There’s an unpopular phenomenon in group dynamics called in-group out-group. I call it unpopular not because it isn’t well-known (it is) but because it seems like everyone who knows about it is against it. Even the original researchers behind in-group out-group (and it’s complement Leader-Member Exchange theory) offer that organizations shouldn’t work this way. They believe Leader’s need to facilitate dialogue across the entire organizations and remove in-group tendencies.
Not Bob Frisch.
Frisch’s new book, Who’s in the Room, argues that this in-group, which he calls the kitchen cabinet, is not going away any time soon…and that it shouldn’t. Frisch believes that real problem isn’t the kitchen cabinet; it’s the myth that the kitchen cabinet doesn’t exist. This is a starkly contrarian view, one that I had a hard time acclimating too as I read Who’s in the Room. However, gradually Frisch began to sell me on the idea that top-level leaders need both a large senior management team and a kitchen cabinet of trusted advisors. Senior Management Teams, he offer, tend to have a yes-man culture where everything presented in meetings must be positive and in line with what the leader wants. Kitchen cabinets, on the other hand, have actually been given the informality to provide contrarian views and objections to the leader – which better prepares them to lead.
To be sure, both Frisch and our organizational scholars seem to agree that a senior management team should probably have that level or informality. However, Frisch argues that no team building off-site is going to accomplish that. As such, Who’s in the Room offers real-world strategies for making the best of how organizations just seem to work.
This sounds really interesting. From what you wrote (I have not read the book) I agree. The idea of ‘trusted advisers’ inside the team to give you the harsh feedback and dose of reality can lead to stronger teams. In-group tendencies are evolutionarily built into our social cohesion.
Plus I agree ‘no off-site is going to accomplish that’ that is true.
True true. One of the the things that always irked me about LMX theory. It said in-groups exist and that you should try to bring people into your in group…but then had nothing to offer in the way of how. Thanks for the comment Michael.
David,
Like Michael, I have not read the book. And this is actually the first time that I’ve heard the term in-group out-group. But I just read the book description and watched the two-minute interview of Bob Frisch on Amazon.com.
It definitely makes sense that a CEO would rely on a few confidants to help make big decisions that might not include some people on the senior management team. For example, a CFO could be a great CFO and still not be the right person to discuss some aspect of corporate strategy. That makes sense to me.
However, the biggest thing that came to mind was that I strongly believe (and I can’t stress this enough!) that CEOs need to understand what life is like for lower-level employees who are usually closest to the customer. If either the CEO (or at least one of the confidants in the kitchen cabinet) doesn’t have this information, then mistakes are much more likely to be made.
For example, if a fast-food company were thinking about offering a new product, I would want to consult a group that included store managers and employees. They could offer extremely valuable feedback about the pros and cons of the new product. And then the CEO and the kitchen cabinet could discuss the issue and make a decision about whether the new product would be introduced or not.
However, this perspective is often not considered which I think is a really big mistake.
I definitely agree. I can’t quite imagine an in-group, however with a power differential as high as what would happen if a front line person were in it. Still, I believe it’s best for all members of that team to make regular appearances on the front line. Thanks Greg.
Yes, I completely agree. I don’t think a front line person would be in the kitchen cabinet, just that their opinions should be considered by the CEO and kitchen cabinet.
David:
This seems odd, while I don’t disagree about the value of in-groups (or high value LMX relationships), I think that the kitchen cabinet, as the author puts it is often just as likely to have ‘groupthink’ occur. Taking what you know about how yes-men cultures occur and LMX relationships, what do you think would cause the individuals in the in-group to speak truthfully? I believe the un-stated reality is, there must be a level of humility and openness from the leader to encourage such discourse.