The Others

As humans, we arenaturally attracted to those that share similar values, experiences, andbeliefs.  We find comfort in being with peoplethat understand us; in this way, we are very tribal.  I remember while in high school, although Iattended an extremely diverse school, you could see the tribes in the cafeteriaduring lunch.  They were broken up intosocial economic classes, ethnic groups, athletes, hip hop enthusiasts, grungefans (I went to school about 30 minutes south of Seattle), etc.  There wasn’t necessarily anything wrong withthese groups forming, but sometimes this “teaming” that develops createsunnecessary conflict and on occasion, even harm.  Sometimes, this tribal mentality createsthe perception of “the other.” 

What I’ve noticed moreand more over the past decade, especially during what seems to have developedinto this “outrage culture” we are seeing today, is that this teaming isbecoming more than just feeling comfortable with those that share similarperspectives.  It’s created a mindset formany that if you aren’t on my team, you are “the other.”  A mentality that “if you aren’t with me, youare against me.”  You can see it in somany aspects of our daily lives.  Vegansjudging those that choose to eat meat or vice versa.  Cross-fitters versus traditionalweightlifters.  Keto dieters versus carblovers.  Liberals versus Conservatives.  The problem that arises when we approach lifethis way, is that we tend to focus on our positions on a topic and theotherness of those that challenge those positions. This approach may beefficient and get the results we want in the short term, but often misses theboat in the long term. 

As leaders, we need tosee beyond “the otherness,”. When we create “the other” in our minds, we almostalways see them as “lesseror inferior” and treat them accordingly.  In other words, it’s just as natural toidentify against the other as it is to identify with those whom we findcommonalities.  Enjoying the company ofthose whom we have shared perspectives and experiences is fine. But, chastisingthose that don’t share our views usually isn’t very effective. At a minimum, thiscan eliminate the good that may come from appreciating diverse perspectives.  So how does this affect leadership?

In my humble opinion,creating “the other” in order to bring a team together has its place but shouldbe used sparingly.  If a leader uses thistool too often, they either don’t have many other tools or isshortsighted.  I won’t say that itdoesn’t have its benefits.  Creating an“us against the world” mentality can generate a ton of motivation when a workcenter needs to over come substantial obstacles.  Heck, I’ve used it myself when it was needed.  However, it comes with risks if not usedappropriately and without an endgame in mind.  If not used wisely on a team within a biggerorganization, it can create the perception of the other that cannot be pulledback…it can alienate your team from the entire team. If the organization as awhole has become “the other,” everyone becomes an enemy and stifles everyone’spotential.

The 7 Habits of HighlyEffective People describes the maturity continuum asgrowing from a level of dependence, to independence, and finally reaching alevel of interdependence.  Leveragingan “us against the other” strategy can help drive a group or team from thelevel of dependence to independence, but without growing out of that mindset,the team will fail to reach its maximum potential of interdependence.  To use terms from Dave Logan and John King,the authors of the bestselling book TribalLeadership, this approach can help people get pastlevel 3, “I am Great” to level 4, “We are Great,” but will not even allow theteam to sniff level 5, “Life is Great.” 

To avoid falling into this leadership trap, we shouldconcentrate efforts towards interdependent team building by refocusing on thefollowing:

• Focus on common goals versus positions and platforms
• Educate yourself and your teams on their roles and the roles of other teams towards mission accomplishment 
• Deliberately research “the other’s” perspectives with deep and honest curiosity
• “Seek to understand, before being understood” – Stephen Covey

Leveraging an “us against the world”leadership approach in many ways can be shortsighted, narrowminded, and myopinion, the “easy button” approach to a complex leadership challenge.  Teaming has its place but when it creates“otherness” and is allowed to spiral out of control, it can be extremelydetrimental to the overall organization’s mission…even worse, the personalgrowth and development of your own team members.  Individuals who are conditioned, encouraged,and enabled to view those that differ in perspectives or opinions as enemiesare ultimately limited in their potential to be people of character. Asleaders, we must be more strategic in our approaches. What greaterresponsibility does a leader have, than to develop those in their charge to becomethe best human beings they can be?

Editor’sNote:  Joe Bogdan is a manager at Llama Leadershipand is a senior enlisted leader in the United States Air Force.  He has led various organizations with diversemissions across multiple countries and currently oversees over 400 peoplecomposed of U.S. Military and German civilian personnel in Spangdahlem AirBase, Germany.