How honeybees lead themselves

Posted by jlubans on August 31, 2011  •  Leave comment (0)

A library friend, who knows about my interest in democratic work places, told me about a new book she had recently cataloged: Honeybee Democracy.
Thomas D. Seeley, a Cornell biologist, summarizes much of his own and others’ research – enticingly and engagingly presented - on the honeybee and how the bee manages to “achieve an incredibly harmony of labor without supervision.”

Dr. Seeley explores and explains the puzzling questions of how bee swarms, made up of around 10,000 individual bees, often exposed and dangling from the limb of a tree, choose a new, safe, nest in a timely way out of a dozen possibilities, presented to the swarm by scout bees. (Seeley emphasizes that there is no supreme bee. For the experiments the queen bee was sequestered from the decision-making.) The bees take in the information presented by each scout through a “waggle dance” about the site the scout has found and is promoting.
From the information in the several dances, the scouts narrow down the choices and locations – some bees favoring one site more than another, and then shifting alliances, until one site remains and becomes the collective decision. (How 10,000 bees get to the new home is another research topic in Seeley's book.)
The bees’ choice –according to Seeley’s metrics of what makes for a happy home - is usually the best spot - sheltered, a small doorway, the interior large enough to contain the swarm and its honey, all the while maintaining a high enough temperature to survive the coldest weather.
Anyone that has gone house hunting knows it is a complicated matter for humans, no less so for bees. And, while we might lose money or a marriage on a poor choice, the swarm faces extinction.

Of special interest to me was Chapter 10, “Swarm Smarts.” Seeley spells our how he applies his bee research results to chairing an academic department. Tongue in cheek, he calls these lessons:
“Five Habits of Highly Effective Groups.”

1. Compose the decision making group of individuals with shared interests and mutual respect. (If we discover our true, shared interests we probably will have achieved mutual respect. That said, I have taken part in discussions on how to re-invent, how to catch the second upward curve, wherein disparate interests were far afield and cliques were unwilling to surrender their “choices.” Invariably, this was the sticking point when it came time to divvy up resources in new ways. We’d finally compromise and not choose the best option. The bees have us (humans) beat!

2. Minimize the leader’s influence on the group’s thinking. As Seeley points out, there is no leader in the beehive. The queen has a genetic role, not a leadership role. We have numerous examples of how a workplace leader can stymie a group’s exploration of best options, and through fear or other intimidation, ram through the leader’s one solution. Seeley seems to be suggesting that in human situations the leader should be more of a facilitator than the decision maker. I’d agree. If you, the leader, have THE solution, then you’ll have to figure out a way to introduce it and allow it to compete with the other ideas, as suggested in steps 3 & 4. Bees illustrate the invaluable role of "effective followers" in reaching the best decisions.

3. Seek diverse solutions to the problem.

4. Aggregate the group’s knowledge through debate.
5. Use quorum responses for cohesion, accuracy and speed.
A quorum response is an antidote to endless debate. Once a threshold number is reached among bees for where to nest, that is a quorum and those bees that have yet to be persuaded, now stop advertising and sign on to the chosen nest. In faculty decisions, ones requiring a unanimous vote like for granting tenure, Seeley takes periodic anonymous straw polls (after each biologist has done his/her version of an information-sharing waggle dance, no doubt). He finds that once 80% of the professors agree with a decision, the 20% that is holding out concedes.

It would be fun to have a venue in which to talk some more about Dr. Seeley’s remarkable research. When I return this November to Latvia, with its ancient, wide and varied apiculture - similar in some ways to what I observe in Lithuania (don't tell the Latvians I said that), I just may bring this up when I do presentations in Riga and in Vilnius!

Mediocre Teams

Posted by jlubans on April 08, 2020  •  Leave comment (0)

An obituary set me thinking about work teams I’ve known and why some thrived while some dithered.
The death notice was for Psychologist Susan Wheelan who studied work teams and extended Tuckman’s research on the evolutionary phases of teamwork, form, storm, norm, perform.
Feudin’, fussin’ and a-fightin’
In my experience,” storming” is the most problematic phase for any team. Wheelan offered ways to get through this fevered state into something healthful and productive.
Her guidance was pragmatic. She said in a 2000 interview: “When I go into a company I’m often asked, ’You’re not one of those touchy-feely types, are you?’”
“‘No,’ I say. ‘Here’s my data. This is how it works.’”
She knew well that all too many teams never get past the storming or trust building phase, forever stuck in a purgatory of pretending to be effective when all their work and effort show otherwise.
Yet, it seems few can break through the chronic impasse.
Unlike most of us who prefer to avoid conflict, Dr. Wheelan saw it as necessary for working through differences and establishing a climate in which members feel free to express disagreements.
Patience, she espoused, is a must.
Unless one is lucky, no team hits the road running. As I learned over several decades of team management - and Wheelan confirms - a team will need at least six months to become highly effective and then only if it can break through the storming phase.
Of course, if it never gets past storming, the team will be forever mediocre.
There is help out there for those of us who do not want to settle for mediocre. Several techniques offer ways for teams to get to good performance.
And, instead of pushing, I’d be more patient. Most important, I’d call more timeouts to check in with the team and how it is doing: What’s working? What’s not?
Quorum response.
Choose the right team players!
Red, Yellow or Green? Stop, Idle, or Go?
AAR, “After Action Review”.
Team Wellbeing Test
Our friend the honey bee suggests techniques for reaching agreement without wasting time: As I wrote, “a quorum response is an antidote to endless debate. Once a threshold number is reached among bees for where to nest, that is a quorum and those bees that have yet to be persuaded, now stop advertising and sign on to the chosen nest. In faculty decisions, ones requiring a unanimous vote like for granting tenure, Dr. Seeley - the bee researcher and a department head - takes periodic anonymous straw polls. He finds that once 80% of the professors agree with a decision, the others concede.”
When choosing team players, include women, experts, and expert generalists. All should share interests and provide mutual respect. Let no one individual dominate the team discussion and abide by explicit team norms. (What does it mean to be a team participant?)
Here are a few variations on ye olde Plus/Delta (a rapid listing of what’s working? and what is not?)
The plus/delta is helpful in my teaching; I do one early in each class and then one after the in-class final - the anonymouss "Slam/Dunk" version - to find useful information for the next semester.
Also, I ask each student project team to do a plus/delta and to hand it in to me. I've been impresses with the team's honesty and candour about team dynamics.
A team leader could do a rapid-fire plus/delta after every meeting to get at things unsaid and needing to be said.
In the plus/delta genre there’s the traffic light approach to taking team mood. Are members overly cautious, hesitant (yellow), fiercely opposed (red) or feeling groovy (green)? What are the underlying issues for those team members who choose yellow or red lights? How will you find out?
Then there’s the AAR, “After Action Review”, a process for group assessment of how things are going, what learnings there might be, and what is missing/needed.
The AAR – if guided well - may be better for novice teams seeking openness and honesty.
I once used my one page Team Well Being Test with a Nascar racing team’s three pit crews, each in competition with the other.
Here are several of the questions I asked each pit crew member to rate on a five point scale from weak to strong:
Inclusion (Am I in or am I out?)
Elbow room (I’m easy or I’m crowded)
Discussion (Is it free or is it guarded?)
Level of conflict (Is it low and tolerable or high?)
Handling of conflict (Do we work on it or avoid it?)
Support (Each to all or self only?)
Not a single member responded! They were not about to reveal personal and team weaknesses.
Two decades later the team remains mired in mediocrity and down to one pit crew and driver and seemingly satisfied with finishing anywhere from 15th-25th place in a 40 car field.
I’d venture they are still stuck in the “storming” phase of team development. The stock car team owner should have sent a SOS to Dr. Wheelan!

© Copyright John Lubans 2020

“…of the people, by the people, for the people …." (Revised March 20, 2012)

Posted by jlubans on March 18, 2012  •  Leave comment (0)

(NEW: See a video excerpt from the March 6 Bradford town meeting).
On the way from North Carolina to Bradford, Vermont, for its March 6, 2012 town meting, my wife and I detoured to Gettysburg, a sacred place in America’s history. Standing near where President Lincoln spoke, his words, “that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth" evoked new meaning. I was about to witness in Bradford some part of what Lincoln meant by “of the people, by the people, for the people” – self-government.

A large sign on the door to the Bradford Academy urged people to vote – It is Super Tuesday.
20120318-frontdoor.jpeg Caption: Entry to the Bradford Academy building. Its attractively renovated auditorium hosted the town meeting.

Larry Coffin, the about-to-retire Moderator, introduced my wife and me to the assemblage, about 150 people, mentioning by way of explanation, that the Bradford town meeting has now been described in two books, “both about bees”, and that I was there to do some research on organizational dynamics.
This, the 239th meeting, started promptly at 9AM. As has been the custom for many years, all rose for the Salute to the flag, hands over hearts. Quoting from last year’s minutes: “(The Moderator) asked for a moment of silence in memory of those in our community who passed away last year and in honor of those who serve our Community, State and Nation by placing themselves in harm’s way and to acknowledge the exercise in Democracy we are about to undertake. The Girl Scouts led the Pledge of Allegiance.”

In Larry’s 40th year as Moderator (1971 – 2012), he passed the gavel to a newly elected Moderator, Mark Johnson, a retired elementary school principal and until recently the manager of the Village Store.
The Moderator receives a stipend of $100 for the year, so this is more in the volunteer spirit than with making a profit. (I observed an ethos in this community of doing for oneself and others rather than expecting someone else to do it. One annual report cites a neighbor who takes in or puts up at a motel, at his own expense, the few homeless in Bradford).
The moderator is elected annually. Here is what Larry says about town meetings and the role of the Moderator:
“Town meetings remain one of the best examples of participatory democracy in the world. It is within the confines of public debate that voters get to thrash out, face to face, issues facing the town’s government.” The town meeting “operates under a combination of Roberts, Vermont state law and our own traditional rules of procedure. As moderator I have always felt it is my responsibility to help a voter who is unsure of the proper way to bring a motion before the assembly. If there are any decisions of the moderator that a voter wishes to appeal, the right to do so exists.“
I had been under the assumption that the moderator has no vote. To the contrary, I quote Larry again: "It is not correct to say that the moderator has no vote, for, as with most presiding officers, he may vote only when his vote makes a difference in a divison of the house (hand, or standing). In that case he can vote to break or make a tie. He can also vote in a ballot vote."

During breaks in the meeting, several people introduced themselves, curious about us flatlanders and obviously proud of their town and way of life. In response to my wife's question about whether the town meeting concept could work in a diverse community, say like Durham with its split black and white populations, a Bradford citizen observed: “Each town is different.”( In other words, the concept can work if people are willing to subordinate individual agendas to the greater good.) I noted a pithiness of speech time and again during the meeting as people offered comments, asked questions and made motions. The orotund would not fare well in Bradford.
Robert Miller (Larry's former student) and Chair of the Selectboard) recognized, with a plaque, Larry's historic years of service and contributions to “participatory democracy.” Mr. Miller told the assembly that Larry as moderator was just the way he was as a teacher: “fair and respectful”. (Larry taught Social Studies in Bradford for 42 years.)
Following several questions about the annual reports – questions that revealed a close reading and understanding of what may be missing or in error – the group moved on to the business of the day.
Election: Two candidates are running for a Selectman’s seat, Randy Moore and Bob Wing. Each candidate gave a brief statement on why he is interested in the job and his qualifications. Randy minced no words. Speaking from the back of the auditorium he indicated the selectmen in the front and said: “There isn’t anyone up there I can’t get along with!”
The election proceeded and all got in line. Each voter has a paper ballot, marks his or her choice of name on paper; checks in at registry desk and then drops paper slip in a ballot box.
20120318-middle line.jpeg Caption: Voters line up to cast their ballot for the selectman of their choice. The Ballot box is on the far right. Two monitors stand by the box. Behind, on the stage, is where the selectmen sit during the meeting.

Article 4: “To see what sum of money the town will vote for General Fund purposes for the year 2012, and to vote to determine the time and manner of collecting monies for General Fund and Town Highway purposes.” $854, 993.00 is approved for the General Fund. Discussion reveals frustration with the auditors because the size of the expected surplus remains nebulous; 2011’s audit is not complete. One voice calls out: “Fire ‘em!” “We did”, responds a selectman.
In the course of the meeting, each of the articles was read out and discussed, fielding pointed questions from various corners. Most questions get good answers; usually someone rises and explains, with specifics, why the money should be distributed to a service and what it does for Bradford. Voice votes pass most of the articles, The Ayes have it. Good humor prevails.
Article 9: Shall the town appropriate $5,000 for the Bradford Conservation Fund? got a different response. One person asked matter-of-factly, “Why are we giving this group money; they’ll use it to take property off our tax rolls!" Murmurs of assent. One or two spoke in defense of this appropriation. The voice vote was too close to call. Larry offered to count.
20120318-conservoteLarry.jpegCaption: Larry Coffin in the distant background in black sweater counts the hands.

65 Ayes, 69 Nays, the motion fails.

Larry told me that sometimes an item’s passage depends on who is asking. For example, one less than popular person had a good idea for a different way of voting – it made sense, but it did not pass. Larry attributed that failure to an abrasive personality.
Another case, a youngish progressive man got a well-regarded businessman to make a motion against nuclear waste being trucked, on the Interstate, past the town. That motion passed. Had the young man offered it, it might not.
To me, many of the questioners were well informed. Also, those speaking for or against a motion said their well-reasoned piece with brevity and sat down. Had someone spoken up for the Conservation Fund – showing that in the long run its work was positive for the tax base, it might have passed. The Conservation Commission which, holds the Conservation Fund, appears to be a well-organized group, so the lack of an articulate response may have been atypical.
Two agencies indicated they were late with their requests – had failed to follow the rules - and asked for their allocation from the floor. While there was general sympathy for the groups, getting them the money was not easy within the confines of the town meeting. And, there was some grumbling about a group's failing to follow the process when others had.
It is invariably best for a local citizen to explain – in the bee world, to perform a “waggle dance” - how a cooperative, multi-town service benefits Bradford. For example: Article 11: Shall the town appropriate $2,000 for the Oxbow Senior Independence Project, Adult Day Services?
Caption: Dianne Smarro, Bradford citizen, explains how the project benefits Bradford, clarifying that 30% of those participating are from Bradford.

Well-informed comments help get the Ayes.

The Bradford Moderator aligns well with Seeley’s description of a democratic leader. Notably, the Moderator facilitated discussion and sought to make sure the process was followed. Not once did the Moderator suggest how the vote should go!
Here is what Seeley learned from his bee research and applied to his chairing of a departmental faculty. He says the democratic leader is limited – for the best results - to the following:
1. States group’s object
2. Defines group’s decision-making process
3. Keeps group on track
4. Fosters a balanced discussion
5. Identifies when decision is reached
It would be good to debate the merits of Seeley’s democratic leader, the town meeting process and the traditional boss/leader (“We’re not going to vote on it!”). Which approach produces the best decisions? The democratic bees select the best place for a new nest 80% of the time. Can humans do better? I'd put my money on the participatory model, one that is open and safe for well informed participants to speak their minds.
Reflecting about Bradford, I wish I had tried voting more often in my work meetings – Seeley’s quorum response (with anonymous ballots) suggests an effective and safe way of voting for professional groups. A vote (hand, voice, or quorum) in work situations might actually be easier than looking for the ever-elusive consensus. That consensus, in my experience, usually turned out to be a poor compromise, everyone getting a little of what they want, but far from the best solution. Larry 's comments about voting are germane: "(T)he results of a secret ballot vote are sometimes different from one in which a voter has to declare preference in front of others. Voice votes in a large group such as (a town meeting) are not very accurate, unless clearly one sided...different voices, different volumes. that is why the moderator says "The ayes appear to have it" to allow for a request for a counted vote."
Of course, democratic decision-making takes preparation and interest by all participants in what is happening. You have to do the homework. Like the Bradford townspeople, each participant has to read and examine critically the annual reports and budgets. Sometimes when we are not in charge we leave the details, even the general pros and cons, to someone else; the more absolute the boss, the less informed the subordinates. That is not what I observed in Bradford. Surely, Mr. Lincoln would have approved!