Organization are changing to become more globalized and collaborative. Young individuals are helming major corporations and the traditional view of what an organization used to be is being disrupted. Collaboration, ideation, and open space offices–all of these breed the kind of environment that levels the playing field and takes away the idea of a “big man” overseeing everything and having the potential to overpower any single person in the room.
Now, start-ups and even the more successful unicorn corporations are thriving with this kind of environment. While there are the faces of the company, the CEOs and chairmans that lead these companies, the overall vibe is on a more collaborative front.
However, one issue that has always haunted me is the idea of the bystander effect in a collaborative environment that deals away with the formal idea of leaders. We all know what the bystander effect is: when someone calls for help or something happens, the bigger the crowd is, the more likely there will be a pause to see if someone else will respond. That’s because bystander effect takes the idea of initiative and gives people a sense of whether or not we should practice that initiative when there are others who can do that.
A collaborative environment can either be a breeding ground for potential leaders looking to prove themselves or a place for people to collaborate and see others’ ideas and explore what others can do. Regardless of what the environment is, it makes me wonder if this set-up can overcome the bystander effect.
For instance, I remember being in a team where we were all given the power to decide on what to do in case the team leader was away. He had to leave for two weeks, and we had a project that we needed to finish. I was still new back then, so I didn’t really know how the dynamics worked. As a newbie, I preferred to observe, chime in when my expertise was needed, and let those who have been there for longer sort of take the wheel. What happened was that, since we were all also working remotely, the decision-making process was very staggered. We always deferred judgment to the team supervisors for even the smallest things, because no one was really so confident to ensure implementation. While we all had the power to effect change, we didn’t use it to influence and be decision makers and doers.
What stopped us was the fear of blame, in case things go south. This is not an uncommon experience. Just as in the bystander effect, when action means responsibility for the situation, taking command in a collaborative environment means you are essentially becoming the target in a sea of faceless anonymity. This means that, even when a teammate tells you his idea and you implement it for the group, you become the “leader” whom everyone can refer to when things don’t go well.
Maybe this is the cost of exerting influence. I admire people who are able to exert influence without exposing themselves. I remember Goebbels being such a hated character, but not as much as Hitler. To think that it was Goebbels who had masterminded such insane plan of brainwashing. And all he really was seen as is The Little Doctor who doctored the history of Germany. I admire that ability because you keep yourself safe–but I also find that to be very cowardly. And that’s saying something, since I’ve always wanted to be an advisor or puppeteer myself since I don’t like the spotlight, and I admit that cowardice.
I feel that leaders in a collaborative environment are admirable because they take that extra step. While traditional ideas of leadership is that it is handed to you, the fact that leaders in a collaborative setting is really more about action and initiative is really admirable. Add the fact that you are becoming the face of responsibility in doing so is even more amazing for me. You fight for the right to have power even in the face of the project going south. Leaders who do that and still stand with the company through thick or thin may be among the great assets any team can have.
References:
Pastin, M. (20 Nov. 2015). Leaders and bystanders.Huffington Post. Retrieved from https://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-pastin/leaders-and-bystanders_b_8606152.html.
Georgette Jutta Kuzmenko says
Your ideas and concerns about the bystander effect in collaborative environments gives lots of food for thought. In your example, you stated that everyone in the group was reserved and hesitant to take charge. This reminded me of social proof. Being that individuals follow one another I wonder how that came into play with your group all being hesitant to take charge. You mentioned that you were new to the company and group. Therefore you may have inadvertently been looking to others for clues on how to behave. Since they all also behaved in a hesitant manner this may have reinforced the idea that you should hang back and observe rather than be heard. Although I am sure personality factors and previous expectations were at play here as well. In addition, the concept of authority comes to mind.
Authority is the power that comes with being in charge. Since no members of the group felt or were in charge they all looked to the individual with power before making decisions. This meant as you mentioned getting everything preapproved before moving forward. One can see how this probably lead to inefficiencies within the group. Your ideas on the bystander effect also brought to mind social loafing. I am now curious how much social loafing comes into play during group work and if no one was willing to take charge because no one wanted to be made out as the person to do all the work while the others followed.