Introduction

In Leaders Eat Last, Simon Sinek discusses what it means to be a good leader[cite: 274]. He noticed that many of today’s workplaces are full of paranoia and self-interest[cite: 275].

In contrast, some teams trust each other so deeply that they would put their lives on the line for each other—literally[cite: 276]. During a conversation with a Marine Corps general, he found out that great leadership is all about eating last[cite: 276]. In the Marines, the most senior eat after the juniors have eaten first[cite: 277]. Great leaders will put the good of those in their care before their own interests[cite: 278].

With that realization, Simon put a good bunch of research together to prove that leaders who are willing to eat last are rewarded with the most loyal and inspired colleagues[cite: 279].

Circle of Safety

Not only will great leaders put their interests aside to ensure the well-being of their colleagues, but they are also willing to trust their team members[cite: 281]. As it turns out, one must extend trust to earn trust, and as a leader, you must lead by example[cite: 282].

But what’s the matter with trust? We need to run the day-to-day business and make a profit as an organization[cite: 283].

The Circle of Safety is a concept in which several individuals trust each other deeply and look after each other[cite: 284]. Because of that, people don’t have to manage dangers from inside the organization and can put their focus on dangers from the outside[cite: 285].

The problem is that today’s organizations are managed by managers who are controlling the numbers, and not led by trustworthy leaders[cite: 286]. When the board tries to meet financial targets through mass layoffs, bonuses, and incentives, we create an environment of high competition, and the Circle of Safety falls apart[cite: 287]. Silos form, information flow comes to a halt, and stress among the workforce rises[cite: 288].

Cortisol, Oxytocin, and Dopamine

Without making this into a biological lecture, let us quickly look at our hormonal system and the role of stress in it[cite: 290].

Simply put, cortisol is a steroid hormone produced by the adrenal glands in response to stress[cite: 291]. It triggers the fight-or-flight response and puts us into survival mode by raising blood sugar levels[cite: 292]. While in short bursts it can push us the extra mile, it has severe long-term effects[cite: 293]. Cortisol increases aggression, impairs our cognitive ability, and is a leading cause of heart attacks[cite: 294].

To fight cortisol, evolution came up with a counterpart: oxytocin[cite: 295]. Widely known as the love hormone, it helps us bond as human beings[cite: 296]. If we feel a sense of trust for each other—be it a tribe 5,000 years ago or a business division today—oxytocin gets released[cite: 297]. It helps us cope with stress and makes us better at solving complex problems[cite: 298]. It boosts our immune system and lessens our cravings and addictions[cite: 299].

Addiction is a good keyword to bring the third player into the ring: dopamine is the feel-good hormone and drives reward-seeking behavior[cite: 300]. It is the reason we eat and are willing to achieve our goals[cite: 301]. The problem here is that dopamine is highly addictive and not long-lasting[cite: 302].

So, let’s bring it together and come to a conclusion in this hormone-fueled conversation: Leaders who are willing to trust their colleagues form a cooperation based on trust and safety[cite: 303]. In this Circle of Safety, we as highly social beings thrive[cite: 304]. Filled with oxytocin, we pull together and build a long-lasting culture[cite: 305].

The practice of seeing people as the means to drive the numbers disrupts this Circle[cite: 306]. The benefits of oxytocin diminish, and cortisol arises[cite: 307]. Acting on short-term targets to receive the next bonus and keeping knowledge to oneself to maintain one's position are consequences of this dopamine-driven, highly competitive culture[cite: 307].

As Simon puts it:

"In a weak culture, we veer away from doing 'the right thing' in favor of doing 'the thing that's right for me.'" [cite: 308]

Abstraction Kills

The root cause of highly competitive, dopamine-driven organizations, according to Sinek, is abstraction[cite: 310]. By this, he means the physical separation between those making the decisions and those on the receiving end of those decisions[cite: 310].

In his famous experiment, Milgram showed how abstraction divorces us from our humanity and enables us to perform inhumane behavior[cite: 311]. The more abstract people become, the more capable we are of doing them harm[cite: 312].

"The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of a million is a statistic." — Joseph Stalin [cite: 313]

Given the scale of modern enterprises, management has no choice but to manage the business on spreadsheets[cite: 314]. The impact of decisions on each individual cannot be seen through this numeric abstraction of human nature[cite: 315]. If we transfer the findings of Milgram and Stalin to modern management, we can reason about why the biggest companies are more willing to give up their moral standards for money[cite: 316]. The top management level must satisfy shareholders and issue instructions down through the departments[cite: 317]. At the very end of this decision chain, it impacts the lives of millions, but that is hard to see from up there[cite: 318].

Manage Abstraction

Given that in their deepest nature human beings are willing to do good and help each other, we can find ways to manage those abstractions and keep the Circles of Safety strong[cite: 320]. Here are four rules that work wonders and let that oxytocin flow again[cite: 321]:

Bring People Together

The Internet has revolutionized communication and connects us around the globe[cite: 323]. It offers great opportunities to scale ideas and businesses[cite: 323]. But with the good comes the bad—it puts a virtual layer between us and leads to abstraction[cite: 324]. (That’s why people say the stuff they say on social media [cite: 325].) It is good for first interactions but fails to build deep, trusting relationships[cite: 325]. We need face-to-face interactions to trust and innovate[cite: 326].

Keep It Manageable

As a British anthropologist, Bill Gore figured out that human beings thrive best in groups of up to 150 individuals[cite: 328]. He says: “It’s the number of people you would not feel embarrassed about joining uninvited for a drink if you happened to bump into them in a bar.” [cite: 329] While this might be up to personal preference, it gives us a reference point for managing organizations[cite: 330]. As a leader, make sure to know your colleagues and keep the team below this magical number for effective collaboration and trust[cite: 331].

Meet the People You Help

Seeing the impact of the work you do can significantly boost motivation and performance[cite: 333]. As studies have demonstrated, direct (face-to-face) interaction between employees and beneficiaries leads to remarkable improvements[cite: 334]. We are naturally driven by a sense of purpose and helping each other[cite: 335]. The shift from abstract (numeric) goals to a purpose-driven human outcome fosters engagement and productivity[cite: 336].

Give Authority to Those Closest to the Information

As we have learned, top-down management combined with abstraction does more harm than good[cite: 338]. Foster a culture of empowerment and let your colleagues take responsibility for their actions and decisions[cite: 339]. This shift significantly improves performance and morale within a team[cite: 340]. By giving this trust, you strengthen the inner Circle of Safety[cite: 341].

Summary

With that, we found out what the Circle of Safety is and how it affects our overall feeling and performance in a team[cite: 343]. With a good flow of oxytocin, we trust each other and have an antidote against cortisol and addictive behavior[cite: 344].

Abstraction can lead to inhumane behavior and is a by-product of physical distance between decision-makers and the receiving end of those decisions[cite: 345]. Combined with the abstraction of nature through numbers, we need to handle those negative effects with care[cite: 346].

Bringing people together and fostering groups of no more than 150 people are ways to tame those effects[cite: 347]. Meeting the people you try to help and empowering your colleagues are possible solutions to look out for[cite: 348].