XplanaZine

“Identity Thieves” is an exercise that has been developed as an alternative to the popular, but impractical “ropes” courses for executives and military personnel. In it, team members located in different parts of the world communicate via the Internet to procure and transport three shipments of ammunition, spare parts, water, medical supplies, and food to a low intensity conflict zone that is characterized by “hot” flare-ups. The communications network has been compromised, and outsiders are masquerading as team members. How does the team achieve its mission without splintering due to paranoia, suspicion, and distrust of information?

The Original “Ropes” Courses

Physically challenging “ropes” classes modeled on military training became popular in the 90s as corporations sought new ways to build trust and teamwork during times of downsizing, mergers, and change. The need for team building and conflict resolution is now more acute than ever in corporate, military, and government organization, but the old on-site version of ropes courses can now be updated to build trust and teams in distributed, network-centric environments in which individuals work via the Internet and meet face-to-face only occasionally.

The basic idea of a “ropes” course is to build trust and teamwork by taking people outside their regular environment or comfort zone, and putting them in a situation that requires them to cooperate, or (theoretically) plunge to their death.

For example, in the expensive, high-intensity ropes courses for corporate executives, teams of 5 or 6 people would build rope bridges, rappel from helicopters, use ropes to scale rock walls, or lash together rubber rafts in turbulent water.

Team-building is still important, but the cost of holding an onsite “ropes” course can be prohibitive. In addition, it can be difficult to assemble all the team members for a week-long retreat.

One Option: Massive Multiplayer Video Game-Based Simulation

An alternative could be a virtual “ropes” course, using video-game based simulation. For example, individuals could log into a massively multi-player game for something like “Pitfall,” where individuals swing from vines and jump over pits. Certainly this would simulate the idea of being in danger and hanging from a rope to avoid certain death. Team members could e-mail each other “helps” or “cheats” to give themselves more power and skill, thus avoiding falling into the pits where they are snapped up by alligators.

While this might be entertaining, the scenario is not very relevant to the real world. In truth, the classic “ropes” courses are not, either. However, the irrelevance of the activity is less important than the fact that the individuals in the teams have been identified as “fast-trackers” and special. Due to the high cost and inconvenience, and a kind of “Bohemian Grove” exclusivity cachet, “live” ropes courses can be effective at building bonds and strategic alliances between individuals in a corporation or association.

Most organizations utilizing team members who are separated by space and time zones, as well as access issues, have a need to develop tactics to solve problems that have to do with the health of the enterprise.

In that case, it is better to develop a more realistic simulation that creates a sense of danger and forces teammates to develop techniques that do not merely build trust, but that require trust.

A Better Option: “Identity Thieves” – An Online, Distributed Team-Building Activit

The Scenario: Your team, which consists of 5 or 6 individuals, must put together three separate shipments of water, food, ammunition, spare parts and find a way to transport them to a location in the middle of “low intensity conflict” that often flares up into small, localized “hot” conflict. The troops who are currently there need the supplies. Eventually, your team will need the supplies because you are slated to replace the team currently there.

Your team members are currently on temporary assignments, some in undisclosed locations.

You have never met your team members face-to-face.

You must plan and execute your mission with the following constraints:

• You may only use official e-mail
• You must use private security for storage or cache points
• You must plan and arrange for transport and storage, FOB the vendors’ warehouse
• You must obtain most items using procurement procedures
• You have some discretionary funding for equipment purchase, and may barter

Primary Mission : To procure supplies and transport them safely for three separate deliveries of shipments containing the same balanced distribution of ammunition, water, food, and spare parts. There may be urgent spare parts that you will need to expedite.

Secondary Objectives:

• To develop a working relationship with functional procedures that you and your team can apply to other situations (and other distributed team members) in the future.
• To develop techniques that allow secure communications.
• To develop unique and flexible methods for assuring security, verifying identity, avoiding fraudulent acquisitions of supplies.
• To develop contingency plans in the case of identity theft, materiel theft, hijacking, kidnapping, etc.

Problems: The following challenges exist

• The system is compromised and outsiders have access to your team’s e-mail communications
• You have to use the official e-mail system, nonetheless
• Outsiders want access to the e-mail system because they want to a) sell cheap, inferior products at high prices (some are counterfeit spare parts and counterfeit pharmaceuticals); b) be hired to provide private “security” for storage and transit (and to effect inventory “shrinkage”); c) hijack the shipments, or kidnap team members for profit and propaganda; d) steal team members’ identities for various and sundry purposes.

Questions:

• Can you trust your team members? In the game, keep in mind that your facilitator will deliberately steal identities, or plant disinformation
• Can you develop a procedure to assure yourselves of the identities and integrity of team members?
• Just how far can you rely on caution, and when does caution turn to paranoia? What are the pro’s and con’s of paranoia within a team?
• How trustworthy is the information that you are receiving? How can you verify the information? Is there a way to check it out?
• How do you develop action steps?
• How do you assign a point person? Does each team member take turns being a point person? When, how, and why?

Procedure:

• Assign teams
• Describe where the supplies are needed, how much is needed, and when
• Develop the e-mail system and network
• Create inventory lists
• Detail the procurement processes (formal and informal)

The Limits of Charismatic Leadership

Wouldn’t it just be easier to follow the commands of a charismatic leader? Wouldn’t it be more efficient to take orders from a central command post, where the leader dictates the day’s activities?

This might be efficient, but it would not be effective in today’s distributed network-centric world for a number of reasons. Yes, individuals can tap into a network to obtain information, but because tasks, information, and talent are scattered across time and space, it is necessary

An effective method for developing teams and modeling distributed leadership involves deliberately weaning oneself from the dependency relationships that characterize charismatic leadership styles.

Although charismatic leaders are often necessary in order to define and instill the initial motivating vision, and to “sell” the vision, the organization cannot easily grow, nor can it respond quickly and appropriately to new needs and a changing world.

The charismatic leader, while often effective at motivating the existing members of the organization, and in recruiting and inspiring new members, is often a dismal manager who does not delegate authority well.

Further, the charismatic leader may suffer from a narcissistic personality disorder. While some narcissism is necessary for self-efficacy and a healthy self-concept, a person suffering from a narcissistic disorder could exhibit grandiosity, an inability to perceive or respond to the feelings and needs of others, and a hypomanic level of activity. Decision-making is often compromised, and breaches of ethics are possible.

Even in the best of circumstances, an organization dependent upon a charismatic leader for growth, direction, and vision will have problems if the mission requires rapid adaptive responses, a broad range of technical abilities and expertise, wide geographical distribution of decision-making points, and problem-solving that requires multi-tasking.

A Brief Bibliography of Sources Detailing and Questioning Charismatic Leaders and Leadership

Bass, B. M. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership behavior. In Leadership Quarterly. 10:2, (pp. 181 – 219).

Bass, B. M., and Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership: A response to critiques. In M. M. Chemers & R. Ayman (Eds.), Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and directions (pp. 49-80). New York : Academic Press.

Bennis, W. G., and Nanus, B. (1985). Leaderss: The strategies of taking charge. San Francisco : Harper-Collins.

Boal, K. B., & Bryson, J. M. (1988). Charismatic leadership: A phenomenological and structural approach. In J. G. Hunt, B. R. Baliga, H. P. Dachler, & C. A. Schriesheim (Eds.), Emerging leadership vistas (pp. 11-28). Lexington , MA : Lexington Books.

Bryman, A. (1992). Charisma and leadership in organization. London : Sage.

Conger, J. A. (1989). The charismatic leader: Beyond the mystique of exceptional leadership. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass.

Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1998). Charismatic leadership in organizations. Thousand Oaks , CA : Sage.

Dorian, B. J., Dunbar, C., Frayn., D., and Garfinkel, P. E. (2000). Charismatic leadership, boundary issues, and collusion. American Journal of Psychotherapy. 54:2 (pp. 216-225).

Ehrhart, M. G., and Klein, K. J. (2001). Predicting followers’ preferences for charismatic leadership: the influence of follower values and personality. The Leadership quarterly. 12 (pp. 153-179).

Ernstthal, H. (2000). Getting outside the charmed circle: An interview with John Gardner. Association Management. Jan 2000. (pp. 43-45).

Fiedler, F. E. & Garcia, J. E. (1987). New approaches to leadership: Cognitive resources and organizational performance. New York : John Wiley.

House, R. J., & Shamir, B. (1993). Toward the integration of transformational, charismatic, and visionary theories. In M. M. Chemers & R. Ayman (Eds.), Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and directions (pp. 81-107). San Diego : Academic Press.

Howell, J. M. (1997). Organizational contexts, charismatic and exchange leadership. Kellogg Leadership Studies Monograph, Center for Political Leadership and Participation, University of Maryland .

Howell, J. M., and Shamer, B. (2005). The role of followers in the charismatic leadership process: Relationships and their consequences. Academy of Management Review. 30:1 (pp. 96-112).

Roberts, N. C., and Bradley, R. T. (1988). Limits of charisma. In J. A. Conger and R. N. Kanungo (Eds.), Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organizational effectiveness (pp. 253-275). San Francisco , CA : Jossey-Bass.

Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass.

Tucker, R. C. (1970). The theory of charismatic leadership. In D. A. Rostow (Ed.), Philosophers and kings: Studies in leadership. New York : George Braziller.

Willner, A. R. (1984). The spellbinders: Charismatic political leadership. New Haven , CT : Yale UP.

Yukl, G. (1999). “An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories.” Leadership Quarterly, 10:2 (pp 285-313).

Yukl, G. (1998). Leadership in organizations (4 th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.