t cross. For example, the team leader shouldn’t talk to people at work with the same candour that they would use with their immediate family. If the leader did, there is a good chance the staff would be aggrieved and resentful—and the leader might be counselled.
Here is an example of the family paradox. Say you are a team leader and you have someone in your team with powerful body odour. Other team members constantly complain to you about the obnoxious smell of their colleague.
If the situation involved direct family members the matter wouldn’t be a problem and would be solved without great thought or sensitivity. A parent or sibling says to the smelly individual, ‘Johnny, you stink. Go take a shower.’ Johnny is unlikely to be seriously offended and the parent/offspring/sibling relationship is at no risk of being damaged. While we want to experience a strong connection with our work team as if we are family, our social boundaries forbid us to talk as directly as this at work, at least without risking offence. The manager in this particular situation must find a more careful and sensitive approach. The stakes are high in the conversation when it occurs.
When I mentioned this scenario to a group of leaders, one of them confessed that this exact situation confronted him some years before and that the way be managed it was not one of his better moments. unable to find a way to pluck up the courage to raise it with the employee, he left a note on the person’s car windscreen that would be seen after work. The individual never appeared back in the office, no doubt embarrassed by the complaint and probably angry with the manager. Few managers would handle this challenge well. That’s how delicate it can be when we are managing non-family.
Awareness of the implications of this paradox assists leaders to be grounded in the reality of what’s possible and what’s not, and as a consequence, to overcome one of the inhibitors to effective leadership.
Dynamics of a newcomer
Managers and zoo keepers have a lot in common. A newcomer to a small group affects the team’s dynamics. We’ve all noticed team members sizing up a newcomer and the new person working out where they fit in. After all, it’s as if someone has joined our family. Even the power of the boss can be affected, for better or worse, by a new arrival. With social animals, like chimps, gorillas and humans, things can get pretty tricky when introducing a new member into the group.
In April 2010 the keepers at Melbourne Zoo began managing the introduction of a gorilla to the zoo’s gorilla community. Damian Lewis is a primate keeper at the zoo and one of the generous keepers who share their experiences with our clients. Several months after the introduction he was sharing the story with a group of leaders—who could readily identify with the dynamics in the family group associated with a new ‘team’ member.
At the time of the introduction the group comprised a silverback male and four females. A fifth female, Mbeli, was transferred from Taronga Zoo. One of the reasons for the transfer was the ‘team’ dynamics of the group. The silverback, Rigo, was not a very dominant leader—not as dominant as you would expect in the normal course of things for gorillas. As a consequence of this lack of power by the silverback, the most dominant female, Yuska, pretty much ran the show. She henpecks Rigo and dominates the females—who support her against Rigo. His lack of leadership confidence reflects his upbringing. He grew up alone, which for social animals like gorillas has left him lacking social skills and not well adjusted to living in a group, let alone being the dominant and mating male. While he got the job of silverback because of his technical capability (his genes), he has shortcomings in terms of interpersonal and leadership skills. Young Mbeli, aged seven at the time, was a socially confident individual and the plan was that she would make a positive impact on the dynamic of the group. What unfolded was startling, yet not so different to a workplace team.
Now, the keepers don’t just throw the individuals together. It’s very carefully planned. For the first month the interaction was limited to visual contact through a glass window so they could see each other but not touch and then with a mesh between them so they could just touch. Then the physical contact started first with the youngest member of the group, 10-year-old Johari, then Rigo and then two of the three adult females. Only the dominant female, Yuska, remained.
At this point Mbeli had been present for over two months. Throughout that time Yuska was aggressively demonstrating, screaming and banging on the mesh. A gorilla with any social awareness would know that Yuska was threatening and trying to put Mbeli in her place. Well, when the keepers opened the mesh to finally allow them
