When Wolves Change Families
There is an interesting video that has made its rounds on the internet called “How Wolves Change Rivers”. Before reading on, I would encourage you to watch this brief video - it is fascinating in its own right and the rest of this post will make more intuitive sense for having seen it.
To sum up (for those who didn't watch the video), the introduction of wolves in Yellowstone Park created a “trophic cascade” that drove elk* from the valley. That change in elk behavior led to the introduction of new wildlife, which, in turn, very quickly shifted vegetation patterns. These changes led to widespread and substantial transformations in erosion patterns throughout the valley. The end result was that, in a few short years, the river courses changed. All of this started with the simple addition of a very small pack of wolves to the ecosystem. This change at the top of the food chain had widespread, dramatically disproportionate effects on a comparatively broad scale.
As it turns out, this sort of phenomenon can be found in human systems as well. When Paul O'Neill became CEO of Alcoa in 1987, he announced to shareholders at his first annual meeting that the core focus of his work would be worker safety. He declared that the sole measure he cared about was the decrease in worker days lost due to injury. The interesting thing is that, by industry standards, Alcoa didn't have a safety problem; it was already performing well-above average. Wall Street was confused and angry - they wanted the focus to be on measures of financial success and profitability. People sold their stock. High-performing leaders of very lucrative divisions were fired for failing to prioritize safety. Compensation schemes were changed to reflect this mono-maniacal focus. But within a year, Alcoa hit record profits. When O'Neill retired in 2000, Alcoa's net income was five times greater than when he arrived. During that time, Alcoa's accident rate dropped dramatically from 1.86 workdays lost per 100 workers, already far better than industry averages, to less than 0.125 workdays.
What O'Neill knew was that a focus on safety would force process efficiency changes, create a focus on quality, shift management mindsets and awareness levels, generate better communication and new feedback loops, amp up workplace engagement and employee loyalty, and so on. Charles Duhigg (the author of The Power of Habit), who recounts this story in his book, refers to this as a change in a keystone habit. While he doesn't use the term “cascade”, the change in keystone habits creates an analogy to a trophic cascade in human systems.
So how does all of this apply to families?
I have found over and over again in my work with families that very small changes can have disproportionate effects. These changes act - and feel - like the trophic cascade in the video above. For example, one family I worked with created a clear, simple statement of their business goal: to wind down the 5th-generation family business over 15-20 years. In a large family, with many branches, this created a kind of clarity and focus which resulted in a very deliberate, significantly more civil, and, ironically, longer-term approaches to governance.
Another family is committed to including in-laws as fully enfranchised members of the family. This resulted in greater transparency at all levels, increased creativity and innovation, more tolerance and use of divergent perspectives, and deeper buy-in that has translated into more active next-generation engagement.
Two other families made commitments to be “more professional”. In both of these families, this changed the governance structures. It radically altered how advisors are utilized, prompted the inclusion of outside directors on boards, affected the administration of trusts, and, most importantly, subtly reshaped how these families now converse and discuss the issues they face.
In another family, the small change was a shift in how money flowed from parents to their dependent adult children. This created a change in communication patterns, anxiety levels and the formal and informal agreements between parents, their individual children and the sibling group.
Most of these changes seemed small, but meaningful, commitments at the time. Most were debated and discussed to be sure, but the family members had no clear idea of how far-reaching the effects would be. They focused mostly on the immediate consequences and discomfort of adopting the change. All of them concluded that the change was “the right thing to do,” and as such, it was an exercise of moral, not practical, imagination. But the decisions had effects far greater and more pervasive than most in the family would have imagined when they were adopted.
I would note that none of these changes were smooth or easy. As one might imagine, there are a number of metaphorical “elk” that die in these transitions. Some family members can sense the impact such decisions are likely to have and will resist them. The transitions disrupt well-worn family patterns and can result in fireworks, tantrums, and displays of deep emotion. Some are threatened by these changes. But these changes often feel right to the family as a whole, and they often produce some “quick wins”. Those wins do come at a price because, for the resisters, they see that their own power is shifting in the family dynamics, and they are not sure how they will engage effectively under the new rules.
I have heard from others of too many cases in which a cascade resulted in significant damage and pain. Most often, these disasters seem to arise when structural “solutions” are imposed to create substantial and rapid transformations. Violence was done to the cultural fabric, and lasting damage resulted. Too often, there was not enough focus on developing the capacities and skill sets necessary to build resilience sufficient to keep pace with the pace of family evolution. These drastic interventions leave the family worse off than before, and the consultants or advisors who initiate them can, with the best intentions, do more harm than good. For these reasons, the introduction of such changes is best made with the involvement of someone who can help the family navigate these processes by developing adaptive capacity and core competencies.
While family dynamics tend to be quite durable and stubborn, family systems are often out-of-balance or fragile. This disjunction means that small changes can become the occasion for the breakage of brittle family systems as family dynamics become reactive. Because these small changes can have disproportionate impacts both positive and negative, advisors who cannot be involved with family systems on an almost daily or instantaneous basis, and who are not equipped or experienced enough to deal with the inevitable eruptions (the “dead elk” as it were) are best served by not initiating or trying to create the structures that generate such cascades. In my experience, this work of helping the family through disruptive yet ultimately positive change becomes one of the key roles of the family consultant.
The consultants who do well in these situations are those who help families develop the competencies within the family system as a whole to address the disruption. This is not therapy so much as it is engaging in capacity-building conversations through education, debriefing, conflict resolution, and a number of other whole-group interventions designed to help the family learn and grow from its own imperfections. It is based not so much on helping a family reach an ideal state, but on adapting, changing, and learning together in the midst of its own imperfection.
The end results of trophic cascades in nature are not a kind of perfection. Yellowstone is not "perfect" for the introduction of wolves, but it has changed for the better. Families find the same sort of thing. They find themselves in a different state that feels healthier, more dynamic, more interesting, more flexible and a bit more adapted. Change will still occur, imperfections will still exist, but all of it will exist in a different context. In families, this context looks a lot like greater acceptance, a little less drama and a bit more love. For members in the family, it never feels finished, but where before it seemed they were always holding their breath, they now find themselves able to breathe.
* The narrator of the clip refers to “deer,” but the video depicts mostly elk. In fact, it was the elk’s behavior that the wolves affected most, which initiated the cascade.
© 2014. Matthew Wesley. All rights reserved.