5
The Benefits of Group Play

How familiar are you with this scene, or a variation of it?

Tom and Billy, ages 2 or 3, are happily playing side by side and virtually ignoring one another, a fairly common form of “parallel play” at this age. Suddenly, for whatever reason, Tom decides that he “needs” the truck that Billy is playing with and snatches it away. Tears ensue. Sometimes a brawl. The truck may or may not be used as a weapon. Even if no one is bruised, neither child is happy. Suddenly an adult steps in, breaks up the argument, and says, “You have to learn to share.” (This scenario works with girls and their toys as well.)

Although that may quell the argument for a moment, don’t be surprised if Billy and Tom have no idea what to do with this directive, at least initially, and will probably look at each other confusedly and go back to what they were doing. Their attention will have shifted, but they are not relating to one another.

Developmentally, children still see themselves in isolation at this age and have no idea how to relate to others. When they get slightly older, perhaps around age 4, they may engage in what’s called “associative play,” in which both children are playing independently but engaged in the same activity, whether trucks or dress-up or whatever.

It is only later that children begin to play cooperatively, at ages 4 or 5. This begins to occur because at that age their development has progressed to the point where they are verbal, able to communicate likes and dislikes, and able to share ideas and begin to experience benefits of playing with other children.

The process for children from seeing themselves in isolation to seeing themselves in the context of a group is a developmental process that evolves as they gain abilities. Yet it is also one that has to be taught. In other words, though children may, in fact, become more inclined to interact in a group setting, they must also be socialized to do so within the context of the culture they live in. For example, there may be specific rules governing the interaction between boys and girls, between children and adults, and so forth. As in all cultural learning, what is explicitly told to children and modeled for them are the patterns and practices they are most likely to adopt.

It’s important to understand the interaction of physical and mental development in concert with socialization as the central elements of developing effective—and productive—group play. With children, it takes a lot of engagement. For instance, in the conflict scenario previously described, unless the adult remains involved in the ongoing interaction and demonstrates or describes what is appropriate behavior, the conflict may stop, but that doesn’t mean anything has been learned. We often observe that after an admonition to “play nice,” the conflict is stopped, and for all intents and purposes, the intervention will have been considered a success. However, it’s important here to note that stopping conflict is not the same as achieving a resolution. There has been no, for want of a better word, systemic change, and it’s likely that the scene with Billy and Tom will repeat again.

Why?

Because there is no clear, positive incentive for them to change their behavior other than in the short term. In other words, only when Billy or Tom perceives that the individual benefit he will derive from sharing, and by extension engaging in a group, is greater than the benefit of repeating a previous action will he have a motivation to change. (Of course, there are variables that make one child more likely to share than another, but the basic principle is unchanged.)

Thus, if Billy and Tom ultimately begin to share effectively, it can be assumed that they are doing it out of self-interest. Over time and as a result of experience, the child begins to understand sharing in a larger context and develops the capability to determine when to share, or when not to. This sharing is the fundamental component of group play, and it’s critical to creating an integrated child who functions effectively within a social structure. There are some assumptions in this, notably that we are dealing with an emotionally stable child who is beginning to develop a set of healthy boundaries.

Whether or not sharing is innate or learned, at least as relates to preschool children, has been the subject of a variety of different studies with differing conclusions. Some recent studies conclude that children will naturally engage in sharing without intervention from a very young age when there is a tangible, emotional, or otherwise identifiable reward associated with that sharing. This certainly makes us feel better about our natures, doesn’t it?

These studies also seem to challenge the conventional wisdom that humans are intrinsically selfish and need to be socialized into considering others. The flaw with these studies, whatever they conclude, however, is the inability to control for other influences on a child such as personality or the home environment. As with many studies dealing with children (and adults, for that matter), it’s impossible to eliminate all external influences and get an unalloyed result, no matter how big your sample is. To do this, one would have to create a human being raised with no outside stimuli who could only be used for one study before he or she was compromised. You’d be right to think this sounds like some kind of dystopian, science fiction scenario. In other words, we’re never going to be able to demonstrate empirically and unequivocally where sharing comes from. Better yet, for our purposes it doesn’t really matter.

In fact, let’s assume for our purposes that even if a predisposition to share is an inherent human trait, effective sharing and group play is a learned behavior. Moreover, it’s something that needs to be practiced over time. Essentially, Billy and Tom have to learn how to share, why they should, and what’s in it for them individually.

Let’s take the previous hypothetical situation one step further and suppose that over time, after their first interaction around age 2, Tom and Billy become best friends and as they get a little older discover the pleasures of interactive, associative play. As noted, this is something that usually occurs naturally as kids develop and find themselves interacting with others. Around the age of 4 or 5, kids begin to acknowledge others, are influenced by them in their play, and at the same time discover they can influence others. This is also the time when kids are starting to separate from parents and begin developing an individual identity, which finds expression in co-play.

At this point, the sharing begins to have evident, direct, and tangible social and psychological benefits, so—no surprise—kids jump on it. From this point on sharing and interaction become essential parts of play and interaction, and, significantly, children begin to develop a sense of themselves as individuals and as individuals within the context of a group. Sharing, group interaction, and by extension, not sharing become some of the ways that children exert power both for themselves and over others. I’m guessing you can see where this is going.

Before we get there, however, let’s take a look at the benefits of group play:

•    Trust.

•    Interaction.

•    Companionship.

•    Common purpose.

•    Support.

Trust

Before Tom is going to let Billy play with his truck willingly, he has to believe that giving up his total control of the truck and allow another person to have part of that control is going benefit him. This is a tough concept for preschool kids, and as is trust in adults, it’s developed over time. When the outcomes are consistently positive, and the payoffs of fun and companionship are present, sharing becomes pleasurable.

If, on the other hand, Tom shares the truck with Billy and Billy takes it away, conflict is inevitable. Tom feels violated and may have a hard time sharing with others in the future. As difficult as this is, it’s an important milestone for kids, however, because they begin to learn discernment of who they can count on and who they can’t.

Interaction

Interaction is a key component of group play and sharing, precisely because there are other people in the process. How effectively kids interact with others, their success at those interactions and the context of behavior and perception they build as a result of those interactions is both formative in terms of personality development and essential in terms of negotiating play and school lives.

In the past 15 years, really since about 1999 with the advent of a lot of reading toys, there has been a great deal of emphasis placed on the knowledge that kids have when they enter kindergarten. This is a follow-up to various fashions regarding kids “reading” at a very early age or being able to demonstrate some other level of academic accomplishment. This even extended to the now-debunked notion that playing classical music to newborns or babies in the womb somehow facilitated more sophisticated brain development.

When I was entering preschool, one had to be able to dress oneself, be toilet trained, and know one’s name. Though that may be a simplification for effect, today’s kids are required to know the alphabet, basic numbers, and other academic subjects as a criterion for entering school.

However important in later school life this fundamental knowledge is, kindergarten is essential for kids to begin to negotiate and understand the group setting and to begin to build that foundation of successful interaction that is essential to living in a group-based society. This is one of the primary objectives of kindergarten, for kids to begin to develop the basic disciplines of being in a classroom setting, of learning in digestible amounts, and practicing behaviors they’ll need in the primary grades. In blunt terms, the role of kindergarten is to tame kids so they’ll be able to function in the school environment.

And that means learning to interact effectively. As kids become socialized into groups outside their families, they begin to learn the value of interaction with others, notably a peer group where they are, to some extent, on an equal footing in terms of power—versus a parent who controls virtually everything in their lives at that age. From common interests to joint creativity and problem-solving, kids begin to see themselves and their capabilities in a larger context.

Interaction also helps kids understand roles and boundaries as well as the multiple hierarchies they have to negotiate in groups and what’s appropriate in each one. And of course, coping with different personalities. Learning how to negotiate these interactions for desired outcomes doesn’t come naturally. Kids need to be socialized into appropriate interaction with one another. Kids don’t inherently understand that what might be okay at home might not be at school, for instance.

This is essentially the message of the 1963 children’s classic Where the Wild Things Are. If you haven’t read it in a while, it’s probably a good thing to pick up again and read with an adult’s eyes. Originally banned because it showed a child behaving badly, it is now an established staple of children’s literature. The hero, Max, after acting out and being sent to his room, imagines himself in a new world, where he is a major figure of fun and freedom. Ultimately, however, he discovers that in this world he is quite literally out of context and returns home to a hot supper and the embrace of his mother. As part of learning to be in a group, whether a family or a class, once they begin to understand the structural function of the group, children need to challenge that structure in order to fully understand where they fit in. Good parents and teachers allow kids to do this when they are causing no harm to themselves or others.

Learning to interact in the larger context, as with trust, helps children build a frame of reference for interpreting what goes on around them and also for understanding themselves in the context of a group or a relationship.

Companionship

Every social structure—family, school, office—thrives on interaction. One of the benefits of group play and sharing is always companionship. Whether it’s the reinforcement of the like-minded or the challenges of someone who has a different opinion, companionship is one of the ways we create a circle of people we trust and we come to rely on.

In business, this is often called our network, and it’s essential not just for when we need help with a job hunt or to get something done. Obviously, no one wants to go through things alone; that’s part of human nature. Companionship helps reduce stress and gain perspective as well as reinforces one’s identity either in one-to-one relationships or within a group.

Common Purpose

This is central to any effectively functioning group. For children, this can be a play scenario in which they have to cooperate to accomplish something. It can be a team, a choir, or virtually anything undertaken by two or more people. Children and young people who function well in groups all share one common trait: They are able to focus on the group objective rather than their own needs.

To effectively function in this type of environment, kids need to have a sense of themselves as individuals, and they need appropriate communication skills. At the same time, they also work best when there are clear objectives and they understand how their participation contributes to the whole. And one other thing about group work: Kids are very concerned about fairness, particularly as it relates to their willingness to put their personalities aside for the benefit of the group. This is a huge step for kids in their development that usually happens by around age 6, and it becomes an essential part of any of the collaborative learning process in most schools and later in business.

Support

The value of support is obvious, but it’s important to define it as a component of group dynamics. When most people think of support with relation to kids and play, they think of validation—cheerleading or giving encouragement or positive feedback, or building self-esteem. It’s all of that too, but support the way I’m using it here is not the altruistic commentary from someone outside the group (a parent, teacher, or friend, for instance), which is not always useful and sometimes is more effective at salving hurt feelings than anything more productive.

Support, as we define it, is an organic element of the group dynamic that helps the group to be more successful as a whole. In a group play context, support is about identifying and using the capabilities of the individual group members to achieve the common purpose. A great placekicker has a different set of skills than a linebacker, for example, but both of them are essential to the success of the team. In the few years that I danced, my best skill was that I could do the lifts. No one was going to look at me over the leading dancers, but I served a greater function to the group as a whole. We are not all equally gifted or even proficient, but the combination of capabilities in a group setting can be very powerful and make for an effective group.

Children learn in group play, always assuming that they are first aligned on common purpose, several critical lessons. First, they learn to assess their own skills in the context of a group and related to an objective. Second, they learn to assess the skill of others as related to the objective. And finally they learn to categorize these skills based on their observations. Combined with observations of behavior and interactions within the group, children are beginning to lay the foundation for cooperative interaction that they will need for any group situation in their lives. Effectively participating in a group gives children the opportunity to understand what they do best and bring it to the group, which in a group play situation can become very empowering for the child, especially when that knowledge is generated organically as a result of the group interaction.

Other Benefits of Group Play

As noted, the most productive group play for children is that which occurs without the supervision of an adult. Indeed, the presence of an adult, whether it’s an expert or someone to monitor behavior, changes the dynamic entirely and undermines the value of the play. The focus shifts from a group dynamic to a group following one person. Adults usually think that they are doing what’s best for kids by teaching them important skills or keeping the peace, and those are important. At the same time, it’s also important for a group to create its own identity without that overarching influence. It’s no surprise, as we’ve discussed in the section on story, that the groups of children in literature—from Hogwarts to Narnia and beyond—need to function without the direct involvement of an adult.

The skills children learn in this situation are critical. One of the aspects of group play that is shortchanged when there is one arbiter or teacher is that the group tends not to be self-policing. This is a critical skill because learning to operate effectively within a peer group, and its dynamics and hierarchies are essential components of effective socialization. In terms of social development, the transition from parental control to functioning within a group is absolutely critical—and another one of the functions of kindergarten and early classroom education. Respect for peers, listening, assessing, and all of these life skills are critical because, at least hopefully, an integrated adult is going to have to function in groups for the majority of his or her life, and there are going to be many more peers with whom you will have to successfully interact than there are parents or parental figures, simplistic as that sounds.

In 1998, a card game called Pokémon became a phenomenal fad with grade- and middle-school children. Having certain cards became a kind of currency among kids, and trading these cards became a popular schoolyard activity. Children of this age, however, may not be the smartest negotiators and trades sometimes got out of hand, with “trader’s remorse” setting in and feelings getting hurt. This led many schools to ban the cards and trading.

At the height of this fraught and feverish frenzy in 1999, I was talking to a parent whose son was distraught at having traded away a prized Charizard (one of the characters) card for cards that he ultimately thought had less value. In other words, he had made what, on reflection, he considered to be a bad decision. The school and other parents were adamant that the father reverse the trade. He refused; his son was beside himself, and the parents and teachers were upset. When I asked him why he refused to reverse the trade, he said, “A kid makes only one bad trade in his life. Better it should be this.” This is, in my opinion, good parenting. Others may be outraged that their child had to experience frustration and disappointment as the result of his or her actions, but this is one of the prime functions of group play. The father’s son had to come to terms with the consequences of his actions and continue to function within the peer group, and was smarter, one hopes, for it. These are things that can’t be taught; they can only be experienced. All of us have events in our childhood like this that we can recall, and it can be an interesting exercise to trace that forward to your behavior or point of view today on that topic. When adults step in and try to rescue kids from negative feelings or consequences, they are basically robbing children of the opportunity to resolve the situation in themselves and go on. And they are only postponing the inevitable learning, which will have to happen at some point or other.

There is a lot of coverage of “helicopter parenting” and even “dive-bomber parenting,” which keeps the parents involved in the minutiae of a child’s life. At one point in 2006, I worked with a company that had a salesperson who called her father every time she had a setback. I’ve received calls from the parents of young people being considered for jobs. The temptation is always to be critical of this because “I wasn’t like that when I was their age.” Could there be anything more counter-productive? Doubtful. It’s the reality of today’s culture, and you’re going to have to deal with it.

But it does mean, particularly if you’re a Baby Boomer or someone who takes a more classically military approach to business, that you may have to adjust your management style. You may need to provide more feedback, more encouragement, and validation to understand the mindset and experience of people who were raised to get feedback and response constantly.

Group Play in Business

Whatever your function within a business, if you ever have to interact with more than one person, you’re going to be faced with dealing with a group, and that means dealing with the many different personalities, issues, subtexts, and politics that are endemic in any kind of group activity.

Over the years, we observed characteristics of effective groups of all sizes in companies of all sizes. Groups that are subsets of groups overlap with other groups, and so on. Group play, on an adult level, is one of the defining characteristics of the contemporary company. Here are the components we consistently find make for the most effective and functioning business groups.

Respect

If you’re trying to build or participate in an effective group, it’s imperative that you respect the other members of the group. Although this seems incredibly obvious, it doesn’t always happen in business environments. Groups, especially those that work together over time, tend to become a bit like families. That is, people make their assessments about the individuals, judge them, and either accept or discard ideas based on those judgments. This is human nature. Our biological programming is designed to make these determinations, and they’re hard to stop. Your system is trying to tell you where you sit in the power structure, what the hierarchy is, who to mate with, who to eat. This is all programmed into our reptile brains, and you can’t help it. This is both a good and a bad thing. On the positive side, you have an inherent ability to size people up based on observation and experience, which allows you to interact successfully with others based on this. On the negative side, we can either give too much power to people or discount them based on these judgments. In either scenario, this potentially unbalances the group dynamic, which ultimately can make the work more difficult. Fortunately, as mentioned previously, human beings also have the ability to override these reptilian proclivities, an ability that one assumes evolved specifically to help us survive and thrive within groups. In fact, one of the things we often tell people in companies is to leave their egos at the door. Don’t take things too personally (always excepting egregious and obvious abuse, which is never acceptable) and try to assume that others want things to work as much as you do. This last note is important because in all the years of working with companies and interviewing individuals, we have yet to find someone who doesn’t want to do a good job. Their personalities or skills may not be a match for the company or the project, but we have yet to find someone who doesn’t want to do a good job.

You don’t have to like someone to work effectively with them, though it can make for a more pleasant work environment. You do, however, need to respect what they bring to the table and their different skills. This is easiest when a group has a clearly defined common purpose, as we’ll discuss.

Appreciate Differences in Thinking Processes

As noted, groups work most effectively when diverse skills and talents are understood and employed to achieve the common purpose. Over and above professional skills and experience, which hopefully complement one another in a group setting, it’s important to realize that there are different thought processes inherent to each individual. Children have different play styles and learning styles, and that doesn’t change as we get older. The challenge, especially for managers, is to determine these in each of your team members, and effectively balance and leverage them.

One of the best examples of the type of business where this difference is pronounced is the marketing or advertising agency. We’ve worked with many of them throughout the years, and they all have a very specific divide: creatives and account management. These can be contentious relationships for many reasons, but we believe that the prime cause is different ways of thinking—divergent and convergent.

In her book, Sex, Lies & Creativity, Julia Roberts describes the brain chemistry of divergent versus convergent thinking. It’s an accessible description of a sophisticated process, and it’s reassuring to know that this is part of who we are. In practice, however, it’s something that needs to be addressed and accounted for managing and participating in a group.

Simply put, divergent thinkers, as the name implies, tend to consider issues broadly. They are often more conventionally creative in that they have an ability to consider many different factors in coming up with solutions. These are the people who in brainstorming meetings come up with the off-the-wall ideas because they are able to see similarities and relationships, however subtle, between diverse (hence, divergent) elements and ideas. They want the freedom to freely associate without structure and see where their ideas take them and consider all kinds of options, even some that might seem farfetched. You want these people on your team because they are the ones who will push the envelope and help push concepts to the next level.

Convergent thinkers, on the other hand, are more methodical and structural in their thinking. Again, we’re simplifying, but these individuals want to take an established set of data or information and synthesize it into one concrete and defensible solution.

As you might imagine, when you put these two different types of thinkers together in a room, you’re likely to have conflict. Each side is frustrated with the other and convinced that their way is correct. The fact of the matter is, though, both are essential. The divergent thinker feels constrained and limited by the convergent thinker, and the convergent thinker thinks the divergent thinker is all over the map and not focused on finding the “right” answer.

As mentioned, this conflict in thinking styles is most evident in agencies or situations where creative people and project managers have to work together on a daily basis, but it happens in virtually every kind of business. Moreover, these ways of thinking exist on a spectrum. An outstanding creative director, for example, is probably near the middle between these two types of thinking. He or she is most able to negotiate between the people who are further out toward their respective ends of the spectrum. In order to be effective and productive, a group needs both types of thinkers. You need the creative ideas, but you also need to implement them.

A well-functioning group can appreciate these differences and leverage them to their advantage. However, one of the best tips we have for people who need to function in a group is that when you’re feeling frustrated with how someone is approaching an issue, that’s a good time to take a step back and try to realize how the person you’re annoyed with is approaching the problem. As with kids, an effective group is also self-policing and can identify when different skills are needed. We see this consistently in brainstorming sessions, and it’s a good model to follow. The convergent thinkers (usually account management) lay out the challenge and the objectives, then step back and let the divergent thinkers (copywriters, art directors, producers) have at it. The convergent thinkers bring it all back to earth, the divergents embellish, and you’re off to the client. This is no different from when kids draw on each other’s talents to build the best possible solution.

I know this probably sounds obvious and even a bit simplistic, but when you strip away the personalities and politics that often influence the other dynamics of a group, it is simple, but it requires a willingness to, in the language of adolescents, get over yourself.

Common Purpose

You can also call common purpose “clear objectives,” but what seems on the surface to be one of the most obvious components of any group is also one of the most often shortchanged, and this is true whether a group is convening for a meeting or a long-term project.

The group needs to be in agreement about what its goals are, or inevitably chaos ensues, perhaps not immediately (which might actually be a good thing to get you back on track) but inevitably, and the group will not be productive. At the same time, every smaller group must have a common purpose that serves the larger objectives of the company, or why create the group in the first place? Again, sounds simplistic, but too often we see companies that confuse action with accomplishment, as I like to say. We see this particularly in large companies. For example, the PR department of a large company recently planned an event for one of its flagship brands. It was a press event during a trade show, and a group was assembled from various parts of the company to plan logistics, creative materials, invitations, guest lists, and so forth. With a budget upward of $200K for a 3-hour event, it was a significant undertaking. The purpose of the group was to get the event designed and implemented. They achieved their objective.

However, there was one hitch: Nobody ever asked whether or not this was going to achieve the larger brand objectives, and did the appropriate analysis, before forming the group and setting off on the process. It was only later, with 3 weeks to go before the event, that senior management became aware that no one outside the brand team and other members of the company at the trade show were going to attend. The event was canceled because the finance group was able to determine that the cost of canceling was significantly less. Because the company was under scrutiny for its spending by Wall Street analysts at the time, this was the better course. It’s important to note that the party planning group did nothing wrong. Rather, by all criteria they succeeded in terms of timing and budget. The problem was that no one asked the question as to whether this served larger company objectives at the time and for the cost involved.

Your common purpose is the benchmark against which you measure everything you do. It provides the checks and balances and the basis for analysis of ideas and actions to the extent possible, and as the example illustrates, in the context of your larger business objectives. In practice, your common purpose facilitates decision-making and focused action. If, as with an online company we worked with, the goal of a group was to increase traffic from a specific demographic, everything was reviewed with an eye toward that, as well as what the contribution of increasing participation of that demographic could mean to the company as a whole. Though there are never any guarantees that anything will work in business given all the inevitable variables, this clear focus means that it’s easy to cull ideas that are off topic or would waste time. Just like the child who drops something when it doesn’t work, assessing concepts against a common purpose lets you get on to the more productive play, as it were.

When setting a common purpose, or objectives, for your group, it’s also important to define what success will look like and how you will determine that. Some results will be statistically quantifiable, which will please the convergent thinkers. These apply to outcomes that are specifically measurable, such as sales, traffic, customer turnover, and so forth. Others, however, may be a little more intangible, such as customer satisfaction or other squishy data that’s virtually impossible to measure in isolation and for which there are no foolproof measurement methodologies.

It’s important in what I’m calling “squishy data” areas to create meaningful benchmarks and not rush to apply metrics to everything. Too often we see numbers used as a defense or a validation, but does anyone ask what those numbers mean? Are the hours employees spend on the job an accurate measure of productivity? Can you correlate the number of people who attend an event or see a YouTube video to increased sales? Probably not, because your audience is so diverse.

Speaking of, nowhere do we see metrics being misapplied more than in the world of social media. Yes, more and more people are watching YouTube, and many kids are watching more YouTube than broadcast TV in terms of hours. So lots of companies are pouring lots of money into trying to make videos that will “go viral.” That’s definitely a definable common purpose, but is it meaningful for your larger business objectives? If your goal is to build viewers, sure. If you’re trying to sell product, it’s not as clear.

For example, even when those videos are related to toys, as many are with the high popularity of “unboxing” videos (literally, people taking toys or other products out of boxes—go figure) in 2015, those numbers are not a reliable predictor of sales because many more kids watch those videos for the entertainment value than because they want the toys. This is great for the YouTube personalities, but we see many toy companies correlating views to demand. They in turn promote that to the retailers, who buy larger quantities, and in many cases end up stuck with product. This is just one example of how isolated metrics are not sufficient for projecting an outcome. But it’s very common. Hey, you can tell your bosses, “We had 5 million views on YouTube; we all thought this was going to be big.”

The other problem with developing a common purpose occurs when the stated purpose is not the real purpose. We see this happen primarily in small, entrepreneurial companies that are headed by someone with a forceful personality. This is more like the group of kids with an adult expert or teacher than a functioning, productive group as we’ve been describing it here, although it does occur, and for the sake of your career—and at times your sanity—you need to be aware of it. The stated purpose of the group, or the company, may be to grow sales or be successful in a specific industry, but in practice the real common purpose is to gratify the ego and the changing directions of the person who’s really running the show. This is a person who, whatever else he or she might say, is not really interested in forming a functioning company, let alone groups within that company, but rather is so convinced that his way is right that it frustrates everyone who works for the company, unless they are happy to serve that particular master and accept the limitations that come with it.

I worked with a senior manager who had been relocated to take a job in such a company. He had an impressive track record of building sales, established success in the business, and was asked to come on board to take the company to the next level. Promises of a presidency and even a future CEO position and equity in the company all proved too good to resist. However, the reality turned out to be something else entirely. The company was providing the owner with a significant income, the investments the new executive wanted were denied, and he found himself at the mercy of someone with no boundaries who would call at all hours, insist on travel at a moment’s notice, shake up departments without consulting the person who was supposedly in charge, and change directions and cancel products even as production was about to start. For this particular executive, who happens to be a fairly strong convergent thinker, this was madness.

Moreover, in talking with the people who had been at this company a while, they were complacent and not looking for change. Their common purpose, in a small Midwestern town, was to keep their jobs and not make waves. You know, there’s nothing wrong with that, and working at that company afforded many of those people a lifestyle they were comfortable with. However, for our executive, who was more ambitious and was aiming for a C-suite job, his attempts to shake the place up and put it on a more traditional growth path never got anywhere. In fact, he faced a political challenge and pushback from day one—which is exactly what happens when the real common purpose is unstated, obscure, or something else entirely from what one thinks it is.

This is why in business, developing a common purpose is a bit more complex than children saying “Let’s build a fort” or some such. But its effect on the outcome of any project is just as real. Once the fort is the stated objective, anything that doesn’t contribute to its construction should be jettisoned. In business, of course, the process includes a lot more analysis, but once developed, anything that doesn’t contribute to the construction of that metaphoric fort probably has no place in the process. It is important, before we leave this topic, to distinguish the difference between flexibility and common purpose. If the common purpose is the overarching goal, flexibility is essential to an ability to adjust courses as new information is available. Just as each component of the fort needs to be considered for whether or not it contributes to the successful structure, so must each action in the course of a project considered.

And one last note on this: Don’t be afraid to be the kid in the back of the minivan who asks, “Why are we doing this again?” The kid who drives the parent crazy can be the person who keeps the enterprise on track.

Civility and Manners

Yes, we’re going there. To a certain extent, this is a subset of respect discussed previously. However, whereas respect is largely a mindset, behavior is how that respect—or the lack thereof—gets expressed. To say it another way, you may say you respect someone, but if you treat them badly or rudely, that’s difficult to believe. And though this might seem like it has no place in business, it certainly does.

When people do or say heartless or rude things in business, they often excuse it by saying, “It’s not personal.” That may be true to a certain extent. It’s possible for one company to take over another without any personal animosity, even if it’s a hostile takeover. It’s possible to realize that one has to cut a workforce by X percent without feeling as though you’re attacking individuals. Those are clearly business decisions with no human dynamics involved.

But in a group, in an office, in day-to-day interactions, the “it’s just business” defense doesn’t fly because you are dealing person to person. And people have feelings and responses and so forth, so any interpersonal interaction, no matter how rational the subject matter is, by its very definition is personal.

When I was first starting out in business, rudeness and vulgarity were much more commonplace than they are now. It was distasteful but accepted. It was a little more advanced than the “Mad Men” era, but not so much. I worked in one office where people were routinely subjected to yelling, personal attacks, and statements like “You’re an idiot,” or worse. When I became a manager, I had a boss who on my performance reviews consistently told me I wasn’t “mean enough” to my direct reports, who he believed would be more productive if they lived in fear that they were going to lose their jobs. It wasn’t in my nature to be that way, and my people all thrived—many of whom I’m still close to—and I always heard my grandmother in my ear saying, “You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.”

Fortunately in the ensuing decades, the culture has changed, and abusive behavior is no longer accepted or permitted in business, but that’s not to say the problem has disappeared entirely, and we still observe and hear about uncivil behavior in businesses.

When I’ve confronted managers about why they were rude to an employee, I usually get one of three responses. Either they deny being rude and were focused on getting something done urgently, they didn’t think about it, or there was no need to treat a person at a lower level well. At the very least, this is shortsighted, and especially in a group setting in a business can backfire. After all, when we invest so much time teaching our children to be polite and expecting them to be so—at least for those who do—why would we not afford the same courtesy to those around us as adults? For many it’s a power play or for others, as noted, they don’t see the benefit to them.

But let’s take a look at this. Think about the people with whom you’ve worked and the people for whom you’ve been willing to go the extra mile. Chances are they are people who have treated you well and respectfully. You don’t mind going out of your way for someone if they treat you well and show appreciation, because you feel validated and are eager to reciprocate the good treatment.

So, far from being superfluous or unnecessary or a waste of time, civility is a strategic career choice, and a whole lot more pleasant.

My very first job in New York was as the secretary to a C-suite executive. I shared an office with two other secretaries, who worked for the other two executives up there. The guy I worked for was incredibly affable and always very considerate. When he needed something, he’d come to my desk or buzz me to come into his office. He was always very cordial and made sure I understood what was needed. In the 10 months or so I worked for him, we never had a cross word, and I was more than willing to run personal errands and help hide things from his wife (it was the ’70s) as a co-conspirator of sorts. It was fun. One of the other execs in our little area used to bark at his secretary without getting up from the desk, threw things on her desk, and generally treated her more as a servant than a co-worker. I don’t think my boss spent any more time with me than his colleague did his secretary, but the effect was palpable. I happily stayed late or came in on a weekend, while my colleague never did anything outside of what was required. And why should she have?

No one has ever done a study to confirm it (and I doubt a pure study could be constructed to prove it empirically), but I believe that good manners and civility actually can contribute to the bottom line. Anecdotally we know that when someone is treated badly in a business situation, they look to co-workers to help them get over it. This usually creates bonding around so-and-so being unkind (or more vulgar and picturesque language), which takes a lot of time and energy. A manager who is persistently problematic generally ends up with complaints to HR, which takes a lot of time and energy, and takes away from the productivity of a group. Besides, as I always told my boss who wanted me to be meaner, if people are always afraid that they’re going to lose their jobs, keeping their jobs is going to be their first priority, and it’s going to color everything they do. I didn’t want to participate in creating an atmosphere that is fear-based, because who will take a chance, put themselves out, or take risks? They simply won’t do it. Just as the kid who is bullied at school tends to withdraw to escape being tormented, human nature is that we pull away from those things that are threatening. All of this costs money.

Over the years, I’ve also interviewed and worked with many independent consultants, and all of them have some version of what is often referred to as the “ugly fee.” What this means is “This is going to be ugly, so I’m charging a higher fee.” This always relates to working with a client who is difficult but also unpleasant to work with. We’ve all had demanding clients; they come with the territory, but when they’re demanding and nasty, it’s going to cost them. Conversely, for clients who are considerate, like my first boss, I’ll go the extra mile. I’ve routinely not charged for small projects because I want to be supportive, because I like working with the people, and because I know they would do, and have done, the same for me. If you’re an independent consultant, I’m betting you have your own version of these scenarios.

And if that’s not enough, think of it from the perspective of self-interest. In 2007, I had a project interviewing executives and PR managers about their businesses and corporate cultures. All of them talked about the need for respect at all levels to ensure a healthy and productive work environment. One head of PR for a bank told me that he never hires a senior manager or above without having a meal with him or her. He said he pays attention to everything from table manners to the ability to carry on a social conversation to how he or she treats the servers. All of these are indicators of how someone will be in the personal interactions at a job; it’s an insight you can’t get in an interview into who someone really is. I’ve since adopted the practice, and you’d be surprised how revealing it can be.

Who you are and how you are perceived are critically important both for your own career and for your interactions with others. They can be a deciding factor in promotions, getting jobs, and crafting a career. I’m always amazed at how often people forget the “golden rule” of treating others as we would like to be treated, but I’ve also seen that some of the most successful people in the world treat everyone around them with courtesy and respect because it works—and it makes for a far more pleasant life overall.

As Benjamin Franklin said, “Glass, china, and reputation are easily cracked and never well mended.”

Play nice. It pays.

The Challenges in Groups

Effective as they are—and as a way of leveraging talent to achieve tasks—there are several challenges to groups that show up in business all the time with direct relation to the elementary school classroom.

Give everyone a turn. Groups work best when people are actively engaged. If you’re running the group, make sure everyone gets a chance to participate and that their participation is valued. If one person is dominating the group, its work, and its decisions, others will tend to withdraw and question why they’re involved, and the group won’t function effectively as it’s intended.

Keep the group focused. Groups always tend to take on a life of their own, and it’s easy to get distracted. If you’re leading the group, keep them on task.

Reach decisions. One of the most common complaints we hear about group work in companies of all sizes is the inability to get things done. This largely has to do with the personalities and dynamics of the group as well as the need for everyone to be 100 percent on board with every decision. That’s never going to happen. For a group to function productively, there has to be a give-and-take among members, to be sure, but a lot of time in groups is wasted trying to make sure everyone is happy, to put it in grade-school terms. Groups that report to a larger organization can build a reporting structure that, for instance, includes recommendations but also acknowledges concerns and reservations. In this case, this is actually more helpful to the people who will make decisions on a group’s findings.

What You Can Do
1.	Limit the size of groups. Make sure that you have a workable number of people. This is important for such logistical things as scheduling but also for productivity in working sessions. For example, have one person from accounting in the group. It will be that person’s job to interact with other members of the accounting department and represent them to the group.
2.	Don’t form a group without a clear objective. You may have a specific committee that covers various things over time, but goals should be clearly delineated so the group has a common purpose.
3.	Balance thinking styles within a group. Diversity of thinking styles will provide a foundation for considering more possibilities and courses of action.
4.	Establish a chairperson of the group who is charged with keeping the group on track but who is also able to deal with the inevitable challenges of balancing personalities and keep the group functioning.
5.	Change up groups to keep the thinking and approach to challenges fresh.