If you've never watched the show, the game is fairly straightforward to understand (even if it’s nearly impossible to predict). Sixteen players are basically stranded out in the middle of nowhere (frequently on a deserted tropical island) and compete to win $1,000,000. Players have to "outwit, outplay, outlast" the other players, who vote off one player every 3 days. Players are divided up initially into two teams, which must compete to win different rewards and immunity (from participating in the vote). The real game, if you will, is the one played between the different players, who must strike a balance between cooperation, collaboration, and competition to emerge as the winner - the "Sole Survivor" and last remaining player in the game.
Over the years, experts in game theory have weighed in on the best strategy to play in order to win Survivor and the $1 M prize (hint - there probably isn't one). As I was watching the first couple of episodes last night, I couldn't help but think about some of the lessons on group dynamics and leadership. I was reminded of a classic experiment performed way back in the 1950's, called the Robbers Cave Experiment led by the social psychologist, Muzafer Sherif. The experiment (which probably could not be performed today) had important and lasting implications on group conflict that are just as relevant today as they were almost 70 years ago.
Twenty-two boys, age 11-12 years, participated in the study while attending summer camp at Robbers Cave State Park in Oklahoma in 1954. Their parents knew that they were participating in a research study (apparently Sherif and his study team gathered extensive information on each of the subjects prior to their participation, including school records and personality test results). Shortly after arriving at camp, the boys were separated into two separate groups. Initially, the boys spent all of their time in their respective groups and were unaware of the existence of the other group. They chose names for their groups (the Eagles and the Rattlers) and developed their own group norms and hierarchies. The boys bonded with the other members of their group through the usual summer camp type of activities (hiking, swimming, fishing, etc).
After a few days, Sherif and his team told the boys about the existence of the other group, and the boys immediately began to speak negatively about the other group. He next brought the two groups together to compete in a series of games (tug-of-war, baseball, capture-the-flag, etc) in which the winning group would receive prizes and a trophy. At first, the groups would only trade verbal insults. However, the research team deliberately created more conflict by arranging one group to be late for lunch and encouraging the other group to eat all of their food. The conflict escalated and became more physical in nature. The groups raided each other group's cabin, and even burned the other group's team flag.
Apparently the conflict reached a point where the groups had to be separated for two days. During this "cooling off" period, the research team distributed surveys to the campers, and not surprisingly, they rated their own group more positively than their rivals. Also during this time, the researchers noted that the groups had become even more cohesive than they were before the competition began. These results confirmed Sherif's theory that conflict between groups could trigger prejudice and discriminatory behavior, which could even lead to physical violence at times (supporting his realistic conflict theory, which states that conflict between two groups will arise as a result of either conflicting goals or competition for limited resources).
All of this sounds vaguely like William Golding's novel, The Lord of the Flies, which was apparently published just one year after the Robbers Cave experiments. Sherif and his team next tried to identify ways that the intergroup conflict could be resolved. They brought the Eagles and the Rattlers together for some fun activities (watching a movie, having a meal, or shooting off fireworks on the Fourth of July), which did not lessen the tensions between the two groups.
Sherif felt that bringing the two groups together could only be achieved by working on superordinate goals (goals that both groups cared about). His team shut off the camp's water supply - camp staff blamed this an outside group of "vandals" and apparently the two groups worked together collaboratively to identify and fix the problem. Through a series of these kinds of activities, the research team started to note that the two groups stopped calling each other names, their perception of the other groups (as measured by the surveys) improved, and friendships were established between members of the two opposing groups. By the end of the camp, they were apparently all on good terms.
There are certainly a number of valid critiques and concerns about Sherif's study design (particularly with respect to the ethics of manipulating a group of 12 year-old boys in this fashion). However, there are some key takeaways as well. First, consistent with what has come to be called social identity theory, being part of a group has a really powerful effect on individual's identities and behaviors. We identify with our social groups (see a couple of previous posts on this topic, "Why didn't you tell me about the Jeep Wave?" and "There's no team without trust"), and leaders can certainly leverage that simple fact in order to achieve the group's goals and objectives. Second, according to social psychology's contact hypothesis, prejudice and intergroup conflict can be minimized if members of two different groups spend time with one another. Importantly, as Sherif and his research team witnessed, simply bringing two groups together is not enough, but working together towards common goals or objectives may produce the desired effect. Here, I am once again reminded of a book I read recently, called The Best of Enemies, in which a white supremacist and single Black mother in the 1960's join forces to improve the local public schools.
At the end of the day, Sherif's Robbers Cave experiments, Golding's The Lord of the Flies, and Survivor tell us a lot about group dynamics and intergroup conflict. They probably even have important lessons for leaders. I will end this post with what Survivor host Jeff Probst always says at the end of each Tribal Council, as he snuffs out the player's torch who just got voted out, "The Tribe has spoken."
No comments:
Post a Comment