Seeking Equilibrium: The HUMI Model and Its Application in Team Dynamics
Summary
I am an agility coach. This means I began my professional career over 40 years ago as a software engineer. I currently coach teams and teams-of-teams in working together to solve complex problems with software. In my search to improve the work of people in teams, I revealed how humans work in collaborating groups of two or more, and why they work the way they do.
To me, I haven’t discovered anything new. I’ve done what an experienced, intuitive human does all day; I recognized a pattern. A pattern that has been in use and among humans every day for tens of thousands of years. I'm proposing a model for that pattern.
HUMI Model (Human Universal Model of Interaction) proposes 4 categories of strategies in the way our mind organizes human interactions. How our thinking influences our interactions with teams. In this exploration of the model, we'll uncover how our deep quest for equilibrium in human interactions shapes team dynamics and decision-making.
Introduction
We, humans, prefer to work in equilibrium with others because that allows our internal “team” of System 1 and System 2 to work in equilibrium, in balance. System 2 performs our conscious, logical thinking. Safe, balanced interactions with most other humans require our mind to orchestrate the optimal collaboration between System 1 and System 2 thinking. We do this seamlessly and organically when we interact in teams of two or more people at a time. This is because System 1 prefers equilibrium and balance.
System 1 Thinking: The Intuitive Mind
Imagine System 1 as your brain's autopilot mode. It's quick, instinctual, and often operates without you consciously realizing it. In everyday life, it's when you effortlessly recognize a familiar face in a crowd or when you automatically dodge an unexpected obstacle while walking.
In teamwork, System 1 is at play when team members instantly react to familiar situations, make quick decisions based on past experiences, or respond to each other's emotions. It's what helps a team member catch a mistake without a detailed review, or sense a colleague's frustration without a word being said. System 1 is great for efficiency and speed, but it's not always accurate since it relies on gut feelings and heuristics.
System 2 Thinking: The Analytical Mind
System 2, on the other hand, is your brain's deliberate mode. Think of it as the careful, methodical planner. It's like when you’re learning a new skill, solving a complex problem, or making a decision after weighing all the pros and cons.
In the context of teamwork, System 2 kicks in during planning sessions, detailed analysis of a project, or when the team is strategizing for the long term. It’s a thoughtful discussion in a meeting where everyone's carefully considering their options. System 2 is essential for making well-informed, rational decisions. However, it's slower and requires more mental energy.
System Influence on Teamwork
As a team, and in a team, both systems are constantly at play and influencing each other. For instance, System 1 can help a team quickly adapt to a changing situation based on collective experience. However, it can also lead to snap judgments or biases. That’s where System 2 comes in – it helps to slow down and evaluate, ensuring that decisions are not just quick but also well-thought-out.
The interplay between System 1 and System 2 is crucial for a balanced team dynamic. Too much reliance on System 1 can lead to impulsive decisions and overlooked details while overemphasizing System 2 can result in analysis paralysis and slow response times.
Effective teamwork requires harmony between these systems – allowing for intuition and efficiency, while also ensuring thoroughness and rationality. Understanding and managing this balance is key to a team’s success in navigating complex tasks and achieving its goals.
Chunking Interactions into Teams and To-Do Lists
When we add more people to the collaboration we begin to lose a mental grasp of the whole. Our brain’s solution is to do what humans are wired to do. We “chunk” the mental image of a large group of people working together into smaller teams. This is why the optimal team size is around 5-7.
This is our mental chunking comfort zone and is part of our natural human-to-human interaction equilibrium. We also mentally “chunk” the work of the teams. We learn to limit to-do lists to “seven plus-or-minus two items”, which System 1 prefers to see as 7 +/- 2. Notice how the latter is 7 characters and the former is 29 characters.
Heightened Awareness at the Extremes
When we are alone in a room we are acutely aware when a person enters that room. As more people enter the room we may be aware of each new potential interaction, as each individual interaction probability moves from zero to more than zero. However, we are more attuned to the certain (100%) interaction with the person in front of us. Or the next most probable personal interaction.
Why? Two reasons. System 1 is highly tuned to stimulation by events that transition from 0% probability to slightly more than 0%. It is also highly tuned to events that transition from slightly less than 100% into certainty. Also, the probable negative outcomes from new people entering the room are diminished with each new collaborator that enters the room.
The ‘safe’ people already in the room will also be sensitive to new arrivals and collectively we can monitor the door. There is safety in numbers. This also explains how people with a hidden counter-equilibrium strategy could be allowed to enter the room. Especially when they are not the first to enter.
All the while, System 1 remains vigilant for any unexpected interaction. As people leave the room we may be aware that the probability goes to zero for each of our former potential interactions. Most often we are not. We are about twice as sensitive to people entering the room as to people leaving the room. We are most acutely aware when the last person leaves that room and we are alone again. System 1 prefers not to be alone. There is safety in teams.
Risk Aversion in Teams of Ideas
In prospect theory, the Fourfold Model explains asymmetric risk aversion. This model explains how we assign value to items depending on whether we hold that item for Use or for Trade. For System 1, it does not matter if those items are physical and present, or physical and stored distantly. We still assign the same weighted value based on our attachment to those items. Our value weighting also applies to ideas and beliefs that we may hold dear or for trade. Try convincing someone they are wrong about a belief they hold dear. Then try introducing them to a new idea.
The thought of belonging to a team is an idea. Do you hold that team dear or for trade? The Dominic Torretto character in the “Fast & Furious” franchise holds the idea of one particular team very dear: "Family defines us. By blood or by bond, family is a powerful thing."
Teams Seeking Equilibrium
Economics has accepted the concept of cooperative market equilibrium for decades. Has anyone wondered why this is so? This is because cooperative economic markets operate as if they were a team of interacting humans. And this behavior is predictable.
The market collectively acts predictably as a single person would. Market equilibrium is Individuals and teams who are consciously and unconsciously seeking individual equilibrium between their System 1 thinking and System 2 thinking.
The human desire to seek equilibrium in cooperation with others is nearly as strong as our attachment to things and ideas we hold dear as individuals. Nearly. You understand that intuitively.
This is why we avoid interactions in environments where we question the reliability of equilibrium. Some areas are not safe; they have questionable stability in their equilibrium. This is why we are willing to exchange or trade with individuals who make it their profession to actively maintain social equilibrium. A Regulator.
System 1 is Indiscriminate
It does not matter to our System 1 if our human interaction is:
Cooperatively trading a knife for a rabbit with another primitive hunter 20,000 years ago, or
Cooperatively trading ideas in a team that is part of a team of teams constructing a bridge, or
Cooperatively trading ideas with others about the idea of belonging to a team.
The same behavior patterns emerges. The reference pattern is of two lone ancient humans cooperating while interacting, all while maintaining their safety and the public equilibrium. We can achieve optimal internal equilibrium when we organize our external conscious work in a complimentary manner.
Not only cooperating in how we work but optimizing our collaboration by cooperatively organizing how we work together in teams and in groups of teams when we have a shared outcome.
Many teams today blame cooperative dysfunction between teams on incompatible processes and tools. Or 'difficult people' who aren't as concerned about maintaining the equilibrium. These can be contributing factors to sub-optimal cooperation.
However, the solution is not to mandate the broad use of a single tool and practice set for all teams. We can significantly reduce the requirements that teams must all follow identical practices if we agree to adopt a common higher-level model of team cooperation and team interaction strategy management. The HUMI Model.
Conclusion: Humans Are Mostly Cooperative by Nature
Sample the history of all human Interactions of two or more individuals. You will find a wide range of outcomes; from very, very bad to very, very good. If we plot a normal distribution with 20,000 years of human interaction outcomes on a bell curve, we can intuitively predict the outcomes that will be closer to the mean. We instinctively know that most of our long history of human interaction has produced more outcomes that are closest to equilibrium.
The history of human interaction is there to show us that our natural tendency is to seek personal and social equilibrium. This is due to the nature of our brain’s operation. When we exceed our natural capacity for managing information or one-on-one interactions, we begin to organize people and their cooperative activities into “chunks”.
As we grow the complexity of our society, the sheer volume of our knowledge, skills, tools, decisions, and strategies also grows. Even when we ‘retire’ ineffective strategies, the total inventory grows. Fortunately, most of us only need a few good strategies to successfully manage our human interactions. How many features of Microsoft Word do you really use?
We can organize our strategies for human interaction into “chunks” or categories for easy access. Any categorization is better than none. The optimum categorization is what is proposed in this model. A categorization that is in equilibrium with our unconscious thinking.
“Amos and I often joked that we were engaged in studying a subject about which our grandmothers knew a great deal.” - Daniel Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow.
A Call to Experimentation
Experiment with the HUMI Model to align your team’s natural tendencies with productive, balanced interactions. My recommendation: Perform a 5S event with your team collaboration strategies. Refactor your team’s organizing, thinking, and decision-making using an optimal strategy organization model. The HUMI Model.
Read more about the model here.
Merrimack, NH USA
January 2024
Opmerkingen