K&P + Ch9 + KDWB = a deep thought?
KDWB, the radio station, actually made me think about chapter 9 in K&P the other day. On the radio there were 3 high school girls all trying to win tickets to some pop concert, when the DJ posed this question, “I can only let one of you win tickets for this concert, you have to decide which one person will win these tickets. If you can’t decide in 3 minutes then I will shred these tickets and no one will win.�
The conversation that followed after this question was posed, was ideal for radio because it caused a lot of drama, but did absolutely nothing as it related to encouraging collaboration. All of these young ladies fought on the phone for awhile, and then they all agreed that if they, individually, could not win, then no one would win. So the DJ gleefully shredded the tickets on the radio, and everyone was entertained, woo hoo!
This made curious about how often we sabotage ourselves when we are put into a situation that may or may not allow us to win as a collective. How often have we selfishly said, “if I can’t win, then now one can.� K&P refer to a similar situation as this on page 235 when they refer to a puzzle called the “Prisoners Dilemma�. To experience this puzzle yourself, give it a try at: http://www.princeton.edu/~mdaniels/PD/PD.html
The difference between the experience you’ll have at the above link and the way this principle is explained in K&P is that in K&P they ask the players to continue to work together after success or failure has occurred. In the above link you’ve either escaped prison or you haven’t.
In K&P’s example on page 236 they state, “Simply put, people who reciprocate are more likely to be successful than those who try to maximize individual advantage�. If one is put in a leadership situation where they are continually faced with these situations, according to this research it is to their advantage to cooperate first instead of only act in your own self interest.
Easier said then done, I know, but quite fascinating to think about. So if one cooperates first, how do they maintain in control and show that they are in power, or is that even necessary? How does one cooperate, without being a push over, does that even matter if you end up getting your way?
A foavorite quote of mine by a coworker is, “to be a bridge in the community, sometimes you have to allow yourself to be walked on.� I wonder if that is in essence what K&P are trying to bring up by their chapter on collaboration. To bring this fantastic blog entry full circle, I am left contemplating, “what would have happened if those teenagers on KDWB would have tried to collaborate instead maximizing upon their individual advantages?�
Comments
You ask whether Kouzes and Posner are implying that "sometimes you have to allow yourself to be walked on ... to be a bridge in the community." I don't think that is their intention, although I can see why you might think so.
The entire section on creating a climate of trust requires an enormous amount of risk by the leader. Although K&P state that trusting others pays off, the way one must go about doing so (be the first to trust, be open to influence, share information and resources) could leave a leader open to being perceived as a pushover (or worse) if they don't get the results they're looking for. That could be disasterous.
I think that K&P present an all or nothing approach in this case by providing examples of how being trusting caused success and a lack of trust lead to failure. But K&P don't discuss how there are situations in which one cannot be trusting, for example when one's trust is betrayed by an employee or other coworker. In that situation, I think the leader would have to make a clear example of the person by showing that there are consequences to betraying their trust, or risk the pushover perception I mentioned above.
Alternatively, maybe I'm just not trusting enough...
Scott Dauner
Posted by: Scott Dauner | March 11, 2008 09:10 PM