I have a big problem with competition as a method of organizing and motivating people. It tends to make people restless and unhappy. But people say to me all the time, "Dominance is an inevitable component of human nature. You can't get rid of competition. It's the whole 'alpha male' or 'alpha female' thing. It's part of who we are." These same people enjoy turning to other primate species to claim that dominant behavior is natural in human beings. Gorilla troops recognize a dominant silverback, for example. Most primate species observe some kind of pecking order. While we certainly aren't gorillas--or chimpanzees or babboons or capuchins, for that matter--it isn't so unreasonable to think that we might share this trait with other primate species. But how does our human version of dominance in a complex, modern culture compare to the "natural" form of dominance expressed by other primates? It only takes a day at the zoo to recognize the difference. Not long ago, I was fortunate enough to witness an example of a gorilla training session at ZooAtlanta, and the experience was a real eye opener. At ZooAtlanta, animals participate in training sessions on a voluntary basis, interacting with a human trainer in exchange for treats--carrots, on this particular day. The treats, combined with the animals' natural curiosity and interest in anything new to learn or explore, are usually enough to entice one gorilla or another to interact with the trainer. The gorillas spend their days in "naturalistic" habitats, designed to simulate a natural environment and produce natural behaviors. The animals live in troops--a silverback male and usually two or three females with their young--just as they would in the wild. Trainers interact with the gorillas through a door in a small antechamber next to the public viewing area. On this particular day, when the trainer first called to the troop, a female wandered over to the barred door that separated the trainer from the animal habitat. The gorilla performed various behaviors--mostly designed to make veterinary care easier and less stressful for the animals--such as presenting her back or her shoulder or her foot to the trainer by pressing it to the bars. In exchange for each correctly performed behavior, she was rewarded with a carrot. Then the silverback--the "alpha male" of a gorilla troop--saw this particular female chomping away happily on her well-earned carrots, and apparently he decided he wanted some of these delicacies for himself. He ambled over toward the training area, and the female immediately retreated, giving way to his "authority." The dominance that exists in gorilla troops seemed clearly established, but here's the catch: he might have "run her off," but he didn't tell her what to do instead. And that's where human "dominance" is so very different from gorilla "dominance." A gorilla might demand the best treats for himself, but he won't stand over the other gorillas and tell them what to do all day. "Dominance" might be natural to human beings, and the behaviors of other primates might be decent evidence for this hypothesis, but other primates also offer up decent evidence that "dominance" and "control" are not the same thing. Even if dominance is natural to human beings--and I'm not saying it is--the extent of the control that human beings tend to exert over each other doesn't seem natural at all. It is this aspect of control that I object to in human hierarchies, not simple leadership. Leaders offer the benefits of vision, guidance, experience, and expertise to any team. They smooth over disagreements and personality conflicts. They animate team meetings, solicit input and feedback, and they hold their teams together through thick and thin. This is the sort of genuine leadership that human beings respond to with enthusiasm and loyalty. It is leadership without the emphasis on hierarchy--leadership without the element of exacting control. Leadership may be natural to human beings, but dictatorship is not. It's important that we recognize the difference. |
