I’ve been much preoccupied lately with a particular theory in psychology. I heard about it on a podcast, and my understanding of it is as follows:

Human behavior is not influenced by people’s personalities nearly as much as we think. The same person, in different situations, may act in completely different ways: e.g. the same person may be selflessly honest in one situation yet deceitful in another with the same stakes. A “good” person, put in certain situations, may act completely immorally. Famous experiments such as the Stanford prison experiment support this. Situation can affect human behavior at times more than personality.

However, yet another factor exists: the mind’s perception of the world. This can be illustrated by the famous “marshmallow experiment”: you put a marshmallow in front of a toddler and tell them you will leave the room, and if they can not eat that marshmallow until you come back, they get two instead. It was widely understood to be a measure for whether or not the child’s personality is one that could resist the temptation of instant gratification, but in truth the experiment had a second stage: researchers would tell children beforehand they could imagine that the marshmallow was just a picture and not real — the result was that the same child who could not resist instant gratification for a few minutes could now wait 15 minutes or more. So that’s different behavior in the same person, with the same personality, in the same situation.

The three layers that affect human behavior are thus: personality, situation, perception.

I’ve been thinking about it non stop recently. Rethinking assessments I had of people, trying to adjust my penchant for attributing actions I see to their owners’ personalities. I do often think along the lines of: if he lied in this situation for his own benefit, he’s someone of little integrity, and I can’t trust him to be strong when things get bad; if she would leave her teammates in the lurch by quitting the guild with no notice, she’s a selfish person, and her selfishness will shine through to others in other areas too. And maybe, I shouldn’t think like that. Maybe he did act in a cowardly and dishonest way this time, but maybe he will show integrity and honesty in another situation in the future. Maybe she was selfish and disregarded her teammates this time, but maybe she will be giving and considerate in the future in other situations.

These are thoughts I’ve been having a lot.

I have also extended that to rethinking my leadership of Syzygy through this lens. All the effort I put in to motivate people, and all the pain I felt at sometimes being unable to prevent people from hurting us through their self-centeredness. Why my sacrifices and efforts for the guild seemed to matter so little to my guildies when things got bad. Why could I not get people to be less selfish and do more for the guild. Why did it seem, when things were bad, that nothing I could do helped, and everyone seemed so unhappy. Why could I not stop people from leaving? Reevaluating these situations through this new interpretation of the whys and wherefores of human behavior, my understanding of what happened realigns.

Layer 1, personality. People have their own personalities, some more selfish, some more team oriented. Some people are focused on just having fun, others are focused on being an asset, yet others float around and just follow the masses. This is something that a leader is unlikely to change, and really, probably shouldn’t even try to. Its only usage is an awareness of each individual’s situation. I don’t think I tried to change this very much, and luckily it is perhaps the layer that matters least.

Layer 2, situation. This really wasn’t something I had much control over. Much less than I thought I had. I would often feel that it was my job as a leader to make raids smooth, and if they weren’t smooth it was my fault. So if the situation was bad, it was my fault. But the situation is often what it is for a myriad of reasons. Things around us and each person affects it. I believe a leader affects it more, but it is not something a leader can control. If the situation was good, my actions may have helped it be good, but I cannot force it to be good. If it is bad, it is not the result of my actions alone, and even if I had done my best it’s perfectly likely my actions would not be enough to turn it around.

I think, through this lens, I can absolve myself somewhat of the guilt I felt any moment things weren’t good.

Then, layer 3, perception. This is perhaps the layer a leader can affect the most. I think it was something I did very well at the first year of my leadership, before burnout and the constant criticism and lack of validation eventually wore me down. The first year of my leadership, I think I created a sense that Syzygy was the place to be: it was already good and would keep getting better. I did this in many ways: by sounding hyped and excited at any improvement or good performance; by writing extensive and positive updates about the guild for guildies to read very regularly; by showing everyone how committed I was to the guild, giving it a sense of stability; and many, many other ways. The perception was that the guild was new and young, but it was full of vigor and hope.

When things were bad in the second year of my leadership at Syzygy, I think I created quite the opposite perception. Especially in the Tomb of Sargeras raid. The fact that I was so broken down, feeling so depressed, lacking all self-confidence, I think this showed and created a perception within the guild of hopelessness and unhappiness. Or at least, a distinct lack of positivity. This was likely expressed in a myriad of ways: in my lack of excitement during raids; in my anger and annoyance at people when they made mistakes; in my silences during setbacks; etc. Even before things got completely terrible, there was a leadup where a few things probably also affected people’s perception of the guild. For a time, my officer must have accidentally closed off the guildstuffs channel I used to update guildies, and people weren’t able to read any guild updates or feel the morale boost and excitement for the future from them. I was also quite burnt out at this time, and was drawing away from the guild, taking 1 day a week off for myself. It was a crucial period: the downtime between killing the last boss and waiting for the new raid to open, and in this time it’s possible that people’s perception was: there is no excitement in this guild for the new raid, and our leadership isn’t doing anything to move us forward. If it was this perception that led to so many leaving, I would not be too surprised. It can even explain what Monscape said to me to explain his quitting the guild with no notice: “I used to be proud of being in this guild, but I’m not anymore.” With their perceptions of this being a worn out place with no excitement, their behavior followed suit.

I don’t know if this lens is an accurate or complete interpretation of human behavior and what happened. But it is possible one. And under this interpretation, one conclusion becomes apparent:

There is a limited amount the leader do to affect the behavior of those he/she leads by changing their personalities or controlling the situation. However, the leader can make quite a large difference in the behavior of those under him/her through crafting their perceptions. When we are leaders, it is thus worth telling our people to see that marshmallow just as a drawing. It is worth being hyped and excited and full of positivity and hope. It is the one, most effective, tool at our disposal, if we want to have an effect on the human behavior of those we lead.