Relationship management: Mercedes chief Toto Wolff sets an example in F1

Formula One racing has compounded its problems this year by adding to competition between drivers racing within the same team. Toto Wolff of Mercedes has tried to address the dilemma for drivers Lewis Hamilton and Nico Rosberg

The broader issue is that of competitive individuals who are expected to put aside personal ambitions for the greater good of the organization to which they are committed.

A universal social dilemma

This is a universal social dilemma. In various forms it has attracted considerable attention.

Just recently, the distinguished Ethnologist Edward Wilson revealed the intensity over the debate with dismissive remarks over the ideas of Richard Dawkins, particularly over altruism and the selfish gene hypothesis.

It may be relevant that Wilson has specialized in understanding the social life of the ant, a species in which individual interests of the many are utterly subordinate to the well-being of the whole colony. His work adds to understanding of Eusociality.

From Formicidae to Formula One

Meanwhile, back from ants to Formula One racing, a system has been deliberately designed to sustain interest in the competition between two drivers in each team through points earned in each race towards the driver’s championship. This captures the attention of the global audience. There is also competition among the teams, the constructors championship, which is based on the total points scored by both drivers. This is the measure which encourages financial support for the constructors.

The Dilemma compounded

The Dilemma for F1 has been compounded by several factors this year. The most obvious is the decision to award double points to the drivers of last race in Dubai. This rather crude decision was made inevitably with the approval of Bernie Eccleston whose grasp of unintended consequences of actions seems limited. He has recently accepted a stay out of jail settlement in the German courts.

These issues took place as more unintended consequences of the funding mechanisms forced two teams out of the competition facing financial meltdown.

For Mercedes, whose team had by far the most successful car this year, the dilemma was exacerbated the competition between the drivers Lewis Hamilton and Nico Rosberg who will battle it out for first place in Abu Dabhi shortly. Mercedes has already won the constructors championship

A matter of relationship management

It was refreshing to read the mature approach shown by Toto Wolff.

Toto Wolff, Mercedes’ head of motorsport, has told both Lewis Hamilton and Nico Rosberg that losing the world championship in Abu Dhabi next week will not be the end of the world for either of them.
The observation is likely to fall on deaf ears but Wolff has felt compelled to move into full man-management mode ahead of the final race of the season, the double-points decider at the Yas Marina circuit, and told everyone in the team to “buckle up” for a rough ride next week

“The aftermath is relationship management, which is important for the future,” he said. “But [in] the run-up [it] is important to maintain the balance, to maintain the respect between the two and to let it stay a respectful relationship.”

Points for the leadership championship

If there were a leadership championship with points awarded by Leaders we deserve, Toto Wolff would be this month’s winner. Bernie Eccleston would not get past the first qualifying session.

Attribution

Image of fire ants By Stephen Ausmus [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

Bees and ants are team players

Ant as aphid farmer

Bees and ants have been reported in one study as ‘true team players’. This makes a useful metaphor but the idea, like the creatures, need to be treated with due caution

The study was reported by the BBC as follows:

Bees and ants are true team players unlike other creatures who seek safety in numbers for selfish reasons, according to researchers. Scientists from Edinburgh and Oxford Universities used mathematical models to study “swarm behaviour”.

In some co-operative groups of animals – known as superorganisms – members are closely related, and work together to ensure their shared genetic material is passed on, the researchers concluded. In other groups they perform a policing role, for instance in honey bee hives where worker bees destroy any eggs not laid by the queen to ensure the queen’s offspring survive.

Dr Andy Gardner, from the University of Edinburgh, said:

“We often see animals appearing to move in unison, such as bison or fish. However, what looks like a team effort is in fact each animal jostling to get to the middle of the group to evade predators. By contrast, an ant nest or a beehive can behave as a united organism in its own right. In a beehive, the workers are happy to help the community, even to die, because the queen carries and passes on their genes.
However, superorganisms are quite rare, and only exist when the internal conflict within a social group is suppressed – so we cannot use this term, for example, to describe human societies.”

The findings, funded by the Royal Society, are published in the Journal of Evolutionary Biology.

Dangerous idea: treat with caution

Why is this such a potentially dangerous idea? Mainly because it can blur the lines between scientific observation and speculation which becomes accepted as scientifically proved fact. My ‘summary of a summary’ extracted one important aspect of the study, and maybe even then readers, may not have picked it up.

What were the scientists studying? Ants and bees? Well, no, not really. They were studying mathematical models of swarm behaviours. And that’s important to remember.

Ants bees and beliefs

I have been a long-time supporter of studies of animal behaviour in the interest of understanding human behaviours. I take the view knowledge of all animal behaviours, including our own, can provide ideas (‘theories’) of practical significance.

But when such efforts are made, we must be vary careful to understand that a metaphor is a mapping of reality. It’s hard sometimes to realize how much we rely on metaphors. As someone pointed out, ‘the map is not the territory’.

A mathematical model reveals relationships between mathematical variables. In this case, the mathematical relationships are connected with social concepts such as ‘swarming’, ‘selfishness’, ‘leadership’ and ‘team work’.

In explaining the results, the scientists find themselves resorting to language like this

In a beehive, the [workers] are [happy] to [help the community], even to die, because the queen carries and passes on their genes. However, [superorganisms] are quite rare, and only exist when the [internal conflict within a social group is suppressed] – so we [cannot use this term], for example, to describe human societies.

A complex mix of analytic statements and assumptions are present in just one sentence from the BBC report above. Students of leadership should reflect carefully on such a statement, in the interests of ‘map testing’ and maybe ‘map making’.

Footnote

You can see the original text here of Gardner and Graf’s paper.