Entry Intimidation

The term used to describe the process of joining a group is social entry. Although the term applies to joining any kind of group, people use special social entry strategies for specific situations. Social entry at work is particularly important, because the results can affect so much of the rest of our daily lives. [Brenner 2013a] [Brenner 2013b] Familiarity with a variety of entry strategies gives us the flexibility needed to adapt to new or evolving situations, and to make the entry process more effective.

Familiarity with trouble patterns associated with social entry is also helpful. Knowing how to recognize trouble patterns in social entry helps supervisors when they notice difficulties encountered by new hires; it helps new hires when they notice difficulty starting a new job; it helps new team members if they encounter difficulty finding a place in a new or existing team.

One common trouble pattern might be called entry intimidation. In this pattern, either the new entrant — or one or more members of the group itself — experiences feelings of intimidation as the new entrant and the group go about finding a place for the new entrant in the group. Entry intimidation is a particularly costly trouble pattern because it can delay the development of a new social order. In some cases, entry intimidation can provide fuel for toxic conflict, and even prevent completely the formation of a new and effective social order.

Below is a set of examples of situations that can lead to feelings of intimidation on the part of the new group member or existing members of the group. In what follows, I use the names Neal or Nan for the new entrant. The first two examples illustrate issues involving the supervisor of the work group Neal or Nan is entering. The second two examples illustrate issues more personal either to the new group member or to existing group members.

Inadvertent subversion

Well-meaning Well-meaning supervisors can
inadvertently subvert the
entry efforts of new hiressupervisors can inadvertently subvert the entry efforts of new hires by assigning to them responsibilities that offer opportunities for the new hire to engage with many existing group members, but which simultaneously cast the new hire in a role subordinate to everyone else, or worse, subordinate to the new hire's own role.

For example, one such role is collecting donations for a seasonal charity fund drive or gift drive. Although the role does compel Neal to engage with everyone, the nature of the engagement places him in a "seeking" position that can inadvertently subvert his attempts to find and consolidate a position of respect in the group.

As a supervisor, assign this kind of responsibility instead to individuals who are well respected. As a new entry, if you find yourself in this unfortunate position, recognize that explaining the nature of the error to your supervisor is unlikely to work. And questioning your new supervisor's decisions so early in your relationship is in any case unwise. You'll just have to make do, unless some special feature of your relationship with your supervisor suggests that questioning the assignment might work.

Bullying

If the group harbors a bully or bullies, Nan is about to enter a problematic situation. Not only is she facing the usual risks of entry, but she must also find a way to deal with the bullying.

As a new entry, two different responses might be required. First, if the supervisor is aware of the bullying, then danger might be close at hand, because bullying — if present at all — tends to be a chronic feature of small group cultures. Even if this particular bully arrived only recently, a bully might have been present earlier. If the supervisor tolerates bullying, feeling intimidated about entry is a perfectly healthy response. Searching for an exit is even healthier.

Second, if the supervisor is unaware of the bullying, one must wonder about that. If the supervisor is a recent arrival, reporting the bullying to the supervisor might work. But if the bullying is chronic, and if the supervisor has been chronically unaware, danger is again close at hand, and searching for an exit might be the best approach.

Hat-hanging

As defined in "You Remind Me of Helen Hunt," Point Lookout for June 6, 2001, "hat hanging" happens when we identify something about our present circumstances with something from past circumstances. In entry intimidation, hat hanging can be a contributing factor when Neal identifies someone in the new group with someone whom he found intimidating in his past experience. In other words, Neal's feelings of intimidation arise from the misidentification rather than from actual present experience.

Resolving this misidentification can be difficult for everyone in the group, because it's likely that only Neal knows enough about his past experience to notice the incongruity. And it can be difficult for Neal as well, because of the nature of the hat hanging process. Neal might be completely unaware of the misidentification.

The supervisor can intervene, however, if he or she knows what to look for, at least in one case. If Neal seems intimidated by someone who has no similar effect on others, the likelihood of hat hanging by Neal is elevated. However, if Neal seems to be intimidated by someone who has had that effect on others, even the supervisor might be unable to recognize the hat hanging.

Defenses or sabotage

Upon learning that Nan will be entering the group, one or more members of the group might perceive threats to their own positions. They might take steps to protect themselves by creating obstacles to Nan's search for a place of respect within the group. These steps can range from the more passive — withholding information or failing to offer assistance — to more active forms of sabotage or even hazing.

When these lapses or actions take place, supervisors can intervene, of course, but prevention is much preferable. Supervisors can prevent these problems in advance of Nan's arrival by setting expectations. They can state clearly that they expect members of the group to take the initiative to assist Nan's smooth entry into the group. In my experience, most supervisors could do much more than they do routinely.

New entrants would do well to prepare to encounter defenses or sabotage, but not expect it. Preparations for defenses could involve seeking information from multiple sources, instead of relying on a single source who might provide incomplete or inaccurate information. Preparation for sabotage could involve making multiple copies of work products and secreting backups where they cannot easily be altered or destroyed.

Social entry is difficult enough when all involved mean well. Sadly, some people who do mean well do make mistakes, and some don't mean well at all, for whatever reason. For best results, assume that people do mean well, and learn to recognize those who don't.  Top    Next Issue

Occasionally we have the experience of belonging to a great team. Thrilling as it is, the experience is rare. In part, it's rare because we usually strive only for adequacy, not for greatness. We do this because we don't fully appreciate the returns on greatness. Not only does it feel good to be part of great team — it pays off. Check out my Great Teams Workshop to lead your team onto the path toward greatness. More info

Footnotes

Your comments are welcome

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Personal, Team, and Organizational Effectiveness:

Decisions, Decisions: I

Most of us have participated in group decision making. The process can be frustrating and painful, but it can also be thrilling. What processes do groups use to make decisions? How do we choose the right process for the job?

Ten Reasons Why You Don't Always Get What You Measure: I

One of the "truisms" floating around is that "You get what you measure." Belief in this assertion has led many to a metrics-based style of management, but the results have been uneven at best. Why?

Bottlenecks: II

When some people take on so much work that they become "bottlenecks," they expose the organization to risks. Managing those risks is a first step to ending the bottlenecking pattern.

Getting Value from Involuntary Seminars

Whatever your organizational role, from time to time you might find yourself attending seminars or presentations involuntarily. The value you derive from these "opportunities" depends as much on you as on the presenter.

Collaborations That Need to Be Cooperations

Modern products and services are so complex that many people cooperate and collaborate to produce them. When people are collaborating but the work actually requires merely cooperating, risks arise that can threaten the success of the group's efforts.

See also Personal, Team, and Organizational Effectiveness and Personal, Team, and Organizational Effectiveness for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming May 14: Working with the Overconfident

A cognitive bias known as the Overconfidence Effect causes us to overestimate the reliability of our judgments. Decisions we make based on those judgments are therefore suspect. But there are steps we can take to make our confidence levels more realistic, and thus make our decisions more reliable. Available here and by RSS on May 14.

And on May 21: Mismanaging Project Managers

Most organizations hold project managers accountable for project performance. But they don't grant those project managers control of needed resources. Nor do they hold project sponsors or other senior managers accountable for the consequences of their actions when they interfere with project work. Here's a catalog of behaviors worth looking at. Available here and by RSS on May 21.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenDJpmhgyaDTwBQXkhner@ChacmGoYuzfZpOvDQdRkoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

• Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info