Choosing Team over Humanity

“Never argue with stupid people.  They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” –Mark Twain

A few months ago, my husband M. and I were discussing the declining state of civil discourse in the U.S.  I noted a lot of namecalling and M. agreed and uttered that “…it seems like people are choosing their team over humanity.”  I pondered the thought and wrote it on a Post-it Note and stuck it to my computer monitor so that, each time a looked at a social media website that contained people arguing with each other, I could glance at the note to remind myself of the thought…and to not engage.  The engagement of a person who I don’t know seems to be more of trying to prove I’m right in my belief instead of finding a common point of agreement.  I’m of the opinion that social media really doesn’t allow people to engage in a meaningful way and arguing on-line is a lower frequency that is uncomfortable.  Many apps are like bulletin boards where you post whatever and then walk away.  There is no visible ramification from the post itself so people can – and do – say whatever they want without thought to the consequence.  (The linking of social media to one’s employment, however, does create a sense of moral responsibility. Not the subject of this post but a very interesting conversation nonetheless.)

One thing I’ve noticed is that people are quick to call each other names, or put a label to the person with which they disagree. Why is that? What has changed in our society that created the environment which knowingly permits this level of disrespectfulness and misunderstanding?  Anonymity? In my lifetime, this is how children would bully other children; I still carry those scars.  Don’t we adults know better?

Curious about this choice that people seem to be making, I found an interesting article on a blog called The Conversation. The Conversation describes its mission as “…particularly resonant in the U.S., where people universally sense that the country’s social fabric is strained and the common ground people share is shrinking…”. In other words, The Conversation brings people news, not perceptions of the news but facts. I’m a fan of facts.  In a January 23, 2017, article on The Conversation, author Nick Haslam, a professor of psychology with the University of Melbourne wrote that “…With the Trump presidency we may be entering a golden age of insult and name-calling. Trump himself is exercising leadership in this regard. No fewer than 305 people, places and things have felt the sting of his derisive tweets.” So, does the president really have that much influence on the thinking of a nation? Yes, he or she does.

Executive Maynard Webb makes the case in an article in Forbes.com called What Leaders Must Know To Set The Right Tone.   Webb – who has spent decades in the tech industry from an entry level position through to the CEO – is also an author of Dear Founder: Letters of Advice for Anyone who Leads, Manages, or Wants to Start a Business.  Webb writes that “…Every leader is responsible to set the right tone…” and offers some clear guidelines. The leader must be “manically clear” about behavior expectations and provide guidelines of unacceptable behavior and associated accountability.  Webb also discusses the idea of a “bro culture” as “…antiquated and dangerous.”  I’d argue that a “bro culture” in an organization is contradictory to organizational success and may be a fall back behavior when there is no shared or common organizational goal or mission that may be used as a rallying point.  If a leader participates in a “bro culture”, he/she will ultimately fail at achieving their organizational goals because this behavior excludes key diverse viewpoints that are needed for long-term sustainability and success.  As a leader, one needs to hear disagreeing viewpoints to improve their product or service…and set the correct tone to achieve the goal.  The discounting of an opposing viewpoint – and the failure to listen to understand – fractures an organization or a society.  If leadership does not listen to understand, why should we?