Christian Monö's Blog, page 3

If a president can dismantle democracy, the system is already broken

Many people have claimed that Donald Trump threatens democracy. Meanwhile, Trump himself has warned that U.S. democracy will end if he doesn't win the 2024 election.

This worries me, but not in the same way it might worry others. You see, if we truly believe that one person can demolish democracy, then democracy is already broken. If we live in a country where a single individual has the power to dismantle the entire democratic system, then the system isn't truly democratic. In a true democracy, no one would have that much power.

One might argue that the issue here isn't the system itself but rather the influence a single person has over others. By this, I mean that people worry that a presidential candidate has enough influence to mislead people into voting for them.

If that's the case, we need to ask ourselves: why are people willing to play the games set by the powerful? For democracy to function effectively, we, the people, must protect it. This means understanding that politics isn't about getting everything we want, but about finding acceptable compromises with those who hold opposing views. Remember, polarization doesn't benefit the general public; it benefits those in power. So, perhaps we should ask ourselves: are we supporters of democracy or someone else’s puppet?

Why provocative opinions matter

Have you ever had a strong opinion about something and then met someone with a completely different view? How did you feel? Angry? Threatened? Curious?

There are many benefits to social media. For instance, we can connect with far more people today than was possible 30 years ago. But one distinct drawback is that social media platforms are built to connect us to like-minded people.

Think back to when you started your Facebook account, Instagram, or LinkedIn. If you're like most people, you probably started off connecting with friends and family – people you already knew and liked. Next, you probably joined groups and followed people that piqued your interest. With time, you've connected with new acquaintances that share certain interests or experiences.

Along the way, algorithms have kept track of what you like and keep suggesting new communities and connections based on your interests and preferences. This means you're able to grow your network at an incredible rate. However, you're also likely to get less and less exposed to conflicting views. When we find ourselves connected to a person or group that expresses provocative opinions, we can simply stop following. While this action may feel good, it may cause us harm in the long run.

Cognitive diversity is vital for human development. It plays a key role when building what I call a collaborationship - a process where a group of people collaborate and build synergies to reach a shared goal. If we avoid people with opposing opinions, we create an environment of polarization and conflict.

New research from the Leibniz Institute for Psychology (ZPID) and the University of Hohenheim has shown the importance of interacting with people of different opinions. Individuals with extreme attitudes are more likely to adopt more moderate positions when confronted with opposing thoughts. In other words, these so-called "cognitive conflicts" help people see the bigger picture, thus helping to reduce social polarization at an individual level.

The study found that by introducing contradictory thoughts, people with extreme attitudes could be encouraged to move toward more moderate viewpoints. For example, people with politically right-wing attitudes displayed greater trust toward migrants after cognitive conflicts had been triggered.

My point is this – the world needs different perspectives and opinions. Even standpoints we consider absurd play an important role in a healthy dialogue. We should not fear different opinions. If anything, we should fear the absence of opposing viewpoints. The strength of a group or team depends on the members' ability to make use of each other's differences.

Share

The benefits of being humble

I’ve always found it interesting that for decades, it has been assumed that to make a career, one has to be assertive and dominant. Meanwhile, people generally dislike anyone who exerts dominance over them. Now a group of business scholars have explored how humility influences professional achievement. Their findings, published in Human Resource Management, reveal that:

Humble individuals tend to foster better teamwork and collaboration. By acknowledging their limitations, they create an environment where diverse perspectives thrive.

Humble professionals are open to learning from others and adapting their approaches. This flexibility enhances problem-solving skills.

Humble managers are often appreciated because they focus on collective success that benefits the entire team.

If you want to improve your humility:

Regularly assess your actions and interactions. Are you open to feedback? Do you actively listen to your colleagues?

Admit when you’re wrong or made a mistake. This will help you grow and build credibility.

Practice seeing the world from others’ perspectives. Not only will this help you understand others, but it’ll also improve your chances of building collaboration between people.

Worth remembering, is that humility is not about downplaying your achievements but recognizing that success is a collective effort. It’s the first step in building collaborationship within a group.  

Read the full study here: An examination of whether and how leader humility enhances leader personal career success *

*Please note that as is so often the case, the authors of this paper have used the word “leader” when referring to “manager”. Here’s why I believe this is a mistake.

Share

“We prize our individuality, but our survival is tied to larger social groups, like a bee’s fate depends on the colony’s survival.”

It’s still a mystery. Why did the Neanderthals die out when modern humans didn’t? One theory is that homo sapiens were more intelligent than the Neanderthals, but this alone can’t explain the extinction of the Neanderthals. After all, fruit flies and cockroaches are less intelligent than humans, yet they have not gone extinct.

Neanderthals were intelligent and creative. They used advanced tools and expressed themselves artistically, still they vanished from Europe and western Asia around 40,000 years ago. Why?

New research on DNA recovered from bones and teeth of Neanderthals, suggests that the critical difference between modern humans and Neanderthals might not have been individual intelligence but rather societal structures.

Neanderthals lived in smaller social groups compared to homo sapiens. Our ancestors also lived in small band societies but these autonomous groups interacted with each other. Connected by language, religion, and relationships, our ancestors formed larger, loosely organized societies.

This societal advantage might explain why modern humans thrived and eventually replaced their Neanderthal counterparts. As paleontologist and evolutionary biologist, Nicholas R. Longrich put it: “We prize our individuality, but our survival is tied to larger social groups, like a bee’s fate depends on the colony’s survival.”

If you’re interested in learning more, I recommend that you start by reading this article by Nicholas Longrich: https://theconversation.com/why-did-modern-humans-replace-the-neanderthals-the-key-might-lie-in-our-social-structures-195056

Share

“Hunger and needs are the strongest motivators”

1693 - Stockholm seen from the east from Suecia antiqua et hodierna . Source

During the late 1600s and early 1700s, several textile factories emerged in the Swedish capital, Stockholm. One of these factories was overseen by Erik Salander, who also served as a commissioner for the kingdom’s production industries.

Salander was an influential man. He also had a very degrading view of subordinates. The renowned Swedish author Per Anders Fogelström, described the man as follows:

“Salander was a stern figure, managing his employees like a herd of cattle. As an economist, his views are documented. Salander believed that workers should be “impoverished” to work diligently, asserting that “hunger and needs are the strongest motivators.” He advocated for keeping food prices high to prevent workers from becoming lazy. Their children were not to receive education; they were “nurtured from infancy for labor and hardship.” If they were indulged, they would become “useless for factory work.” According to Salander, a child could begin working and earning their bread by the age of six or seven.”

In other words, Salander believed that anyone desperate to survive would outperform those less desperate. During these times, employees worked between 12 – 14 hours a day, 6 days a week, and could be whipped if they didn’t work hard enough.

After he died in 1764, an increasing number of business owners found that Salander had been wrong. Keeping employees desperate and starving did not improve productivity. Quite the opposite.

During the next 200 years, work-life slowly improved for most people. In 1911, Frederick Taylor published his renowned book The Principles of Scientific Management. Now, Taylor has been criticized for promoting micromanagement, but he also believed that employees could be motivated to work harder. In his book, he gave managers the advice to pay top-performing employees a higher salary. This, he argued, would inspire other workers to increase their productivity.

Photo by Källman. Textile workers' at Alingsås cotton weavers' old factory 1862. Source

Towards the end of the 1900s, research had shown that intrinsically motivated individuals are far more productive than those motivated by external factors like higher salaries or bonuses.

Today, an increasing number of companies are abandoning traditional management structures altogether. These businesses rely entirely on structures and employees' intrinsic motivation. What the future will look like remains unclear, but I believe that as we deepen our understanding of humanity's innate collaborative abilities, we'll significantly enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of our work environments.

Why simplicity matters

Once in a while, I encounter a text that seems to be written in some kind of secret code. It takes great effort to understand what the author is trying to say. I usually encounter these problems in texts produced by businesses or authorities. I find this odd because I assume they are used to informing people in writing, and yet the more important a text is, the more formalized it is likely to be.

With the exception of diaries, most written texts are intended to be shared with others as a means of sharing information. But if that’s the case, why do some people insist on turning straightforward ideas or information into texts that require a master’s degree to untangle?

I’ve given this a lot of thought and have concluded that there are probably two main reasons for this. First, some people believe complexity is a sign of competence. They see fancy words as a tool to display their professionalism or intellect. This would explain why scholars seem determined to write research papers that only a handful of people can understand.

Another reason to use complex language is to display power. By using formalized words that most people don’t grasp, the author can put the reader at a disadvantage. It’s hard to argue with someone you don’t understand. I’ve found that many authorities use complex texts whenever they present a decision or judgment. It’s as if writing the decision in a formal and up-tight manner makes it more convincing.

It's time to reconsider this behavior. Cooperation is built on communication. If people don’t understand each other, they can’t collaborate. If the purpose of writing is to share information, focus on making yourself understood instead of looking smart. To do this, make sure you know your audience. Avoid fancy words if they risk making the text difficult to read. Keep sentences short and prioritize the message over your ego. Remember, it’s not the number of syllables that determines your skills, but rather your ability to connect people with your texts.

Until next time - stay curious!

Share

From know-it-all to strategizing and beyond

In 1909, Frederick Winslow Taylor published his book "The Principles of Scientific Management." In many ways, this was the start of modern management practices. Taylor argued that the key principles of good management included a scientific approach to optimizing work efficiency.

Taylor believed that managers had to direct and oversee employees’ performance. He was extremely detail-oriented. For example, he measured the amount of weight a “first-class worker” could shovel. Then he had various-sized shovels built so that employees could shovel the same amount of weight regardless of what they were shoveling.

Today, the general workforce is far more educated than during the early 1900s. It’s not uncommon for a boss to manage a team of people who are far better skilled at what they do than the manager is. Yet, management is still focused on efficiency, training, and individual performance. As a result, managers are expected to work more strategically, setting goals and visions, and then motivating people to reach their targets.

What many managers face today is the realization that simply setting a vision and encouraging people to strive for it is no longer enough if they want to beat the competitors. After all, the competitors are doing the same thing.

Yet, management is still focused on efficiency, training, and individual performance.

To be successful today, a company must create an environment that encourages cooperation and what I call collaborationship. It’s all about building synergies through communication, sharing ideas, identifying and managing risks, and developing new products and services.

Unfortunately, many people still believe that it’s up to managers to inspire and motivate people to collaborate. It is often argued that it is this “skill” that makes someone a leader. Those of you who have followed my work know that I find this a misinterpretation of what it means to be a leader. But that’s a different story. My point here is that many still cling to Taylor’s idea that managers are the ones who render a business efficient.

Nevertheless, it appears a shift is underway. Some companies are moving away from relying solely on managers to facilitate collaboration. Instead, they're focusing on building organizational structures that promote cooperation. I find this very interesting because structures tend to be far more consistent compared to individual managers. Of course, this raises an intriguing question: if structures can foster cooperation, do we still need managers?

A successful start-up is more than just a great business idea

A couple of years ago I had a conversation with a young business investor. His company invested in start-ups that had the potential to offer new, industry-changing products or services. What kind of industry was not important, the key was finding products or services that would revolutionize a market.

People set up businesses for all sorts of reasons. Some dream of making a living doing what they love. Others want to be their own boss or aspire to get rich. Whatever the reason, most entrepreneurs have one thing in common – they are focused on their core business.

Core business refers to the main activity or function of a company that generates the majority of its revenue and profits. Therefore, companies with a growth mindset tend to focus on two things:

1)     improving existing products or services,

2)     inventing new products or services.

Organizational structures

Everyone knows that how we run a business will impact its profit. But because a company’s organizational structure isn’t part of its main business, we tend not to give it our fullest attention. Rather than investing time and money in exploring new ways of working, we follow a very traditional approach – we focus on perfecting internal processes and workflows.

Another common approach is to re-organize a business, but in practice, this usually means moving around people and departments, not revolutionizing the way we work together.

There's more than one way to run a business, but most companies are structured in the same hierarchical way. Why? Partly because we know it works and so it’s a safe bet. It’s also easy to implement because everyone’s familiar with it. Yet, is it the best way to run a business?

Over the past decade, a growing number of companies have tried new ways of organizing themselves. Some have succeeded (like Buurtzorg and Valve Corporation), while others haven't. What successful companies seem to have in common is that they encourage natural leadership and teamwork in some form (although they may not call it that).

I’m not saying that the core business is irrelevant. Far from it, but a company's success does not hinge on a product or service alone. Business is built by people, for people. It’s all about relations and interactions between individuals and groups. By changing the way we run our businesses, we can impact the way people interact.

When I talked to the young investor, I realized that this was not something he had contemplated. A successful start-up is more than just a great business idea. I argue that the key to success lies in how well the people collaborate. A strong, collaborative team can take on almost any challenge. Therefore, investment companies should consider whether or not a business has the potential to build natural leadership and followership.

Share

Not a Game of Chess

Hi,

A few years back, I had a conversation with a CEO who expressed his discomfort with the way his managers discussed their employees, likening them to pawns in a game rather than valued members of a team.

This insightful decision-maker made an important observation. Many managers are expected to work strategically, and so they fall into the trap of viewing people as pieces of a puzzle, not partners in a team.

Intentionally or not, these managers are inclined to see themselves as “puppeteers” whose main task is to control others to achieve a desired result. As a result, they tend to engage in manipulative behaviors. They will try to motivate people to act in a particular way, will withhold facts and move employees around the organization like pawns in a game of chess.

Consequently, these managers usually focus on individual performance rather than team collaboration. For instance, they may encourage competition between individuals in a team instead of focusing on improving the team’s cooperative skills.

Let me be clear, these managers are not bad people; they simply act in accordance with what they believe is expected of them. Many are not even aware of what they’re doing. They simply replicate behaviors they’ve seen in other managers. We need to ask ourselves why managers believe they should act like a puppeteer.

Natural leadership is not about exerting control but rather helping a team reach its goals. When we resort to puppeteer-like behaviors, whether at work, school or elsewhere, we undermine our chances of building collaborationship. We behave as though we have all the answers. This is a dangerous attitude. As business consultant Ken Blanchard put it, “None of us is as smart as all of us.”

In essence, the key to progress lies in creating an environment that fosters leader rotation and collective intelligence. This requires letting go of the notion that leadership is a game of strategy and control – and instead embracing a more collaborative and inclusive approach.

Until next time, stay curious!

Share

How Self-doubt Can Improve Collaborationship

No matter what we have achieved in life or how much power or money we have, most of us have moments when we feel we’re not good enough. Although this sense of inadequacy can be uncomfortable and even painful at times, it is normal to experiencing self-doubt from time to time. It may actually play a very important role when building collaborationship.

Collaborationship, as you may remember from previous posts, is what I call the process in which a group of people build synergies to maximize their chances of reaching a shared goal or objective.

A key to building collaborationship is leader rotation. This is the process when a group follows different individuals depending on what they want to achieve at a given point in time. Put differently, it’s all about following the right person at the right time.

The importance of self-doubt

In today’s individualistically focused society, self-doubt is considered a nuisance. People are advised to work on their self-confidence in order to become better leaders or to be respected. However, from a natural followership perspective, self-doubt appears to play a vital role in the process of leader rotation.

Imagine a group where everyone is brimming with confidence, believing they are best suited to lead the others no matter what challenges they face as a group. In such environments, leader rotation will hardly work. Not only are conflicts likely to flourish, but if everyone thinks they’re best suited to lead you, how do we determine who to follow?

This is where I believe self-doubt comes into play. People are less likely to take initiative if they doubt their abilities. Instead, they tend to either reach out to others for guidance and support, or they will wait for someone else to take charge. Because people generally feel confident in some areas and not others, self-doubt can help an individual identify when to step forward and when to step back while collaborating with others.  

So, rather than seeing self-doubt as a personal nuisance, I believe we should explore it further, to better understand its role in natural leader- and followership.

Please note: In this article, I’m discussing self-doubt as most of us experience it. There are, however, those who suffer from chronic self-doubt, such as constantly feeling insecure. This kind of self-doubt is not what I’m referring to in this article. If you experience a persistent state of uncertainty, you may benefit from seeking professional help.

Share

Thanks for reading Natural Followership Newsletter! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Thanks for reading Natural Followership Newsletter! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.