The Subtribe
Apr 7th, 2009 by David Svet
Our last blog post prompted my friend Mark Van Baale to ask, “What happens when tribes belong to the same organization and don’t get along?” Ah yes, the dreaded silos of the corporate world. What should we call tribes within the tribe — subtribes? What should we call their dysfunctional behavior — subtribical behavior?
When we digress from, “all for one and one for all,” to us versus them, we have a problem. In the office, this is generally a turf war — a battle over money, recognition, and resources, just like any other tribal conflict. Let’s look at what happens with Schmookler’s four possible outcomes when a subtribe is threatened by a potent and ambitious neighbor.
Withdrawal — Is isolation a healthy alternative for the organization as a whole? Maybe. It depends on the source of the conflict. In the office, withdrawal could be achieved through telecommuting. It shifts resources to a remote location controlled by the telecommuter. It could also be achieved with remote locations for the subtribes. Each location is free to develop its own culture and maintain some level of autonomy. Although this reminds me of the times Mom separated me from my sister and made us each sit on our side of the car seat — subtribical, but effective.
Destruction — Is this the politically incorrect way to say right-size? I think so. With regard to subtribes it would end badly for one department or the other.
Transformation — Is this just another way to say re-org? Yup. If the dispute is over money, recognition, or resources it will be resolved through transformation. One, both, or all parties will have to change in order to reach an amicable solution.
Imitation — This could have a few different outcomes. In the corporate domain of subtribes this could be seen as redundancy, which is ultimately fatal. It could also serve to simply perpetuate the problem with both parties tramping on one another’s turf.
So, in the corporate jungle, subtribal conflict may have more options for resolution available than tribal conflict in the real world. Where transformation is the only viable means of resolution in real world conflict, withdrawal seems that it may work in the office. What do you think? How does your subtribe get along?
Internal strife in a company between divisions or departments often leads to what I call a “corporate hairball.” A corporate hairball is: “Entangled pattern of behavior or a mess of bureaucratic procedure that discourages originality and stifles imagination.”
Once again, provocative. I like Mark’s definition of “corporate hairball” and have worked and volunteered for organizations that embrace corporate hairball. It’s not only corporations with silos, many nonprofits and organizations have sacred cows of well-worn “this is how we always do it” guards. Those organizations enjoy status quo and never want to be seen as leaders that invite and welcome innovation and greatness. Who wants to be status quo/average in this day? Doesn’t work for auto companies, banks, newspapers and entrepreneurs. Won’t work for tribes either! Take me to your “heretic tribe leader” with vision, fresh ideas and plans to attack status quo.
Hello, World!
Interesting material