ARTIKEL

Getting to Us
by George Halvorson
Humans are social creatures; we fall readily into group loyalties. We instinctively divide the
world into us and them and treat others very differently according to which category theyre
in. Activating us-versus-them energy is the oldest leadership tool in the box. In business settings,
the effects can be wonderful. But they can also be terrible, giving rise to warring factions
internally and cutting off collaborative possibilities externally. Its surprising how many business
managers are not very thoughtful about wielding this tool.
In the 1970s the social psychologist Henri Tajfel gave us the concept of social identitythe
understanding that an individuals identity is powerfully shaped by group allegiances. In
experiments he designed, subjects required only the slightest rationale to identify with a camp
strongly enough to behave generously to its members (and punitively to outsiders). In one study,
for example, boys who were divided into two groups after stating their offhand preference
between two paintings (one by Klee and the other by Kandinsky) exhibited just such in-group
favoritism and discrimination against others. Researchers since have shown that when people in
a work setting have a strong sense of being an us, morale and productivity rise.
Across a long career managing intelligent and dedicated professionals, Ive observed that
phenomenon numerous times. But of course it isnt enough to simply declare to a collection of
individuals that they are a team. If leaders want to see those instinctive energies kick in, they
must give people a sense of why they exist as a group. So its instructive to consider the reasons
that groups develop a sense of us on their own: kinship, mission, or a common enemy.
Many workplaces default to a version of kinship based on function. A groups shared identity
reflects a common characteristic of its memberseveryones an engineer, or everyones a
radiologist. Doing similar work under the same conditions is enough to make an us. But it
doesnt provide much impetus for the group to align its energies and take bold action.

If you want a group to move forward or to prevail in competition, youre better off
communicating a compelling mission. Our job is to make sure those buildings are as clean as
we would want them for our own family is the kind of shared goal that can tie people together.
Our mission is to provide the best health care in this state gives people a context for their
interactions and empowers them to work collaboratively and imaginatively. Just be sure that the
mission is persuasive and valuable enough to inspire team members to support one anothers
efforts.
Identifying a common enemy is the most potent means to get a group to snap together. But be
careful with this one. When there is a clear loser in some setting, there is inherent instability; the
loser often works doubly hard to reverse the situation and even to exact revenge. The energy of
both sides can quickly turn purely destructive.
The best of all worlds is when you can achieve a glorious sense of us without stoking animosity
toward them. Its tricky to accomplish, and as those fans of Klee or Kandinsky might have told
you, it doesnt happen naturally. Thats why as leaders we need to keep reaching for new tools.
I am convinced that great leadership in the 21st century is a matter of endowing groups of
individuals with a satisfying sense of us and channeling their collective energy productively
toward noble ends. Will everyone agree? Maybe not, but for some it will make all the difference.
More power to us.