Boys' camp in the 1950s

in Management

Collaboration: are you an Eagle or a Rattler?

In most firms, we divide people into distinct groups, set up systems that foster internal competition (like rating people on a curve), and are dismayed at the lack of teamwork across the company.

An experiment from a boys’ camp in 1954 tells us a lot about why we don’t collaborate well in most firms – and what we can do about.

The Eagles and the Rattlers

The experiment (described in Morten Hansen’s excellent book “Collaboration”), involved 22 eleven-year-old boys in a 3-week summer camp. It showed how easily people can be divided into arbitrary groups and drawn into conflict with each other.

The boys were broken up into two groups: the Eagles and the Rattlers. In the first week, the boys in each group bonded by hiking, swimming, cooking and eating together.

In the second week, the researchers tried to induce conflict between the groups by holding several competitions. The winning group would get a trophy.

Over the course of the week, the competition became intense. A loss in a game of baseball resulted in name-calling. A loss in a grueling 48-minute tug-of-war led to the “enemy” camp being raided.

After the final competition, at the awarding of the trophy, a fistfight broke out and adults had to step in.

But, in the 3rd week…

Despite the bad feelings in the camp, the researchers wanted to see if they could now unite the warring groups. They introduced a series of seven unifying goals that could only be achieved if the boys worked together – e.g., locating a “broken” pipe somewhere in a large area that only a coordinated effort could find and fix.

It worked. The boys grew increasingly close as they found the broken pipe; pushed the stalled truck; and accomplished more and more together. By the end of the week, they took turns entertaining each other around the campfire. As camp ended, they all wanted to return home on one bus instead of the two they arrived in.

It’s not just kids and camp

These same kinds of behaviors – both the bad and the good – can be found at work. “Collaboration” opens with the story of the Sony Connect, the new version of the Walkman that Sony was building just as Apple was developing the iPod.

In 2001, Sony was in a much better position than Apple to build a next-generation music player. Sony already had the Walkman division; their own computer division (Sony VAIO); the Sony Music division; Sony Electronics for batteries and other devices; and, notably, much more money.

As Sony’s chief technology officer said at the time, “We can do this in nine months. We got the product, hardware, software.”

Nine months was indeed a good estimate – for Apple. Despite having to combine 6 key components from 6 different companies and the need to work closely across 3 internal divisions, Apple shipped the first iPod in October, 2001.

Sony’s effort was riddled with internal competition. Each division – and sometimes each region – had its own ideas about what to do. Hard disk versus MiniDisc. MP3 versus ATRAC. Different groups even produced entirely different players.

Sony finally introduced the Connect in May, 2004. Panned by customers, reviewers, and the market, they actually issued a public apology in January, 2006. By August, 2007, they killed the product altogether.

Which group are you in?

The hierarchies in large companies are naturally divisive. So, just like the Eagles and the Rattlers, we can easily be drawn into internal conflicts. Sales versus marketing. Investment bank versus retail bank.

Social tools and practices make it easier than ever to fix this. To connect people across organizations. To build relationships based on more than acronyms. To create purposeful social networks focused on company goals instead of on managers in the hierarchy.

The ability to transform the way we work is presenting us with our own iPod opportunities. But will we be Apple or Sony?

Think of it the next time you introduce yourself in a meeting. Are you an Eagle or a Rattler? Or are you aiming for something more?

Get Free Email Updates!

If you enjoyed what you have read so far, signup now and receive an email every time I publish new content.

I will never give away, trade or sell your email address. You can unsubscribe at any time.

  • http://buridansblog.wordpress.com brianinroma

    Reblogged this on buridansblog and commented:
    Reposting comment from LinkedIn: I think one of the other insights from the Sony-Apple story is how constraints and limitations can drive creativity. In fact, in Presentation Zen, one of your other recommendations, Garr Reynolds argues that self-imposed parameters are fundamental. Perhaps the solution is to marry constraint and collaboration.

  • http://twitter.com/cameronrandolph cameron randolph (@cameronrandolph)

    Sony, it seems, was also missing a passionate leader that could pull it all together, aka Steve Jobs. So whether it is bottom’s up (division against division) or top down (leadership and management) – many organizations, and especially financial services companies, are still in the dark ages to leveraging internal and external social tools to bring about organizational change.

    A few more blog posts will hopefully get us closer to that end goal. As always, thanks for your insights.

    • Wall Street Knowledge

      Yes, I’m seeing leadership work really well in a different firm. Leadership and creative tools are causing people to want to work together for a cause. A charismatic leader is the key to getting anything done. “Without a vision the people perish” is from the bible. And it’s a key to human nature.

      Not sure how “social networking” can help that. I think the Leadership comes first, and then the people who work for the leader may help the leader continue the conversation / get input / communicate with the leader / the leader can communicate with the people Like Cory Booker in Newark – FB and Twitter are just one of the many ways Cory communicates with the people — and extends his “brand” and vision for what Newark can be – but he’s Cory Booker, and that’s the most important thing. — the thing is Cory Booker also goes jogging with his cops, plays basketball with the teens and shovels snow with the peeps — we all know about it because of social media, but he has to actually get out there and do it first.

  • alexmcknight

    I really enjoyed this article John. I think it eloquently highlights the missed opportunities many organisations suffer from. Competition between business silos only works if they are pushing towards a common organisational goal.

  • alexmcknight

    Reblogged this on Alex’s Blog and commented:
    An interesting reminder how an organisation can fight amongst itself to the detriment of the organisation as a whole

  • paulina vizgan

    Check out the article on what methods work in fostering collaboration
    http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/01/30/120130fa_fact_lehrer?currentPage=all
    On page 4 it mentions Steve Jobs, telling how he organized the architecture of the work and play areas in his companies (Pixar, then Apple) to help communication among disparate groups, like computer scientists and creative types, writers, etc., i.e. people not routinely working together, so that they would rub into each other more often.

  • Pingback: 3 lessons from a forced career change | johnstepper

  • Pingback: Towards a more humane workplace | johnstepper

  • Anon217

    The problem here is that social media is a game, or at least presents sufficient game qualities to argue it. This means that the players are also opportunists, killers, socialisers and saboteurs. In any organisation, change requires pre-committment – and for most people, jumping into complex social-systems online exposes them to all sorts of toxic behaviours. Not least that social media creates rivalry and competition more than it does co-operation. I see where you are heading, but there are deep issues here, and objects beneath the water line to trap the unwary. The best way to seek out the ideas (and crush them) is one way managers stay managers for example – and to find the better staff, a bit of rivalry is an excellent tactic which creates winners and losers in hierarchies.