mastering group dynamics
what we can learn from South African hunter-gatherers about how to build effective and cohesive group structures
One of the most difficult but critical things that we grapple with is learning to operate effectively within groups or teams. Effective teams can move mountains; we’ve all seen stories or heard anecdotes of small groups of people accomplishing extraordinary feats that don’t seem possible.
Unfortunately, most of our experiences in groups are affected by varying levels of dysfunction. On one hand, groups may be plagued by groupthink, a phenomenon of over-conformity where groups are unable to capture the value generated from a diversity of viewpoints that are all evaluated on their merits. On the other hand, groups may be plagued by fragmentation, a phenomenon in which many factors (including polarization) cause groups to be unable to benefit from cooperation and interdependence, choosing instead to turn away from one another.
To combat group dysfunction, we must first generate a model of effective group functioning. In other words, we must identify a set of principles that, if followed, should allow us to insulate groups from groupthink and fragmentation and everything in between. One of the best ways to do so is by directly observing well-functioning groups.
The Ju/’hoansi are one such group. They’re a nomadic band of hunter-gatherers in Southern Africa, and they’ve developed incredibly sophisticated group decision-making processes as a necessity for their tribe to survive and adapt throughout history. Their very survival over years and years is reason enough for us to investigate a little bit more deeply as to what they’re doing and how they’re finding success.
I’ll start by describing a few things they do extremely well, and then conclude with a couple of ideas that every group can implement in order to better embody the principles the Ju'/’hoansi live by.
success factors
no identification with ideas
“An idea is like a bloody antelope carcass: once in the public square, it is more or less public property. To attribute an idea to a person would contravene the egalitarian nature of the band.” — Aeon
In this tribe, there is absolutely zero connection between a person and the idea they propagate. In fact, typically, the person who proposes an idea takes no further part in the discussion, letting others push their proposal.
This is a radical idea! We often talk about a meritocracy of ideas, but this is extremely difficult to put into practice. Politics and pride often get in the way.
Regardless, the example from this tribe shows that this is still a powerful ideal to strive for.
first-hand evidence over third-hand accounts
“There was a norm that discouraged rampant speculation: when someone said that children could be killed by fires, an old man said that people should only speak when they have seen things happen. One man was laughed at for his gullibility when he said that he had heard that elephants would bury their babies up to their necks.” — Aeon
The Ju/’hoansi are extremely rigorous about the types of claims that they permit to enter into discussion and influence their collective decision-making. The example shown above is a bit extreme, but it’s a powerful example.
This points towards a step that this tribe takes that many groups don’t: the foundation of their deliberations is first answering the question “What do we know?”
This also creates a platform for effective discussion and productive disagreement. With hearsay or speculation removed from the equation, all disagreement centers on facts and observations, and discussion over these removes ego and pride from the equation.
“Trackers’ conversations are fully cooperative and open to both new ideas and to corrections by other trackers, specifically to ensure the best-reasoned outcomes. So democracy and science are closely allied in the people’s minds, and closely govern how decisions are made.” — Aeon
Each individual has the responsibility to share their observations, and it is the responsibility of the group as a whole to reason between the observations and determine a course of action.
adjourn conversation when under the spell of strong emotions
“…if discussion becomes too angry or excited, debate is temporarily adjourned by the withdrawal of the attention to the calmer participants until things cool down.’ Confrontation is avoided through a variety of subtle stratagems: pretending to cook, or urgently attending to a thorn in one’s foot. When things get too heated, people disengage, signalling a lack of sympathy for the outburst. The fate of the Ju/’hoansi contrarian is neither exile nor execution. It is to be ignored.” — Aeon
This is a fascinating strategy for handling instances when strong emotions are present. The Ju/’hoansi fundamentally understand that clear and intentional decision-making can only occur when emotions are not present, so they choose to intentionally step away and let the emotions naturally settle before revisiting.
This is extremely hard to do! When we’re feeling intense emotions, those are typically the times that we’re most prone to over-engaging with the people around us, and this typically has disastrous consequences for keeping the discussion on track or improving group cohesiveness.
Ignoring is an incredible strategy for dealing with people with strong emotions. I have seen so many instances when people unintentionally reward people who display emotional outbursts by giving them more attention and overly attending to their needs or wants under the guise of trying to keep the group together. This tribe does not make that mistake.
The humorous and subtle strategies that the tribe employs to dispel strong emotions may not be possible for us when we’re working with distributed teams, but there’s still a strong lesson to be learned here, and the principle may be applied slightly differently.
*Note - I’m extremely curious how this tribe handles decision-making when time pressure is present. In our fast-paced culture, a big reason why discussions get animated is because of the (often artificial) time sensitivity of the work. In these cases, it may not be easy or possible to put the discussion on hold until emotions settle, and I’m unsure what the best course of action is in this case.
lack of desire to “win” arguments
“…point-scoring ultimately played little role in the ultimate decision. In a highly interdependent band, this makes sense because one’s fate is largely tied to that of other bandmates. As a result, unlike in modern politics, group decisions are not something to be won or lost.” — Aeon
This takes extraordinary discipline! While the Ju/’hoansi have survival pressure to eradicate this behavior from their accepted set of cultural norms, it is so, so difficult to put this into practice in our modern world. Our discussions are typically very abstracted from our underlying, first-person observations, and overly focused on rhetorical garnish, deception, and other politicking mechanisms to get other people to let us have our way.
It’s easy to see how the impulse to win arguments divorces us from critical discussion over immediate observations that will help us determine a better course of action. Everyone has a shared investment in the outcome, and the desire for an optimal outcome far outweighs the desire for individual aggrandizement.
“The idea of sparring orators dealing knockout blows would be anathema to the Ju/’hoansi. A knockout blow is self-defeating, like punching oneself in the face.” — Aeon
lack of voting
“Voting would be the most likely means to guarantee the sort of humiliations, resentments, and hatreds that ultimately lead the destruction of communities.” — Aeon
The Ju/’hoansi view voting as a contributor to polarization and divisiveness. This is yet another example of how the tribe is extremely intentional about designing systems that avoid the possibility of intra-group winning and losing; these are the exact dynamics that contribute to group fragmentation.
Instead, the tribe continues to deliberate until the group unites on a decision or a course of action. The process ensures that the decision belongs to the group as a unit instead of a subset of individuals within the group, furthering the unity that they experience.
shared truth and shared system of values
“Each day starts with the Morning Discourse, in which people take turns voicing concerns, thoughts, ideas. Each comment builds on the previous. The state of affairs of the group becomes publicly available. Nothing is directed toward individuals, only the group.” — Aeon
This is such a powerful discipline. It’s a routine, transparent way of ensuring that everyone is aligned on the state of the tribe. So many disagreements in groups come from a lack of a shared understanding about the state of the group itself; some people view the positive developments and believe the group is moving in the right direction, while others focus on the process failures and believe the group is stagnant. Knowledge is often fragmented between individuals, and there is no shared consensus of the group’s status quo. This makes it impossible to make clear decisions about the next steps.
“Rather than each person expressing views as an individual, it is almost as if the group is talking through each individual. The Morning Discourse shapes the consensus, when ‘all think in the same way with the same head, not in different ways.’" — Aeon
encouragement of intellectual diversity
“As Liberman observed in Australia, there is just as much eccentricity and variation in a band of hunter-gatherers as there is among ourselves. This is a critical part of the recipe for high collective intelligence.” — Aeon
The Ju/’hoansi are extremely tolerant of individual differences and perspectives. Each individual has a unique role in the tribe, and the role that they play lends itself to unique expertise in various functional areas. This is instrumental for the tribe to have a large base of “collective intelligence” from which to make effective group decisions from.
This also requires investment and participation from everyone in the tribe, to ensure that the group can capture the full collective intelligence contained within the full population:
“Biesele documented a principle that, if each person’s opinion was not heard, trouble would follow. Repressed opinions, it was said, could cause sickness.” — Aeon
key takeaways
culture is a critical priority
I think that the goal of culture-building mechanisms is to foster a shared group identity, where individuals prioritize the group's optimal outcomes over their own, especially when personal gains come at the group's expense.
Through all the examples above, you can see just how critical a shared sense of group identity is to the Ju/’hoansi, and how deeply it informs the principles and norms that they hold as a tribe. Our main priority as leaders is to simulate and create that, and we do this through a variety of culture-building initiatives. Every leader and group has their own style, but without the shared identity and shared investment in the outcome, nothing else can really follow.
there is an optimal way to encourage dialogue within groups
From my interpretation, the general “shape” of effective discussion and dialogue within groups includes the following principles:
It is centered on first-person observations or data
It is divorced from ego i.e. the ideas or observations offered are not tied to the person offering them
It is open and transparent, with everyone having equal rights (in fact, equal responsibilities) to share
It is focused on elevating the group’s collective intelligence as opposed to establishing certain individuals as smarter or more capable
It is separated from strong emotions
For distributed teams, I think documentation and written communication is mission critical to achieving these principles. Written communication helps you check your priors and ensure your communications fall in line with these principles (and contain first-person evidence for your beliefs), and documentation is essential to ensure that the group has a shared set of collective intelligence that isn’t fragmented. I also love the idea of routine town halls where people are encouraged to share their observations and experiences from being in the group. Otherwise, there is no agreed-upon status quo from which groups can make effective decisions.
misc. thoughts and quotes
debate is not productive within groups
“Undoubtedly, debate can be useful for presenting alternative viewpoints and hashing out logical inconsistencies. But it often results in little more than hardened views and hurt feelings. Debate is a tool designed to convince, not to solve collective problems. ‘I never yet saw an instance of one of two disputants convincing the other by argument,’ wrote Thomas Jefferson in 1808.” — Aeon
individual virtues/attributes are not essential for optimal groups
“Taken together, there is robust evidence that the Ju/’hoansi are able to avoid levels of polarisation like we see in our current political moment. This is achieved not necessarily through individual virtue but rather with cultural guardrails and prolonged deliberation.” — Aeon
This is an incredible finding! While everyone has room to grow, it is evidently possible to design highly functional and effective groups even if not everyone is a perfect, individuated self. Group problems are largely organizational design problems, not individual ones!
just a cool quote
“As Biesele told me, Ju/’hoansi informants would say things like: ‘It’s necessary to draw on the strengths of each person, to minimise the chances that decisions will be made on the basis of the weakness of one or a few persons.’” — Aeon
Woah! Honestly speaking, I’m not sure I fully understand what this means in practice, but the idea that certain group decisions are made based on the weakness of a few people definitely resonates with me. I feel like I’ve seen this in practice, where groups implement policies or take detours from their planned courses of action based on the responses and emotions of a select few individuals.
interesting quote about politics / political engagement
“Challenges arose when individuals or small groups were designated as representatives to act as a connection to the government. ‘This was a very foreign idea,’ Biesele said, ‘but the people could see the need for interacting in this way with the new administrations, so they debated how they could possibly do it successfully.’ This task was undertaken with considerable hesitation. One Ju/’hoan said: ‘We never wanted to represent our communities: that was a white people’s idea in the first place.’” — Aeon
This is a quote describing the Ju/’hoansi tribe’s reaction when they were requested by local governments to have a representative. To them, it was like representing the body with an arm; no individual can represent their community. That idea itself was completely foreign and antithetical to the ethos with which they relate to one another.
This brings into question our incessant focus on national/international politics and individual politicians/celebrities/etc. We’ve reshaped our focus so much that we’re witnessing the death of local journalism and engagement with local communities in real time. There’s something so wrong with this picture, and I think the death of local and community identities has a role to play in the rampant polarization we’re experiencing as well as the mental health and loneliness issues that most of us are facing. We don’t feel like we belong anywhere.
truth-seeking
“With a unified approach to a common goal, along with norms that encourage free and open expression and diverse viewpoints, it is in everyone’s interest to seek the truth.” — Aeon
Beautiful. I think powerful and dynamic leaders can shape the system of incentives within the groups they lead in order to simulate this shared interest, and I’m determined to learn the best ways to do so.