Muppet Bert cleans up Cookie Monster’s crumbs, relishes
routine, enjoys hobbies such as collecting paper clips, dresses neatly and
provides reality checks to Ernie, his roomie. Muppet Ernie likes to experiment
with fanciful ideas, creates mayhem, is a non-conformist and lives for new
experiences. Which one finds it easier to be inclusive?
As Michele Gelfand, distinguished professor of Psychology at
the University of Maryland explains in “Rule
Breakers, Rule Makers”, culture is at the heart of Bert and Ernie’s
differing behaviours:
Bert’s “Tight”
Cultural Experience: Let’s imagine that Bert grew up in a place that for
millennia suffered from economic uncertainty driven by frequent invasions,
civil wars, weather-related catastrophes, food shortages, few natural resources,
poverty, rampant disease and very crowded communities. With that kind of
background, Bert’s ancestors, full of fear for their futures, would have naturally
worked hard to bring order out of chaos. Their goal was to reduce risk to make
life more predictable and safer. That required less personal freedoms, more
coordination and lots of rules and regulations created by “strong” leaders.
Ernie’s “Loose”
Cultural Experience: On the other hand, Ernie and his ancestors evolved
from a more secure, peaceful geographical location relatively safe from chronic
invasions, blessed with plentiful natural resources, less disease and only occasional
weather-related disturbances. Although
Ernie and his ancestors did struggle to survive and adapted as the conditions
dictated, they had less disruption to their lives than did Bert’s family. As
well, they were blessed with fewer people and their country was a haven for a diversity
of refugees seeking refuge from Bert-type countries.
In summary, the
vastly different environmental experiences of Bert and Ernie shaped the social norms
they valued, in effect unconsciously programming their brains. The reasons were
similarly practical - to navigate through choppy waters and to make progress –
but, the different behavioural reactions are rather polar opposites due to the level
of pain and suffering wrought by their respective environmental challenges. Is
one set of behaviours better than the other?
General Stanley
McChrystal weighs in on this conundrum from a leadership perspective as
described in “Leaders, Myth and Reality”. After examining the stories of
thirteen well-known leaders from a range of eras and fields, he concludes that “leadership
is intensely contextual and always dependent upon particular circumstances that
change from moment to moment and place to place.” The effectiveness of their
style in particular was a function of place in time. An example was Winston
Churchill – a great war-time Prime Minister (tight circumstances) but
considered less of a fit in peace time (loose environment). Different
behaviours and strategies were required.
In effect there are trade-offs. Bert’s
tight culture is better organized and more efficient than Ernie’s. People in
Bert’s environment have a strong desire to avoid mistakes yet are skillful at
impulse control according to Gelfand. But, Bert’s culture is less innovative
and generally less tolerant of the rights of women, gays, disabled and homeless
people, immigrants and others in the “out-group” than Ernie’s.
On the other hand, Ernie’s world is chaotic,
not as efficient and people are more impulsive (less attentive to social norms).
Unlike the extreme of Bert’s community, Ernie’s society is more inventive and
risk-taking, more comfortable with ambiguity and disorder, and more welcoming
of all different types of people.
What would Goldilocks
make of this? Not too much (constraint or freedom), not too little, just
right. Economists speak of our tendency to migrate to the mean for finding the
best-balanced solutions to our complex problems. Stanley McChrystal’s historical
leadership research underlines that bending style/decision making to best fit the
context is key. And, that adaptation to shifting circumstances is vital.
We’re in the midst of a recalibration of our social norms
worldwide. Factors such as globalism, widening inequality, demographic
disparities interfering with sustainable prosperity, the rule of law
encompassing the rights of all and more are challenging us to seek the
Goldilocks sweet spot over and over again.
Posts
