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
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.
