Voted Off the Island

Work groups in organizations often encounter at least one member who “sits outside the group.” These individuals seem to fight the direction of the group and test the limits of their authority and assigned roles. This individual revels in the role of devil’s advocate. Generally, the group may resist, complain, and become downright furious at this person. Like two forces in a tug of war, both "sides" steadfastly stand by their positions.  Sometimes these individuals are rogue, and other times the person is simply being different, odd, and possibly even weird. The rogue individual must go. The odd person, on the other hand, is needed by organizations.

Leaders need to seriously consider these members and be aware of the circumstances that may encourage a group to shun them. Leaders must cultivate diversity and include all members, even the odd, because ultimately it makes the group or team stronger.¹ Teamwork is also enhanced when members feel safe to express opinions and ideas.

There are several examples that lead a person to be considered an “outsider” in their own group, and I have identified a few here:

The ambitious participant: This person is very interested in getting ahead and wants to be noticed quickly. While his/her intent is to attract the spotlight, others may feel stepped on in the process of him or her “cornering the market.” The group reacts negatively by ridiculing and/or making fun of this individual. Eventually the person falls out of favor and learns that alignment with others is required to get along.

The smart individual: A person with expertise shines, and members utilize him or her for information. However, it is common for the leader and others to feel threatened; this can happen because the person’s knowledge may exceed that of the leader. Artificial barriers are erected to “keep this person in place.” When the individual is too smart, feelings of disdain can result and being “voted off the island” becomes more likely.

The person with a different worldview: After passing through early stages of group development (e.g. forming, storming), a group usually formulates its perspective on how things should work and what roles are performed by whom.² However, it is typical for one or more members to see things differently and bring forward ideas that often conflict with the thinking of others. The reaction can energize the need to force conformance. If the person refuses, the group may banish him or her.

The group without a leader: There are some important characteristics needed to make a group successful. In addition to organizational support, the group needs clear goals, structure, effective leadership and resources.² However, if some of these characteristics are missing, such as when a formal leader is not appointed, the group is left to its own diplomacy to negotiate roles and direction and carve its own path to success. Unfortunately, these conditions can expose the group to increased tensions, particularly if there is an “outsider” as a member. This can lead to spiraling conflict, and the deeper the battles, the more difficult it is for the group to overcome.

Leaders need to be attuned to these scenarios and work to set them right. Groupthink is a phenomenon whereby a group convinces itself it is right, knows the best way to accomplish objectives, and may take measures to protect itself from outside information that might alter its trajectory.² There are documented cases where serious disasters have occurred as a result of groupthink: the Challenger disaster, the Bay of Pigs, and the Iraq War’s Weapons of Mass Destruction belief. The outsider individual is often the stressor in groups and when he/she exposes “the emperor as having no clothes,” the group tends to stomp on these beliefs.

Diversity in an organization is an important factor in the evolution and success of a business. Diversity is defined by differences such as race, gender, culture, age, etc. It also includes variables such as divergent viewpoints, ideas and behaviors.² It means the lone voice among a crowd that argues for one course of action – while everyone else says another way is right – should be heard and not ignored.

Individuals naturally construct protective barriers by shutting out information that contradicts what is perceived as known.⁴ The shield erected defends against what the above scenarios might represent. For example, the ambitious individual is making others realize one’s personal failure of doing the same. The smart person causes discomfort because it reveals individual limitations. Thinking differently exposes the need for a change of mind, and change is uncomfortable.

There is a section of the poem Desiderata that says “…listen to others, even the dull and ignorant; they too have their story.” Leaders should embrace these different individuals, not because they are right but because organizations need them. They keep the business on its toes. They challenge different thinking.

Leaders often find this difficult because of their human instinct to protect against perceived threats. The leader can try to change the individuals, but that can make the individual feel even more like an outsider. And being voted off the island is not a good feeling. It causes an adult form of anaclitic depression.³ It is hard to stand firm, particularly whenever everyone is saying, “you are wrong” or “get with the program.” The better alternative is to make sure the individual is respected for his/her differences and is heard. This is what is good for the business.

Leaders need to capitalize on human difference and establish the organizational climate that permits different individuals to speak and act freely. I am not talking about allowing deliberate disruptiveness from a rogue member. I am talking about channeling the “outsider’s” thoughts, beliefs and actions into being a foundational cultural artifact of the business.

Feel free to respond with comments or questions.

References

¹ Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 350-383.

² Levi, D. (2007). Group Dynamics for Teams (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

³ Harvey, J.B. (1988). The Abilene Paradox and Other Meditations on Management. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

⁴ Robbins, S., & Judge, T. (2011). Organizational Behavior (14th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.