The vacuum of purpose
The Natural Dynamics of Group Roles
I have analyzed the dynamics of groups and the relationships forming within them for a long time. I started noticing patterns when I moved schools during my senior year of high school. By then, my old classroom had already formed archetypes and purposes. As usual, we had the teacher’s pets, the athletes, the nerds, the jokesters, the misfits—the whole ecosystem. All of that looked normal to me, just as the sun rises in the east. After all, I grew up with these kids; I observed them develop into their roles. I thought this was unique to our group of classmates. I was assigning the character traits to the person having them. I was very wrong, though...
Discovering the Pattern
Came senior year, I moved to another school in another city. As I joined the new class on the first day of school, I imidiatelly started to notice the same roles, just played by different kids. The jokester was a different student, yet every class seemed to have one. He carried the same responsibilities—lifting the mood, making others laugh, easing tension in times of trouble. The same went for the rest of the roles—same roles, just with different kids stepping into them.
Roles That Emerge Naturally
And these roles were not explicitly imposed. In comparison to formal roles in a company or enterprise, these kids simply found themselves in this group and stepped into the most fitting role in a very natural and evolutionary way, as if they were always meant to do so.
I mean, the jokester from our class was not the best in the craft, compared, for example, to other jokesters from other classrooms. There was no need, really—he was the funniest in the immediate scope, and that was enough to fill the role and the responsibility that came with it.
The Power of a Vacuum
I realized it wasn’t the person defining the role, but the role defining the person who would step into it. The vacuum of need was dictating the responsibilities. We are naturally inclined toward these roles when there is nobody else to fill them. The open position must be filled. Groups, like nature itself, do not tolerate a vacuum.
I observe the same pattern in any relationship: marriage, family, development teams, companies, etc. Societies not so much, but that is a story for another time.
Noticing the pattern everywhere I look
In a family home, people have to eat, so someone has to adopt and learn how to cook, someone has to learn to navigate the bureaucracy, someone has to call the plumber, negotiate the offer for the new patio, even handle unexpected emergencies. The roles must be filled. Who fills them doesn’t matter—one doesn’t have to be the best accountant in order to do the family tax returns. They just have to be good enough in the scope of the family. We would not want the eight‑year‑old to do it, right?
During my childhood, a schoolmate of mine told me that her mother fixes the washing machine (when the pump clogs) and changes fuses around the house. Being used to seeing these jobs done by a man, it was very strange to me to hear this. Later, I realized that a need for a handyman had arisen in their home, and the most inclined person took the role. The vacuum was filled.
The same goes for a company or a development team. Simply assigning someone as team leader without the need for one (pro forma) is never helpful. It has happened to me too—it’s not pleasant. Instead, I would say, let the group start forming on its own, start working, and once vacuums start forming, the roles will present themselves. Quickly thereafter, they will be filled, and a natural order will form. Furthermore, the team will be future‑proof: every time a need arises, someone will already be prepared and inclined to take that responsibility in that particular scope. Nature has a way.
A Final Thought
I still observe group dynamics to this day. I kind of enjoy it—seeing people rise to the best of their ability, only to take the job nobody wants.
Comments
Post a Comment