Passion, People and Principles

Lions, Wolves, Beavers and Humans

post # 313 — February 20, 2007 — a Strategy post

Back in August of last year, I posted a blog about Corporate Strategy and Personality Profiles. The basic argument was (and is) that many firms are incapable of firmwide strategy because the key players have not agreed either to (a) collaborate or (b) invest in their mutual future.

I have now expanded my thoughts into a full-length article (Are we In This Together? The Preconditions For Strategy), which has been posted on my website and can be read or downloaded now.

The article describes four kinds of people

Type 1 is the solo operator who values independence, wants to make little investment in the future, but is willing to bet on his (or her) ability to catch fresh meat each and every day. I call this the Mountain Lion approach. “Pay me for what I do today (or this year.)”
Type 2 is the individual who prefers to act in coordination with others, but doesn’t like to invest (or defer gratification) too much. I call these people (collectively) the Wolf-Pack. “If we act together we can kill bigger animals, but it had better pay off soon or I’m joining another Pack!”
Type 3 is the individual who wants to be independent, but is interested in building for the future by investing time and resources to get somewhere new. Such people remind me of Beavers building dams to provide a home for their (own) family.
Type 4 are individuals who want to be part of something bigger than they can accomplish alone, and have the patience, the ambition and the will to help the collective organization invest in that future. I call this group “The Human Race” since one of the rare things about Homo Sapiens that differentiates it (at least in scale) from other species is its ability to act collectively to build and develop. (It’s called civilization.)

I don’t have a precise metric to measure the differing orientations described here, but I have found two proxy questions to be useful.

On the issue of independence versus team-play, I ask people whether, in general, they would prefer rewards in their organization to be based (compared to the current arrangements) a little more on individual performance or a little more on joint rewards for joint performance. I then ask whether, compared to the current arrangements, people would like their firm to invest more in its future, even if this meant they would have to accept less current income in the form of salaries and current bonuses.

These two (imprecise) questions tend to cause people to reflect on their true preferences. The underlying issue is not really about pay schemes, but phrasing the questions this way tends to crystallize the issues for many people.

The article then explores the question: what can be achieved if you have a mixture of all types in your organization?

7 Comments

Tim Khaner said:

Great articel, that clearly illustrates for me the core issue I’ve been wrestling with – why can’t we have a clear strategy on anything? So, for those of us in organizations that consciously opt to Avoid the whole problem, how can we gently recognize the situation and describe it without sounding negative and irritating, but so that we are at least honest about it? The choice of Avoiding the problem is after all nevertheless a strategic choice – what language could you use to describe it?

posted on February 20, 2007

Geoff Considine said:

Another truly insightful article. In my experience, these categories are a good way to slice and dice the population of a firm with regard to strategy. The article reminded me of a firm that I worked for some years ago. There were five senior people, each with his/her own practice in the firm (I was one of these people). One group was mainly consulting and they worked hourly for the near term. One group was developing a large software tool—they were working for the long term. They were a large group and took up most of the financial resources in terms of investment dollars. My group was developed some software tools and did consulting. I focused on making my group profitable. The CEO and investors sent conflicting signals. They saw the long-term value of the firm in the software tools—as is appropriate for investors. On the other hand, the consultants were encouraged to work to generate cash flow. Each group had different incentives. In this way, the senior management encouraged the lions and wolves to be lions and wolves and the beavers to be beavers. We were not humans Even though we had some great talent and commitment, the company as a whole did not survive. The products were sold off to other firms. Clients followed the ket professional services people they worked with. As a firm, it just did not work.

In this way, the company itself fostered a problematic culture in which we could not really work together on a larger strategy—the firm itself ‘incentivized’ different groups to be different ‘animals.’

posted on February 20, 2007

David (Maister) said:

Some comments sent to me by Kirk Holland:

As I was reading this, I kept thinking that this all seemed to be a bit of deja vu. And in fact, you mention the “Farmer, Hunter” [and Shepherd, often included as an additional triad end-member] in the article.

Regardless of how we classify them, what we are really talking about are various motivational styles that are key to both individual and organizational success. The F-H-S motivational model has to do with the attributes and traits that lead an individual to success, or if in the wrong position where a mismatch of traits and job requirements leads to frustration and personal failure. Your animal motivational model is referenced more at the organizational level, but the same successes and failures attach for mismatches.

A few additional observations:

1. Some organizations accommodate the differences by structurally organizing around and memorializing those differences; it isn’t too far a stretch to say that this might be why we have partners in professional service firms. And it tends to perpetuate itself because a beaver or a bee isn’t going to dislodge a mountain lion that has the structure of the organization to fall back on, even if at the end of the day the mountain lion’s practice is destructive to the larger organization.

2. Some individuals are not only mountain lions, but will create crises that (only) they can respond to using their strengths and not someone else’s, or the rest of their team’s.

3. Perhaps related to this is that lots of people will say (and may really believe) they are team players (ants, bees, or humans), but only if they are leading the team; so we have a mountain lion/wolf in ants’ clothing.

4. And just like with the F-H-S model, like tends to relate best to like, so a mountain lion in one organization, say, a supplier, might be most appreciated by a mountain lion in another organization, say a client; conversely, having a bee or beaver conducting some sort of relationship transaction (e.g., selling) to a mountain lion is not likely to result in success for the bee/beaver. So it isn’t just individual traits, or organizational traits, but also inter-organizational traits that can determine success.

I think your model offers a basis for discerning and responding to those differences in traits at all three levels.

Just my $0.02.

posted on February 20, 2007

Adrian G. said:

Hello,

Your article about the four types is very interesting. But I think it might have a strange effect on some people (at least as far I know).

It seems that people are reffering/commenting only (or mostly) to the first part of the article, the one that “discover” why an organization made up of different “types” (mainly at the top) cannot have/implement a strategy. It is like a great discovery “aha … that’s why…”. Sometimes maybe it is seen also like a (good) excuse for a manager that didn’t succed. But the effect seems so intense or the “injury” seems so strong that people (as least the ones that I have discussed to) don’t think (practically) on how you actually overcome this.

What to you think (you the ones that are contributing on this blog)? What is next after you found out that you have in your organization different types of “animals”? How (practically) do you move on your practice ? Or this is the end ?

Looking forward for you comments!

posted on February 25, 2007

dogidoll said:

Interesting to see your own typr brtwen this three. But I’d rather add 2 or 3 more/

posted on May 1, 2007

Frank DiFazio said:

I left a similar response on another page, so forgive the repetition. As a reseller of http://www.yokainc.com/ target=”_blank”>DiSC personality profiles, I am curious about your stance on such employee assessment tools. On the HR application level, I have found them to be quite revealing in provided insight about the various worker types (as you described in the article) and how to get there different types to work cohesively together as a team. Have you written any articles specifically about such personality profile assessments. Do you think they are credible? Thanks!

posted on August 23, 2007

Frank DiFazio said:

I left a similar response on another page, so forgive the repetition. As a reseller of DiSC personality profiles, I am curious about your stance on such employee assessment tools. On the HR application level, I have found them to be quite revealing in provided insight about the various worker types (as you described in the article) and how to get there different types to work cohesively together as a team. Have you written any articles specifically about such personality profile assessments. Do you think they are credible? Thanks!

posted on August 23, 2007