Contraries
THE ROLE OF CONTRARIES IN IMPROVING CULTURAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR
In recent articles I've been talking about the ecosystem that makes up a fire department and the various players within that system.
Through the resulting conversations the concept of negative examples came up. In those articles I spoke about the negative examples set by some firefighters. To recap, they were the firefighters with bad attitudes, the ones on the job for the wrong reasons, the ones who would rather complain than do their jobs, the ones who feed on drama and can't allow anyone to rise above them because it makes them feel bad about themselves, the ones who put forth more effort trying to get out of work than it would have taken to actually get the work done, and the ones who can run their mouth better than they can run any evolution or tool on the job.
As well, there are those who choose to engage in activity either on or off the job that at the least sheds a negative light on the department and at most violates the law.
While discussing the last series of posts I began to think about the benefit of having an example of what not to do. This got me thinking about the role of "contraries" in the process of learning, when related to social or cultural norms or mores.
Norms, according to Merriam-Webster, are "a principle of right action binding upon the members of a group and serving to guide, control, or regulate proper and acceptable behavior." Mores on the other hand, are "the customs, values, and behaviors that are accepted by a particular group, culture, etc." They generally are geared more towards the moral and core values of a group or culture.
According to the Sociology Guide, "norms are the means through which values are expressed in behavior and are often seen as the standards of behavior within a specific group."
As we grow up, our parents, family, and teachers are primarily responsible for teaching us the socially acceptable norms and mores for our families, particular cultures, religions and regions. This is most commonly accomplished by direct teaching and the use of examples.
As I said earlier, the process of learning by negative example came up and got me thinking about how there is some benefit to having a negative example around.
This certainly isn't a new concept as many cultures have used this process for thousands of years. Even in other species the process of negative reinforcement plays a role in education.
In the various cultures of the American Indian, we see this process clearly illustrated. Though it varies from nation to nation, there are many examples of the use of contraries to teach norms and mores.
The Ojibwe or Chippewa (my primary tribal affiliation and ancestry), have the Windigokan, also known as a contrary. The Windigokan would act in a way quite opposite of what was expected. They would laugh in times of sorrow or hardship and be glum or sad in times of happiness. They would act out when they should be quiet, run when they should walk, they would say no for yes or goodbye for hello. Whatever the norms were for the situation they would do the opposite.
The Lakota have the Rotten Belly Society and the Heyoka, also known as the contrary. They function in a similar manor. And there are many more as you look at the various Indian nations around the country.
Each group has individuals who function in this role and from nation to nation there are additional behaviors and beliefs associated with the contraries.
So, there can be a benefit to the negative example. At times it can make the passing on of cultural standards, norms and mores a bit easier.
When related to the fire service, we can see the role of the contrary, and the example they set as mostly detrimental to an organization. However, we can glean a bit of usefulness from them when
used as an example of undesirable or unacceptable behaviors.
The major drawback to the existence of the contrary within the fire service is that the public doesn't want or deserve any of us to not be completely engaged in our job. And within departments they tend not to exist in strong firehouses or shifts and can unfortunately gather together in groups making them seem more legitimate or strong. This becomes an issue when seen by impressionable, young firefighters.
If the contraries are not controlled by the organization's leadership, they can in fact become de facto leaders whose thought process is given credibility through the organization's lack of action or indifference to them.
If left to their own devices, these contraries can breed contempt, complacency, and divisiveness, and effectively create situations where morale is low not only because of their actions but by the inaction of the leadership to do anything about them.
But when controlled, the contraries have little legitimate power and can be utilized as an effective example of the type of firefighter one should not aspire to be.
Consider those in your department or others you've been exposed to. I'm sure you can name the names of people who fit this description and of the departments who either control the contraries or let them run rampant.
It's also easy see the difference in the overall culture of those departments and how the management of the contraries impacts their overall operations.
I don't think it's a stretch for any of us to see the difference between those who are engaged in their jobs and work to constantly improve vs. those who put forth more effort to undermine, complain and derail any progress you or your organization attempts to make.
The key to dealing with contraries is to manage them and use them as an effective teaching example. It's not possible to completely eradicate them, so show them for who they really are and use them in the best way you can.
