Leadership instincts-Social and solitary  

Solitary and social life among animals is very common. What does the solitary or social life signify in nature? Why certain animals prefers to live a solitary life while some prefers to live in groups viz., pride, pack, troop, swam, flock, army etc. Is there anything for the corporate to learn for the above?

In nature, the stronger animals live separately or may lead solitary life and weaker animals live in groups as social animals. Weaker animals can gain strength and protection only when they learn to live in groups and not when they live in isolation. The strong animals cannot live together as competition will be very high among stronger animals. This is only the general thumb rule and not mandatory that all strong animals should lead solitary life and all weak animals should live in groups.

The economics of advantage only makes this type of grouping/choice to happen in nature. The advantage economics also has some shortfalls and limitations. But the social animals prefer to accept the shortfalls in the larger interest of advantage economics. It is believed that when animals live in social groups, the threat from predator is relatively less as even one animal in the group sense the danger, can alert the entire group. The question of compromise on likely shortage of food when animals live in large group vs. death, naturally all animals would prefer to live as social groups and would agree to have some compromise done on their food needs.

On the contrary, the solitary animals because of they wants to be dominant, cannot accept another dominant animal in their group.

It is true in human life also. If you look at the concept of flat culture & flat promotion system, how humans compromised their needs and other comforts to lice in flats co-owned by all members. When the land becomes unaffordable, humans agree to settle with being owners of very small UDS (Un Divided Share) but preferred to have a flat to live. On the contrary, financially more affluent people always go for an independent apartment. The financially powerful people prefers solitary life in that sense and on the contrary, financially less affluent people go for social roosting sites called flats in bigger apartments.

How relevant is the above concept for corporate? Corporate should understand the essential elements of team building from the understanding of solitary and social animals. A team should not have more than one solitary leader; otherwise conflicts will be the usual counter product of every meeting. If some corporate HR proudly say in public that his/her corporate have excellent people and are working as team, one need to doubt as whether people are working as team or it is nothing but mere social grouping.

Differentiating the social group from team is very tricky. The common work style people in social group are ‘you scratch me, I will scratch you’ culture. Whereas, the work style of people with different expertise and experience in a team is governed by a common goal/task.

Solitary people should be given importance in a team until the completion of the project. Once the project is completed, the solitary people should be allowed to lead a solitary life (to have individualized projects). It is better to have solitary leaders at the helm of affairs in most departments and in the organization. Tall and unchallenged leadership qualities are inevitable for the people who are going to run the show. Identify a solitary leader and coronate him/her as head of the organization.

S Ranganathan