senior executives, knowing the natural inclination for bonding is around 150, can guard against behaviours that undermine the cohesion of larger groups. Knowing that intra-organisational rivalries will tend to appear, a chief executive can choose to be watchful and move quickly to stop the behaviour. And for a CEO it’s handy to know that intra-group rivalries are accelerated because of the behaviour of the CEO who favours one division or function over the others which quickly causes cliques within the top team that cascade through the organisation (we will return to this point under the instinct of gossip).
Third, the role of department leaders—leaders of the village-sized group of up to 150 staff—is critical. After a person’s immediate manager, the divisional leader is the next most critical person who provides people with a sense of belonging within their work community. The divisional and department leader sets the culture and provides harmony within the clan. The department leader needs to:
know the names of all their people
know the important things that define them as individuals
know their role and they must know the leader values their role
establish the direction, goals and purpose of the clan
create an environment where the managers pull together
convene social functions so people have a sense of community
coach their first-level managers to address any community freeloaders who are diminishing the community’s efforts and interests.
Fourth, for hierarchical animals like humans, team leaders (including senior executives) should be conscious of the distribution of power in their team. In particular, leaders (and designers of organisations) should avoid the concentration of power in a single direct report. That is, avoiding the formal or informal deputy or 2IC (‘second in charge’) where one person in the team of reports carries extra power differentiating them from the rest.
One CEO shared with me the negative consequences of a structure where a Chief Operations Officer reporting to him had much more power than the rest of his direct reports. The COO had the key operating units and most of the organisation’s staff reporting to her. The imbalance of power in the hands of one direct report weakened both the CEO and also the functioning of the organisation.
Fifth, the first-level leaders of family-sized groups need to connect their team to other family groups in the clan. Team leaders need to manage the natural tension of both providing for their family (so they are not taken for granted or lose out on resources) while ensuring they deliver the outputs on which other family groups within the clan are relying. Team leaders need to ensure that their people are seen and valued by higher-level managers as part of the individuals’ social progression, and to ensure that higher-level management is seen and involved with the team so the team members feel connected and well regarded.
Genghis Khan
Genghis Khan knew the importance of organisational structure. In 1203 he undertook a major restructure of his army using principles closely aligned to human instincts as the basis.
The results of Genghis Khan’s restructure were spectacular. Applying today’s business terminology, we would say he was the leader of a high performing organisation! Here are the highlights of his performance review: He united the Mongol people for the first time in their history. In a 25 year period his army conquered more people than the Romans conquered in 400 years. He organised history’s largest free trade zone (the famous Silk Road). He created the first international postal system. He created a system of international law. He recognised religious freedom and financially supported Christian, Buddhist and Moslem faiths. His creative and fearsome military capability made walled cities redundant as a defence against attack. On the balanced scorecard, his staff were highly engaged and no general ever deserted him throughout his six decades as a warrior.
His organisational challenges were as complex as a modern global CEO’s, with 100,000 warriors spread from China through India and the Middle East across to Hungary and Russia.
Genghis Khan used family-sized groups as his organisational foundation, arranging warriors into squads 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
