Somehow, I manage to be very connected into the trends that may shape the future, and pretty disconnected from the trends that are currently peaking. Which is why I hadn’t seen a single episode of Survivor (or even Stranger Things) until recently.
Scraping through the dregs of my streaming subscriptions I stumbled upon the entire catalog of Survivor on Paramount+. I started from the beginning, 2001, and saw within a grainy square screen a glimpse of the pre-reality TV era.
I couldn’t help but draw parallels to corporate life, as I watched the contestants attempt to survive on the jungle islands.
Resource-Constrained Island
The conditions couldn’t be more different – a jungle with no shelter and limited food resources, groups of strangers pitted against each other for resources. Strange games designed to somewhat randomly eliminate or eliminate participants based on a voting system.
Or are they that different? A somewhat uncharted jungle with relatively few safe harbors, limited resources that groups of strangers scrap over. Constantly changing tribes and alliances, underscoring the need for trust. Frequent eliminations, destroying the alliances that do exist.
Survival Strategies
Consultant Richard Hatch used his understanding of politics and alliances to his advantage in taking a fluid approach to whom he aligned with and for what reason. It seems his vast experience as a consultant (coming into new companies, assessing what people do and then soullessly firing half of them) came in handy at Survivor.
It seems the naive individuals who stuck together through trust or forming early bonds became quite vulnerable as their pool of allies were picked off. In addition, people who decided to keep to some sort of moral code seemed disadvantaged because they were not keeping their alliances a secret.
Some players utilized a specific technique successfully – remaining quite low profile. Making sure to be helpful, not presenting themselves as a threat, and trying to create as little notice or friction as possible, so that they can avoid becoming a target of aspiring alphas or creating enemies early.
Roles We Play
Sue from Season 1 was a strong competitor. The truck driver was famous for her plainspoken manner and her firey speech at the end of the season about rats and snakes. She decided early on to disguise her intelligence and play the part of the “dumb redneck.”
My strategy all along has been to play the role of dumb redneck. People think rednecks are so vulnerable and dumb. They’ll talk to ’em openly. Like Rich did (laughs). You know, how he’s gonna burn everybody. Hopefully in the end, the old redneck will burn the city slicker. So, we’ll see what happens.
We all choose (consciously or not) a persona that we decide to play within these corporate games. It’s important to decide what works for you in terms of your balance between transparency and complete opaqueness.
As someone who values authenticity and transparency, I prefer to lead with openness and a spirit of collaboration. But I’ve learned that there are many situations that require discretion and keeping the whole story from your team. Often knowing the real (and irritating reasons) for things may just make morale worse. Or plans are kept tightly held for specific reasons. A good leader is able to be fluid and honest while navigating these types of situations. Sometimes my honesty becomes a detriment if that includes too much sharing about my own baggage about a situation.
So what has my 15+ years of corporate trauma taught me about how to survive?
1. It’s hard to escape your reputation.
If you’re seen as a lazy teammate, one who tends to lie, or someone who gossips, it’s almost impossible to shake off that early impression of you. First impressions are important, and whether they are grounded in reality or not, they stick.
2. Succeed just enough to not arouse insecurity in your peers (or worse, your leaders)
A wise man once told me that if you want to get anything interesting done, you should keep it a secret until most of the work is complete, and then showcase it when the prevailing winds are favorable.
Why?
- Jealousy and reasons why the project should be stalled or hit more approval layers
- Micro-management
- Redirection to more “important” priorities
- An ever growing list of “participants” slowing down the project
In survivor, those displaying leadership qualities, and willingly taking on the mantle of leader, risk becoming a target. In the corporate world your go-getter projects and massive confidence can backfire in the same way, if you have a boss with an insecurity complex. Suddenly you become the scapegoat of some failure that they wish to dodge. Or they just overtly steal your project and micro-manage or nitpick your performance.
Even with a great boss, really insightful projects end up becoming a quagmire the more people get involved, and the more leaders’ teams are impacted. It requires strong alliances and trust to bring forward a high-profile innovation. Unfortunately, before those alliances can be formed, many projects get cut off at the ankles.
3. Carefully assess who you choose to partner with and who you choose to bring to your team
Empowering one toxic person destroys the culture of an entire team. Ask me how I know.
Partner with people that you can trust, that are able to bring the team together towards a common goal. Each add should complement the culture you are building – not because they look and think exactly like you – because they bring new additions and different perspectives.
4. Release the main character energy
While easier said than done, the most impactful thing you can do for your own mental health is to stop taking everything personally. Yes, sometimes the tribe kicks you off for personal reasons. But usually when the tribe has spoken, it has nothing to do with you.
When you don’t attach personally to the outcomes of every individual challenge, competition, double-cross, promotion and award, then you will have much more remaining energy to pursue your own individual goals, whether they be gardening, upskilling on AI, or, in my case all of the above plus snarky commentary.
