It’s been said many a time that you are the people you spend the most time with. Despite this, many people rebel from the people they’ve grown around. The recipe for person-hood must be more complex than simply you = others. This is why I think it’s important to recognize that the places, environment, and roles you play also affect who you become.
Social groups are complex, but typically they revolve around a shared interest or location. Whether that’s work, a running club, or something more lofty, people want to be a part of something, and play to their capabilities and comfort level. Some people like to play roles that are more outgoing, whereas others play roles that are more internal. Many times, people’s cohabitation forms them into people they may not be absent the other people in a given group.
Although groups may have common features, the environment a group belongs to can influence how the group responds to outsiders, it’s level of closeknittedness, and its approach to solving problems.
For instance, let’s compare religious groups that feel persecuted versus groups that have lower stakes. At least in the United States, Christianity is the dominant religion, so there’s little favor to be gained by talking about your Christianity in a vacuum. When you break it down into smaller constituent bits, like Lutheranism, it’s possible that there’s more assumed goodwill, because people are more likely to know each other and relate to each other’s struggles. By contrast, cults tend to be smaller and insular. In order to keep members, they often have to create a very strong ‘us-versus-them’ mentality in order to keep membership strong and maintain social ties. The very act of this hazing tends to build a lot of solidarity, but tends to undermine critical thinking.
This gets us to the idea that the ideas themselves that make up groups influence how people think about things. A governing group for instance may have practical concerns to focus on, and as a result are correspondingly less ideological than maybe a group that wants to sway public policy a specific way. Many people straddle different intersections of groups, and as a result may feel a sense of confusion about how to approach contention.
Some types of groups operate in very zero-sum conditions. Finance and consulting for instance have a limited pool of people to advise or invest in/against, and they win in large part by beating someone out. The mentality when working for them is more adversarial, how can I get ahead of my competitor? By contrast, it’s a little less clear when a technology company wins or loses. Many people who work in FAANGMULA often switch around jobs, and can comfortably transition because the rivalry isn’t really with each other. Startups are similarly positive sum, and encourage a level of collaboration that might not be as present in quantitative finance. Interestingly, I think this is why within firms, departments may be done based on job role. A PMO can foster best-practices and a collaborative culture outside of the realm of otherwise competing priorities.
I could go on, but it’s imminently practical to understand A. What Types of Things Do You Enjoy. B. What types of characteristics does my current environment support? C. Do I want to change in some way, if so, in which direction? D. What environmental influences are pushing me, and do I want to be pushed in this direction?
Isadore Johnson's Website 