Them and Us: Differences That Aren't Really There

This simple distinction can undermine corporate culture, reinforce silos and derail strategy.  Here is an exploration of how unnecessary boundaries are formed and how they can be smashed down.

I am always chagrined when I visit different companies and witness what I call the “Them and Us” phenomenon.  What happens is that someone from one part of the company refers to another person or a group as “them” and to his own colleagues as “us”. 

This is subtle and often takes a trained ear to pick up on the subtext of what is being said.  I believe‑‑and various research seems to support—the notion that this peculiar way of referring to colleagues is actually at the root of organizational silos, conflict and much dysfunction, making collaboration and change not so easy.  So, I decided to peck away a little at why people see others as different and what that means to working together.

On a macro scale, the Them and Us phenomenon is universal and appears to be part of human nature.  We learn from recent anthropological research that a tribe’s internal ability to coalesce as an entity­­‑‑to internally define, bind, cooperate and nurture the tribe‑‑may give that group an evolutionary advantage.  Carried to a logical extreme, the more refined a group’s beliefs, values, culture, the more likely it is to succeed, and, along the way, to be distinctly different from other groups.  So far, so good.  We all need connection to a community for identity and affirming relationships.  On the other hand, we are also familiar with the ugly history of prejudice and discrimination‑‑the most public and political manifestation of viewing others as separate and different.  Ethnocentrism, colonialism, fascism, Jim Crowism and other historical manifestations all cast the Other as a target, while WE-US is righteous, noble, and guiltless.  One group becomes “better”, and the boundary between it and other groups is sharply defined in terms of positive and negative, good-bad, familiar-different, in-out, believers-non-believers and the like.  So, the seeds are sown for potential dysfunction.

In a contemporary organization, the difference between Them and Us is more nuanced and less primal.  Ask a salesperson what he or she thinks about working with a service delivery team, and you’ll hear “Oh, they’re great to work with. Very responsive, lovely,” and the like.  But when push comes to shove, that same salesperson may cut a self-centered deal with a client that will be an advantage for sales but leaves the service team to handle delivery specs that are challenging and even potentially unprofitable for them.  “That’s just the game of sales,” would be the sales person’s explanation.  “They are not into collaborating,” would be the service explanation.  Them-Us. 

Even members of the same team fall into this mindset.  The members on the West Coast are “them” and those at Headquarters are “us”.  Team members on a different floor in a building can become “them”, while people on “our” floor are “us”.  While it may appear to be an innocent reference, when you think about it, “them” reveals a distinction that really isn’t there. 

While it is natural to fall into this pattern of thinking, it is contrary to what it takes to be successful in a complex, global business.  Instead, the organizations I have worked with have aspired to become collaborative entities where talent and resources are leveraged cross-functionally and where cooperation and power-sharing can turn into increased value for customers.

Them-Us: The Insidious Source of Silos

Despite corporate goals and strategy built on collaborative initiatives, I find people having trouble breaking out of Them and Us thinking, perhaps because if they did lower their barricades, they would feel defenseless without their very own “Us” identity.  Why is this so?

In Changing Minds, Howard Gardner points out that we develop theories (explanations) about how things work that are resistant to change.  For example, sales people develop the assumption that making targets at all costs is everything and are rewarded accordingly.  If you’ve been in sales from the beginning of your career, that idea is, as Gardner puts it, “engraved in your mind.”  When operating with Them—a service delivery team in developing a proposal—sales people would tend to listen to other ideas but, without malice or deliberation, put the Other’s input in a lesser light.  The result is that these groups become “accidental adversaries”, a systems thinking archetype defined by Peter Senge in The Fifth Discipline and later by Jennifer Kemeny.  Accidental adversaries describes how partners can unintentionally undermine each other’s success.  These emotional attachments to Them and Us don’t respond to rational appeals for collaboration and cooperation.   “Us-ness”‑right or wrong‑is who we are.

At the corporate level, the result is silo-ism, the breaking apart of an organization into fiefdoms where the interface between groups is more conflict and stasis than a flow of ideas and productivity.  I recently came across a situation where the CEO of a multi-divisional organization chastised his highly experienced and well-paid direct reports—all division presidents—for “acting like children” when they consistently couldn’t let go of their “Us-ness” in resolving inter-group problems.  And that was happening in an organization where collaboration and cross-functional leveraging was a strategic premium.

When viewed in this light, the Them-and-Us phenomenon becomes a key player in corporate change and organizational climate.  I suggest it is the hidden molecule that comprises the various forms of resistance to change that we have all experienced.  Robert Kegan, in Immunity to Change, would call Them and Us a “hidden commitment” to big assumptions that help us maintain the status quo and remain impervious to change.  

What does this mean for leaders who struggle with strategically turning their businesses into “Cultures of Excellence” or who promote “Integrity, Cooperation, Compassion, Creativity” and the like?  Apparently, expectation setting from the highest level, explaining business plans and rationale, describing benefits—the usual armamentarium of change management—can only go so far.  The Them-Us phenomenon needs to be part of the strategic equation.

Eliminating Them-Us Dysfunction

Build a Performance Management System That Rewards Collaboration

One obvious and tactical remedy is to erase misalignment between goals and rewards, focusing on cross-functional accomplishments and team recognition.  Remove contradictory goals, all opportunities for gaming functional targets, replacing or augmenting them with outcome measures that reflect accomplishments achieved through cooperation.  If these targets are focused on improving the customer experience, each contributing function can claim a role.  That shifts the focus from what have “US” done to how have all our assets ‑‑all the “Us-es”‑‑ impacted our valued customers.  Not surprisingly, this is currently a hot-topic in education and health reform where integration of value is a clear direction.

Nurture Cross-Functional Capability in Individuals and Teams

Another approach is through capability-building.  Working effectively across an organization requires that an individual demonstrate an astute understanding of how the whole organization works, appreciate the pressures and aspirations of different functional areas, have a keen ability to apply influence and team skills that lead to problem-solving and progress.  These are sophisticated, “A” game-level skills, requiring a higher level of engagement and prerequisites like empathy, emotional intelligence, and confidence.  Developing these higher level skills or finding role models to emulate takes time and is on-going. 

Focus On the Mechanics of Working Together

Each cross-functional interaction involves key “moments of truth” when each party has to deliver on mutual expectations.  For example, when starting an IT project, certain information has to be exchanged, discussed and agreed upon for the work to begin efficiently.  How that meeting plays out in reality is a moment of truth:  If it is done well, each party experiences value from a useful and productive interface; if not, then inefficiency and trust issues prevail for the remainder of the project and beyond.  Mutually engineering this interaction with care has a huge dividend in dropping real or potential animosity between groups.

Lead From the Front

Probably the most powerful tool that can break through Them and Us is leadership.  When the head of an organization expects—no, demands—that silos come down and business units start cooperating, the cultural die is cast.  All it takes is demonstrable resolve.  Former GE CEO Jack Welch once reported one of his most difficult decisions was to terminate a high-level, high performer who wasn’t a team player.  The message is clear: the culture values teamwork and collaboration; Them and Us is over.  The lesson is that talking about the vision of a united culture and leveraging talent across the organization is a worthy and necessary leadership move.  However, imposing and driving organizational rules about how the culture will work and then enforcing those rules is the convincer to anyone who doubts what the leader wants. 

And Then There Are People-To-People Relationships

Absent that kind of dramatic demonstration of intent from the top, an individual contributor can take a personal leadership stand to understand the context their counterparts work in as a first step to collaboration.  Years of attitude research show that when people know and work closely with each other, their perception of the Other changes to the positive.  Creating personal relationships is a change multiplier and knocks down silos.

Of course, Them and Us will always be with us.  We need to associate with groups; it gives us uniqueness.  The challenge in organizations is to shift the “Us” from an insular business unit to the larger, united organization.  The goal is to build a company of multiple “Us-es”.  The challenge for individuals is to be aware of who they are labeling as “Them” and what that means to that relationship.  The goal is to establish relationships without prejudice.

Roots Of Interpersonal Conflict: Poor Process Turns Good People Into Enemies

T

he scene still sticks in my mind.  I was working with a company that had field and headquarters groups locked in what seemed like intractable conflict.  I was individually interviewing members of each group in a small, windowless conference room.  When it was their turn, I asked each one what the nature of the conflict was and what they thought was causing it.  I took careful notes.

After relating some predictable complaints about never having enough time or information, one interviewee, a young home office staffer, had the courage to say what was really on her mind.

“Look, the problem is that Marian [one of the field people] isn’t very nice,” said the honest soul.  “She’s a lot older than us, she doesn’t understand the database we use, doesn’t learn no matter how many time s we tell her, and she thinks we are all too young and inexperienced.  Basically, she looks down on us.”

“Really?”  I said.  “If there was someone else in the field besides Marian, you wouldn’t have the problems you mentioned?  It’s all about her?”

“Mostly, yes,” was the reply.

Was It All About Marian?

Eventually, I got a chance to have a heart-to-heart talk with Marian.  She was a veteran salesperson, who worked fairly independently, had an earlier career as a high school teacher, and was a very determined woman.

“I’m dealing with people who don’t understand the pressures I’m under, what my priorities are and what I need to do my job. They are typical inward-looking home office wonders.  This time around, they’re pretty green and concerned with making no mistakes from their end.  They point fingers at me all the time for asking them to fix problems I think they should fix.  Of course, they say it isn’t their job.  They have created a database that is impossible to work with.  They’re ridiculous.”

Perfect, I thought after I had heard from almost everyone.  Two groups who didn’t like each other.  In fact, they blamed each other for all sorts of problems.  What a delicious opportunity to give both sides a lesson in human reactions to organizational flaws.

I knew from experience that the trigger to interpersonal conflict like this is often the word “blame”.  “I blame him for making us miss our deadline.”  “He’s to blame because he just doesn’t care.”  “Who can work with people like that?   Blame them, not me.”  When I hear blame, I know the path to the solution with a high degree of certainty.

Follow The Blame

When individuals start blaming others, it is a sure sign that, most likely, there is something wrong, not with the people, but with the performance system they are working in.  Why? You have to begin by believing that most people, given the right tools and resources, direction and clarity, will do--and really want to do--a good job.  Remember the kind of best intentions they had on their first day of work? Almost everyone starts there.

In fact, think back on an interpersonal conflict you might have experienced with a an employee or one you observed as a co-worker.  Notice that most people—with a small number of obvious exceptions—don’t come to work with built-in conflicts with others, ready to be unleashed on their co-workers or bosses.  No, instead, the system creates disappointment for the worker that leads to the performance shortfall that results in blame.  So, the trajectory that results in people being blamed or in co-workers developing unproductive behaviors and attitudes usually starts when a well-intentioned worker finds the system he or she is working is has a built in frustration or flaw and that flaw is not immediately fixable.

For example, imagine an eager new employee who is being asked to perform a particular task, say, testing chemicals in a production process.  Things go fine as long as the testing process is exactly like the one the manager demonstrated.  However, when the manager goes to a two-day conference and the production process changes, the testing procedure soon presents challenges that go beyond the new employee’s inchoate level of skill.  When the manager returns to find many batches incorrectly rejected, the new employee gets—worst case—chewed out for making so many mistakes.  “I thought you knew how to do this.”  “I wasn’t sure about how to do the procedure with the new chemical.”  “You should have looked it up.”  “Where?”  “In the manual. What’s the matter with you?” “What manual?”

Planting Emotional Seeds

And so it goes. Now, the new employee goes home with a notch or two less enthusiasm for the job.  “My boss should have told me.”  The manager thinks she will have to keep a close watch on the new employee because, well, he has slipped up. Both sides have the seeds planted for a blame-filled future.  Add a few more incidents where the new employee doesn’t perform and blames the manager, and the manager becomes frustrated with the once-engaged employee, and you have a perfect storm of interpersonal conflict.  No longer eager, the hurt employee could—depending on that person—snipe behind the manager’s back, look for excuses, cut corners.  You know what happens next.  The animosity grows and pretty soon people really are starting to hurt each other.  All of this unfolding because the boss didn’t tell the new person where the manual was!

Performance System Failure

What fails when performance doesn’t meet expectations is the performance system that surrounds the employee.  Blame that for not working, not the people.  The good news is that the performance system can be fixed, sometimes very easily, without much cost or effort.

I always start the fixing phase by getting the antagonists in the same room.  The ground rules are that we are looking for what has failed, and our premise is that it isn’t the people.  Then, I ask them to name the kinds of processes that link them together, and I list these on a flip chart.  In the case of the home office-field situation, there was a sales process, a reporting process, and some information exchange processes.  We start with a single process and go through it step by step.  What happens first, then what, what do you do next.  At each step along the way, I probe to see what might have failed. It is usually one of the following:

• The tools (forms, systems, manuals) are not working effectively, are out of date or unavailable/inaccessible.

·       People aren’t sure of the process—it hasn’t been mutually defined.  Or, the process leaves out important steps.  People are working with an inadequate procedure.

·       There is a skill deficiency—a person hasn’t been taught properly or isn’t current. They haven’t been trained or educated to proficiency in the skill.  Or, they haven’t done the skill in a long time.

·       The resources in the environment are insufficient—unrealistic time or budget, inadequate facilities, poor lighting, uncomfortable and insensitive human factors (no privacy, ambiance)

·       There are often no consequences for near-miss, off-standard performance. People learn to perform to a sub-standard, rather than the high standard required. The person doesn’t receive clear feedback that would improve, correct and raise performance. People aren’t involved in discussions about how to achieve higher results.

·       Expectations for performance—standards and quality—have not been communicated to the performer by anyone, particularly the manager, and they don’t get regular feedback on their performance—corrective as well as rewards. The performer doesn’t know what good looks like.

A flaw in any one of these components of the performance system can cause both the outcomes and the work process to fail.  In my experience, the sources of problems that come up most frequently as the cause of interpersonal conflicts are—way down at the root cause level--inadequately defined processes and poor tools provided.

Blame Poor Process and Tools

This becomes crystal clear when you ask both parties involved in a conflict if they are getting what they need to do their work at each step in the process.  For example, one party is not getting information they need because the form being used by the other person providing the information asks for too much data, most of which isn’t available in a timely manner.  So, the person filling out the form waits until the information is complete, then sends the form.  The person who needs the information is angry because it is late, blaming the provider.

If instead of this reaction, both parties could take an objective look at what is happening, they would see the problem was the work form.  The answer is simple: re-design the form, make it two-parts with urgent information coming first and the late-breaking information second.  When the source of the conflict becomes apparent, and both parties are involved in fixing it, the conflict is over.

What can you take away from this short discourse on interpersonal conflict?

·       Conflict between people is very often rooted in a flawed performance system which links their work together.

·       Blame is a sure sign the system is broken.  Usually, most of the time, people aren’t the cause.  However, it seems to be human nature to blame people first. Beware.

·       Blame escalates into performance problems of all kinds. The result is disgruntled workers and, eventually, customer-service issues.  Interpersonal conflict may go well beyond the initial cause and lead to person to person enmity.  Objectively finding the true root cause may be difficult if it’s gone that far.

·       The solutions to interpersonal conflict come through the process of closely reviewing procedures.  Can each party articulate what has to be done?  Does the process make sense? Do they have the tools and skills to do it well?  Do they know what is expected? Does sub-performance pass as adequate?

Bottom line: It is a leader’s job to know this. People who work together to resolve their issues with each other in this way wind up changing their perceptions of and attitudes about each other.