Leadership in the Animal Kingdom

Human beings can spend a lot of time asking questions like "What is good leadership?" All other animals, on the other hand, have to just "do" leadership, without the pained, searching discussions. And the quality of that leadership greatly impacts their quality of life, and even survival.

I've been reading a lot about leadership in the wild, particularly amongst chimpanzees and gorillas. I'm finding valuable lessons from how leadership works in these primate groups, and getting much more comfortable with some of the realities of human leadership that I see around me.

There is an amazing documentary called "A Family of Chimps" which follows a group of chimpanzees living in the Arnhem Zoo in the Netherlands. What makes this group unique is that they are allowed to interact together as a large group during the day, and thus they form social structures similar to what they'd create in the wild. It is a premier place to observe chimpanzee group behavior.

In the course of the documentary, many key leadership responsibilities are shown.

• enforcing the rules of the group. Groups members are always observing one another, and noting who is doing what to whom. Thus when one group member harasses another "without cause," he is punished by the leader.
• distributing resources. When the zoo keepers provide a windfall of lettuce, the leader watches who is getting what, and makes sure the lettuce is shared according to the power structure of the group.
• being the boss. When his leadership is challenged, the leader stands up to show "I'm still the leader here," which gives the group confidence that someone is in charge. Animal groups know instinctively that when nobody is in charge, they are in great danger, and thus they instinctively rush to fill that vacuum.

It has been documented that in primate groups, the level of stress for all in the group is highest during a leadership transition, especially at that point where it isn't clear who is in charge. Thus the group seems to benefit greatly from an "executive function" to see to it that rules are carried out, and in general that order is kept.

Yes, leadership matters.

Making peace with self interest

There is a fantasy in the popular literature on leadership. It goes something like this, "If only everyone were trustworthy enough, and would trust one another sufficiently then all of our leadership problems would be solved.”

This sounds good on paper, it is certainly an interesting philosophical topic to discuss. However the real world demands a much more nuanced understanding of trust.

Many books are built on an underlying assumption that everyone can and should be trusted. And further that this lack of trust is the key element to focus on—and eliminate—within organizations.

I have a proposal which some may consider bold. Self interest is inherent in the human condition, and can never fully be eliminated. Furthermore trying to get rid of self interest is not a good idea. In fact it is when we ignore our own needs and simply try to serve everyone else that we lose balance and perspective.

There are organizations, corporate, academic, and spiritual, that champion this idea of blind trust of all. I wonder, “What happens within those organizations when there is conflict? When people in leadership see things in different ways?”

If there is a notion of being “in line” with what is right, what happens when two people believe that they are in alignment with what is right and yet they see things very differently? What happens then?

I propose that the road forward is to accept self interest as a given, to talk about it, and to actively and smartly manage around this reality of life. In that way, we can be most conscious and conscientious towards both taking care of ourselves, and finding good solutions for conflictual situations.

Do-it-yourself 360 feedback

David Nguyen, a friend of mine from business school, is working on an innovative system for doing surveys within companies. He asked me what I'd use it for, and I immediately thought of the 360 feedback process.

In a typical 360, for instance for leadership skills, a leadership survey is sent to the leader's manager, peers, and direct reports. The number of people surveyed is typically 6 or more. The data is submitted anonymously and then tallied for the leader to review.

This process can give leaders two things. Most obviously they get a survey of how they are perceived as a leader, which could include information on problems that they weren't aware of.

The other benefit is more subtle--it creates a great opening for a leader to develop better connection with those around him by asking for further input, 1 on 1, based on the rolled up results of the survey. There is great potential here.

Here's one challenge--it can be an expensive and time-consuming process, to set up the 360, have everyone fill out 100+ item surveys, and bring in the consultant to administer the whole thing.

Thus I see an opportunity to use a system like David's to do my own 360 feedback process. To make such a process work, here are the key questions that I've asked myself, and my answers to them.

1. What’s my goal in doing this survey?
I have two goals, really. One is to build connection with the people who I collaborate with the most. The other related goal is to come away with two concrete things to work on in order to be a more effective collaborator.

2. What area do I want to focus the survey on?
Within the general topic of collaboration, I’d the questions to focus on my skills in two specific areas: how I am as a partner for coming up with new ideas, and how I am when it comes to making collaborative decisions. Along those lines, I’ll need to find a well-built survey which asks practical questions in this areas.

3. Who am I going to ask?
I’m going to ask the people who I work most closely with. Fortunately these are all people who I trust and have great respect for. Because this is the first time that I’m trying this process using a survey, it’s especially important to me that I work with a group I can readily trust.

4. Will I do this survey only one time, regularly, or on-going?
I’m going to do this survey once and see how it goes. If the process shows promise, I could see asking colleagues to participate with me twice a year. The key thing for me is that I’d want to be able to capture these results as a one-time “package” so that I can compare them as a set with future results.

5. What will I do with the survey results?
I’ll first look at areas of agreement amongst the raters, regarding strengths and weaknesses. From those I’ll identify two specific areas that I want to work on. Then I’ll schedule an initial conversation with one of my raters, to ask for one on one input on those areas. Based on that conversation, I’ll schedule time with other raters.

My take is that the key here is to start small, simple, and with low stakes. If I can get value from the first experience, then it positions me to try more next time.

A leaderless organization?

The Orpheus Chamber Orchestra was featured in a New York Times article because of their peculiar organizational structure: the orchestra has no conductor.

I've seen this article held up as an example that says "aha, a well functioning group with no leader!" And yet upon closer inspection, there is more to the situation than first meets the eye.

First off with no conductor, each member of the group takes on more responsibility for knowing the music as a whole, including the parts of others. Thus they become better tuned into one another, and less dependent on an authority figure to think for them. This is just good practice.

Also there is in fact a concertmaster for each piece of work, although the role rotates. Thus it looks like at any given time, there is someone at the "head" of the group, albeit a self-responsible group that can think for itself. Plus there are smaller core groups, within which the leadership roles rotate.

And then there is a board of directors, an executive committee, and an executive director. Thus the organizations has structure.


I propose that what's really different here is that although there is a stable "backbone" at the executive level, at the level of music leadership the head person changes. Furthermore the whole orchestra takes responsibility and thinks like leaders.

Ed Friedman, who greatly influenced my thinking on leadership, used to often say that groups become too dependent on leaders, especially charismatic ones, that it is bad for both sides. Thus I'd say that the Orpheus Chamber Orchestra, rather than getting rid of leadership, is redefining how it is done.

It still leaves the question, "Why does that need for leading exist at all?"