Culture decoded

As an organizational consultant, I often hear leaders say:"We need to change our culture", or "our culture is dysfunctional". These statements led me to look at what the people who have studied culture for the past century, the cultural anthropologists, have to say about what culture really is, and how they think it operates.

Cultural anthropology studies human behavior that is learned, rather than genetically transmitted, and that is typical of a particular human group. These (behaviors, including material results) are called culture. Culture is the major way in which human beings adapt to their environment. (Nanda, 1980)

These (cultural) phenomena are learned as a shared set of beliefs, attitudes, ideals and values that are characteristic of a particular society or population (Ember & Ember, 1999) How these are learned, the mechanisms that operate to “spread” culture, as well as the theories that explain these, include (but are not limited to):

Diffusion: defined as the spread of a cultural item from its place of origin to other places. An expanded definition depicts diffusion as the process where cultural traits are transferred from one society to another, through migration, trade, war, or other contact. Each society is influenced by others but the process of diffusion is subjective to each society. (Winthrop 1991)

Evolutionism, proposes the "psychic unity of mankind", i.e. - all human beings have innate psychological traits that make them equally likely to innovate. According to evolutionists, innovation in a culture is considered to be continuous or triggered by variables that originate outside the organizational system. This sets the foundation for the idea that many inventions occur independently of each other and that diffusion has little effect on cultural development. (Hugill, 1996)

Acculturation is the process of systematic cultural change of a society carried out by an alien, dominant society, under conditions of direct contact between individuals of each society (Winthrop, 1991). Individuals of a foreign or minority culture learn the language, habits, and values of the dominant culture by the process of acculturation. Individuals in the dominated group enter the social positions, and obtain the political, economic, and educational standards of the dominant culture through the process of assimilation. These individuals, through the social process of assimilation, become integrated within the “dominant” culture. (Thompson, 1996)

OK - so culture is the learned behavior by which a group of human beings adapt to their environment. It can "diffuse", "evolve", impact other cultures through various types of contact between human groups. There are no "good" or "bad" cultures, simply learned behaviors that the group used to adapt to their environment.

Seen from this point of view, the statements at the top indicate a lack of understanding of not only what culture is, but how it operates in the real world of self organizing human groups. My experience is that there is almost always a good reason for the group to hold the beliefs and values that they do, based on the environment that existed at the time that the group initially came into being.

People are interested in organizational culture, and how it changes, and how to influence these changes. It seems to me that looking at the factors above, and the forces which drive them provide a logical basis for addressing the issue of culture change.

Bureaucracy, we don't need no stinking bureaucracy

In an earlier blog, I identified the factors critical to a group reorganizing at a higher complexity level:

Environment – this really represents the resources available to the group:
o Are the existing resources able to support the move to increasing complexity?
o Will the environment be stable enough to support?

Population –
o Are there enough people, with the needed skills in the needed proportions, to support the next level of organization?
o Does the population see itself as having enough common interests (language, history, ethnicity, economic interests, common enemies) to organize in a larger context?

Leadership –
o Are there person/persons with the vision and charisma to organize the population around the idea of the next organizational stage?
o Does the leadership have the organizational skills to pull it off?

Cooperation/conflict –
o Is the culture of the group able to cooperate sufficiently to re-organize?

In writing my blog entry on the factors needed to move from a “tribal” level of organization to“chiefdom”, I realized that this may be the most difficult step an organization of human beings makes, in terms of moving to a higher level of complexity.

It appears, for a variety of epigenetic reasons, that the tribal level of organization is deeply ingrained in the human genome. Dunbar’s number (around 150 people), has been shown through several studies to have validity. Humans have problems personally relating to more than 150 people. This means that organizing around more people than this requires a communication system that connects groups of this size and permits them to work toward common goals.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number)

I believe this necessitates a bureaucracy to manage information, communication, commerce, economic data, rules and regulations, etc, etc.

Max Weber outlined the key characteristics of a bureaucracy:
1. specification of jobs with detailed rights, obligations, responsibilities, scope of authority
2. system of supervision and subordination
3. unity of command
4. extensive use of written documents
5. training in job requirements and skills
6. application of consistent and complete rules (company manual)
7. assign work and hire personnel based on competence and experience
These principles are inventions --- organizations did not always have them.
Today, we think of bureaucracies as inefficient and generally bad. In the Industrial Revolution, they were seen as marvelously efficient machines that reliably accomplished their goals. Over time, bureaucracies became enormously successful, easily outcompeting organizational forms such as family businesses and adhocracies. They also did much to introduce concepts of fairness and equality of opportunity into society, having a profound effect on the social structure of nations. (Borgatti, 2002)

All this has “duh” (as in – “ I knew that already”) all over it, but as OD practitioners, we don’t have the tools or understanding to address the fact that organizations face this developmental hurdle. How often do we identify instituting a bureaucracy as the solution to an organizational crisis? The ability of a growing organization to differentiate, specialize, and create a communication structure, with skilled individuals to manage these, is a critical factor in organization development.



Borgatti, Stephen P. ( 2002) http://www.analytictech.com/mb021/bureau.htm

Are businesses really "Tribal"?

There have been a number of recently published books that tout a more "natural" approach to understanding human dynamics at the workplace.

Below are two that I have researched, and want to bring into the discussion of an epigenetic approach t understanding organizations. I am NOT criticizing the content of these, there is a place for this information in the developmental model I am developing.

Tribal Leadership

In this business oriented book, the authors posit that people participate in organizations as members of one or more tribes. (A tribe is defined as a basic sociological unit: a group of 20-150 humans). The authors claim to use linguistic research methods and relationship structures to outline five "tribal" stages that build on one another. Each state is more productive and meaningful for its members than the ones it supersedes. Each also has leverage points that move the group forward in productivity. Organizations are often composed of numerous tribes.

The five tribal stages are:

Stage 1: Tribal members exist in a state of alienation from goals beyond mere survival. They use language to describe their place in the world that asserts that life in general is unfair. In short, "Life Sucks!"

Stage 2: Tribal members exist in a state of victimization. They use language that describes their place in the world that suggest that they are powerless and oppressed by forces outside their control. In short, "My life sucks."

Stage 3: Tribal members exist in a state of self-aggrandizing competition. They use language that describes their place in the world as great by virtue of the fact that they have won positions of status and power. In short, "I am great, because you are not!"

Stage 4: Tribal members exist in a state of mutual cooperation around a common goal, characterized by competing against other organizations. They use language that describes their place in the world as meaningful because they are achieving outcomes valued by the tribe by cooperating with other members of the tribe. In short, "We are great (because they are not)!"

Stage 5: Tribal members exist in a state of flow. They use language that describes their place in the world as intrinsically meaningful and focused on the good of the universe. In short, "Life is Great!"

Each stage has characteristics that describes the quality and the core values of the relationships between tribe members.

Stage 1: Members are alienated from each other; relationships are undermining.

Stage 2: Members are separate from each other; relationships are ineffective

Stage 3: Typically - personal domination of one member over others; relationships are developed for their usefulness

Stage 4: Stable partnerships are attained, as relationships are deemed important. A tribe member is successful only if all members are successful.

Stage 5: Team of stable partnerships exists, and relationships are vital.

Tribes advance one stage at a time. Stages are not skipped. Without progressive intention at a particular stage, cultures may also degrade.

The job of a tribal leader is to continually elevate the culture. If a tribe has a strong leader who is stable in the next higher stage, a tribe may be catalyzed to advance as a whole.

Ray Immelman: Great boss Dead boss

The focus of this book is to point out the tribal nature of organizations. To that end, Immelman creates a set of tribal attributes and tribal dimensions that he uses to construct an understanding not only of how these groups operate but how an organizational consultant can look at organizations through this lens.

• Tribal attribute one; strong tribe must have a common enemy

• Tribal attribute two; a strong tribe has clearly defined symbols

• Tribal dimension one; individuals are socially, emotionally, and psychologically defined by their tribal membership

• Tribal attribute three; a strong tribe offers a super ordinate identity to all sub tribes

• Tribal dimension two; individuals act to reinforce their security when under threat, (individual security)

• Tribal dimension three; individuals act to reinforce their self worth when the security is not under threat (individual value)

• Tribal dimension four; tribes act to secure their self preservation if their security is under threat (tribal security)

• Tribal dimension five; tribes act to reinforce their self worth when their security is not under threat (tribal value)

• Creates a grid with individual security on the right hand taxes and tribal security plus or minus along the top

• Tribal attribute four; a strong tribe has a credible, just cause for its continued existence

• Tribal attribute five; a strong tribe has an accepted right of passage

• Tribal attributes six; a strong tribe has clear external measures of success

• Tribal attributes seven; a strong tribe understands and protects its source of power

• Tribal attribute eight; a strong tribe knows how it compares to the “untouchables”

• Tribal attribute nine; the criteria for tribal membership are clear and credible

(Immelman, 2003)

Immmelman, as have several other recent business/organizational authors, presents these dimensions and attributes in a narrative style: telling the story of a business problem that uses these to make sense of the issues and how to solve them. He develops a type of shorthand for each of the attributes and dimensions and then shows the reader how to combine them to implement his approach.

Interestingly, even though the authors in both cases identify some valid attributes of “tribes” and “tribal leaders”, few of the sources in the bibliographies are from the field of cultural anthropology. They are all business/management books. Tribal Leadership does a better job of connecting their ideas to anthropological studies than Immelman.

Neither book recognizes the epigenetic processes that tribes must respond to in their overall environment. Relationships within the “tribe”, and with other “tribes”, are identified as critical aspects of understanding behavior and leadership, however, they are the beginning of scratching the surface of the potential of understanding and utilizing this point of view.

Immelman, R. (2003). Great boss, Dead boss; Stewart Phillips international LLC: Chicago Illinois

Logan, King & Fischer- Wright (2008)Tribal Leadership: Leveraging Natural Groups to Build a Thriving Organization, Harper Collins

The developmental model - Tribes to Chiefdoms

The tribe has hundreds of people, often fixed settlements, consist of kin-based clans, still 1 ethnicity and language, have egalitarian or "big-man" government, informal and often difficult conflict resolution problems (e.g., much of New Guinea, Amazonia). (Diamond, 1997)

•Tribes are often led by “Big Men”, with little formalized power, but much influence.
•Chiefdoms are controlled by inherited social classes: Chief and nobles
(Ember, C and Ember, M 1999)

Simon - Stage Two: Found and Frame ("How are we going to pull this off?")
Greiner: Collectivity Crisis: Need for delegation with control Solution: Provision of clear direction

Tribes seem to be a human grouping with much appeal, but little understanding in the OD community. In the past 10 years, a number of books have been written (I will deal with these in a future blog) touting a tribal orientation to running a business, leadership and organizational behavior.


A Wikipedia entry speaks to the epigenetic underpinnings of tribes:

According to a study by Robin Dunbar at the University of Liverpool, primate brain size is determined by social group size. Dunbar’s conclusion was that the human brain can only really understand a maximum of 150 individuals as fully developed, complex people. Malcolm Gladwell expanded on this conclusion sociologically in his book, The Tipping Point. According to these studies, then, “tribalism” is in some sense an inescapable fact of human neurology, simply because the human brain is not adapted to working with large populations. Beyond 150, the human brain must resort to some combination of hierarchical schemes, stereotypes, and other simplified models in order to understand so many people. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribalism, 2010)


It is at this point in the development of organizations that the essential issues of complexity emerge:

•How groups organize themselves to be able to not just survive, but grow – specialization in roles and the ability to compensate a person for their specialized contributions.

•Figuring out how people must work toward common goals over time, not just in the moment.

•Resolving conflicts and maintaining cooperation to get things done.

•Establishing identity beyond the family or clan unit.

•Leadership that provides a compelling enough vision so that there is “buy in”

It makes sense to me that the seeds of chiefdoms, that is, an organization of people with a leader that is not based solely on influence, but by designation of the group, begins in the tribe. The initial “Big Man” with the vision, charisma, and ability to direct others to achieve larger goals, becomes the first in the line of Chiefs. This designation seems to imbue the individual (and their family) with power and privilege.

Looking at the above descriptions, the developmental step from a tribal organizational structure to a more complex one may be the most critical. The combination of factors that must come together to not only sustain a larger group of people with more than adequate resources, but to direct them to bigger, more abstract, goals seems remarkable.

Diamond, J. (March 1997). Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. W.W. Norton & Company.
Ember, C and Ember, M (1999) Cultural Anthropology (9th ed) Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, N.J.
Greiner, L.E. (1972) “Evolution and Revolution as Organizations Grow,”

Harvard Business Review 50

Simon, J.J. (2001) 5 Life Stages of Nonprofit Organization, Wilder Foundation.

The developmental model - Bands to Tribes

In Guns, Germs and Steel, Jared Diamond reviews levels of societal organization:

"The band has 5 to 80 people, are usually related by blood, typically nomadic, have 1 language and ethnicity, have egalitarian government with informal leadership, no bureaucracy, no formal structures for conflict resolution, no economic specialization (e.g., Bushmen, pygmies)."

In prior blogs, I identified factors that characterize the earliest stage of organization development as well as what is need to move to a more complex organizational structure. Simon's Stage One: Imagine and Inspire ("Can the dream be realized?") and Griener's Entrepreneurial stage - Survival being the focus with "needing leadership" the solution to the challenge of moving the business to the next level.

At this stage of organization development we are looking at human groups no larger than an extended family or clan.The environment needs only to support the basic needs of the small group in order to maintain this level of complexity. Typically, an environment that is rich enough to support more than a group this size (usually through technology such as agriculture) results in a larger population.

Skill specialization is not required in a band society; however, it seems that the group needs members that can support the next level of development – people who can be successful at providing resources and infrastructure. If no one in the group can grow food in large enough quantities, create tools or heal the sick, then development is difficult.

A group that does not have enough cohesion and common interests to cooperate with each other would have little chance to develop.

A good example of this can be found in Colin Turnbull’s book The Mountain People.

At the band level, leadership is usually “informal”, that is, the older members of the band are looked to for guidance. Decisions are often made on a consensus basis, there are no written rules with no specialized roles for enforcement of rules or laws.

In order to move to a more complex organization stage (tribe), an individual must emerge to encourage bands to work together for a common purpose ( Simon’s "Imagine and Inspire"). This person needs to have sufficient skills to assign tasks and roles in order to meet the goals of the group, as well as have the personal authority to maintain respect of the group. Intra and inter band cooperation needs to be sufficient to complete tasks needed to reach the goals identified.

When I look at small groups, no matter what the context (business, political, gangs), all of the above applies. Humans are wired to operate in this fashion, epigenetically. As OD practitioners, using the above as guidance helps us not only to identify what the "normal" behavior would be, but what may be needed if the organization wishes to develop.

Diamond, J. (March 1997). Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. W.W. Norton & Company.

Turnbull, Colin M. The Mountain People. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1972.

Jared Diamond - an unwitting epigeneticist?

Jared Diamond’s Collapse – How societies choose to fail or succeed (2005) lists five factors that he considers central to the ability of human groups to survive over time:

• Inadvertent environmental damage: Based on the fragility of the environment or misuse of environmental resources, the group degrades the environment they live in to such an extent that it is unable to support them.
• Climate change: The climate, in the form of temperature and the amount of rainfall, either supports the ability of human groups to provide resources (food, water and shelter) needed to survive and/or thrive. Extended droughts and cold spells have been shown to adversely effect large scale societies such as the Anasazi people of the American southwest to such an extent that their entire culture collapsed.
• Hostile neighbors: Chronic conflicts with adjoining groups (many times combined with the above factors) weaken the group’s ability to survive. These conflicts may lead to the group’s being conquered by the hostile neighbor.
• Decreased support by friendly neighbors: Very few societies have access to all the resources needed to survive and grow. Trade with other groups provides these, and without it, societies fail.
• Society’s responses to its problems: The choices the group makes to cope with the above conditions ultimately determines their success or failure over time. Diamond covers both in his book. Paradoxically, he points out that clinging to the decisions that made the group viable previously, often led to their downfall.

(Diamond, 2005)

I see these factors as central to identifying the crises that groups face. The ways that human organizations handle their environmental resources and their relationships with others directly determine their success or failure. At each stage of development, the decisions the group makes to respond to these factors seem critical to survival as well as organizing at higher levels of complexity.

Diamond never uses the term epigenetic, however, his descriptions of the factors which influence the human groups he explores and the decisions they make in the face of their environmental challenges are examples of the epigenetic process in action. I urge followers of this blog to read Collapse, and Diamond's earlier work, Guns, Germs and Steel.

Diamond, Jared (2005) Collapse – How societies choose to fail or succeed. Penguin, New York, NY

More developmental thoughts

Since the last post, I have been struggling with creating a matrix to describe the stages of development of organizations, and the developmental tasks needed to increase in organizational complexity. In thinking through the creation of a unified model that includes Greiner’s business oriented crises, Simon’s idea – based development of non profits, and the self organizing anthropological stages that groups go through, I realized that there are only a few variables:

Environment – this really represents the resources available to the group:
o Are the existing resources (food, money, technology, infrastructure) able to support the move to increasing complexity?
o Will the environment (weather, natural resources, macro - economics) be stable enough to support?

Population –
o Are there enough people, with the needed skills in the needed proportions, to support the next level of organization?
o Does the population see itself as having enough common interests (language, history, ethnicity, economic interests, common enemies) to organize in a larger context?

Leadership –
o Are there person/persons with the vision and charisma to organize the population around the idea of the next organizational stage?
o Does the leadership have the organizational skills to pull it off?

Cooperation/conflict –
o Is the culture of the group able to cooperate sufficiently to re-organize?

In this model, all of the above need to be in place in order for the move to next level of complexity to happen. If you look at Greiner’s model (see the previous post), he poses crisis points which a business faces in moving to more complex levels.

In the epigenetic model, this is expanded to the environment as a whole, and the ability of the group to utilize the “favorable” conditions with the appropriate leadership.

The developmental model (stage 2)

-->

Organizations go through life-cycles much like people go through infancy, child-hood and early-teenage phases. Each phase in an organization's life cycle can be tracked based on the needs of the group in that phase; learning to survive, reacting to environmental challenges; maturing and gaining a sense of “self”.

As people mature, they (hopefully) understand more about the world and themselves and develop an approach to cope with the challenges in life and work. They learn to plan and to use a certain amount of discipline to carry through on those plans. To survive, organizations need to do this as well. Features of new organizations are usually markedly different from older and larger organizations. As seen in the diagram below, the life cycle model portrays groups going through four stages: Entrepreneurial, Collectivity, Formalization and Elaboration.
These are described in the table below:(click on the table to enlarge)

-->

The boxes in the above diagram are intended to show the issues that the organization needs to deal with in order to progress to the next stage. These could be seen as somewhat “epigenetic”, however, the intrinsic “predetermined unfolding” quality that marks Erickson's model is lacking. The diagram does show a development from small to large as the organization progresses.

This model, developed by L. E. Greiner at the Harvard Business school (1972), is totally business oriented. It looks at the management, organization structure and leadership styles he thought was needed at each stage of increasing complexity.

A more dynamic graphic of the same model, with "crisis points" identified at each stage of growth, shows what Greiner thinks is the resolution of each.(click on the graphic to enlarge)

-->

In the 5 Life Stages of Nonprofit Organizations ( 2001), Judith Sharken Simon, provides another perspective on life cycles of nonprofit organizations. She identifies:

1. Stage One: Imagine and Inspire ("Can the dream be realized?")

2. Stage Two: Found and Frame ("How are we going to pull this off?")

3. Stage Three: Ground and Grow ("How can we build this to be viable?")

4. Stage Four: Produce and Sustain ("How can the momentum be sustained?")

5. Stage Five: Review and Renew ("What do we need to redesign?")

(Simon, 2001)

Simon points out that the focuses of nonprofits are not simply product/service oriented, but idea based. The power of concept and guiding philosophy of an organization is accounted for in this model.

Taking these types of business based developmental models and applying the epigenetic principles to them, as well as expanding the concepts to human organizations in the larger sense, will be the focus of the next blog post.

Greiner, L.E. (1972) “Evolution and Revolution as Organizations Grow,”

Harvard Business Review 50

Simon, J.J. (2001) 5 Life Stages of Nonprofit Organization, Wilder Foundation.

The developmental model (stage 1)

In previous posts, I covered the genetic basis for human organizations, and showed how groups self organize in a developmental manner. In this post, I will start the process of looking at the actual framework that will portray how human groups address, or not, the challenges that allows them to organize at higher levels of complexity.

A base dynamic for human organizations seems to be some form of “conflict vs. cooperation”. At each level of organizational complexity this seems to plays out. Can a band cooperate within itself in order to survive (hunt and gather) effectively? Can a city-state trade with others and grow their socio-economic needs peacefully or choose to expand through war?

Using this as a starting point, I am developing a model similar to Erickson's.

In Erickson's epigenetic model, a pattern seems to emerge. At each level of development, the individual struggles with how to be “whole” and in satisfying relationship with others vs. feeling “dis-integrated” and out of harmony with the outside environment.

In work are the analogous headers to these Ericksonian ones:
Stage (age)
Psychosocial crisis (at each age)
Significant relations (at each age)
Psychosocial modalities (at each age)
Psychosocial virtues (at each age)
Mal-adaptations & malignancies (at each age)

The Functionalist school of Cultural Anthropology used this model, based on individual and group needs:

Basic Needs (Individual)
Direct Responses (Organized, i.e., Collective)

Instrumental Needs
Responses to Instrumental Needs

Symbolic and Integrative Needs
Systems of Thought and Faith

Perhaps, an organizational model may something look like this:

Size (Band, Tribe, etc)

Organizational hurdle (at that stage)
Relationships/Leadership required (at that stage)

Developmental Issues (conflict, cooperation)

Presenting Problem of the group
Potential solutions

Existing Organizational Development theory does not address development in an epigenetic manner, even though the field of Cultural Anthropology points to this. If one takes the assumptions I have put forward in “putting the Development in Organizational Development” (see previous blog) as a starting point, and agrees that the stages of development are something like what I have described (Bands, tribes, etc), then the “crises” that human groups face in organizing in increasing complexity can be effectively mapped. What these are related to, the struggles they represent and the “symptoms” that each stage exhibits would be the focus to developing this framework.

Technology = Environment

Actually, this should say: ADOPTED technology equals environment.

I’ve just spent the last two days in Washington, DC (the OTHER Washington, those of us from Seattle like to say), spending a great deal of time at the Natural History and Native American Museums. In both, I saw ample evidence, anthropologically speaking, about the effect that environment has on human organizations and development, and how human groups use technology to adapt and alter their environment.

In the epigenetic model, genetics and environment “dance” with each other to move the organism toward a developmental outcome. By recognizing the functional equivalency of technology to environment on the developmental process, OD practitioners will be better able to diagnose and design responses to organizational issues.

In the Natural History museum, there is a display on how tool use altered human evolution: by adopting fire as a tool to cook food, humans altered and increased the availability of nutrients in their food by making it more digestible and actually altering the chemical structure of the food. By using stone hammers to break open leg bones of large animals (even those left as picked over carcasses by predators), early humans accessed the marrow fat that even large carnivores could not get to.

By using tools (technology) and passing this use along as part of their culture (more on this in future posts), early humans altered their genetic makeup over time. The individuals who benefitted from the better nutrition were able to (we assume) grow stronger, live longer and reproduce in greater numbers.

Here is the point: when we look at organizations, are we evaluating the technology that group is using as part of their environmental resources? Are we looking at the technology that may have “spawned” the group in the first place (think Microsoft or any other business, government or institution that depends on tools to do their work)? Are there technologies that, if adopted, alter their way of doing work, thereby changing their culture?

Erik Erickson and epigenetics

Erik Erickson described how an individual’s psycho-social development functions by the epigenetic principle. This principle says that we develop through a predetermined unfolding of our personalities in eight stages. Progress through each stage is determined by our success, or lack of success, through all the preceding stages. (Erikson, 1959)

A summary of these can be found at:
http://psychology.about.com/library/bl_psychosocial_summary.htm

At each level of development, the individual struggles with how to be “whole” and in satisfying relationship with others vs. feeling “dis-integrated” and out of harmony with the outside environment.

This model is the basis for thinking about how people develop both normally and abnormally, and had a profound effect on my approach as a treatment provider. Organizations are as "organic" as individuals, it seems to me, and move through developmental stages also.

I wanted the readers to know I have based my explorations on Erickson's broad shoulders.

The Iroquois lacrosse team

Recently there have been news reports concerning the Lacrosse team from the Iroquois nation. A New York Times article describes how members of the Iroquois lacrosse team, among the top 5 in the world, were using passports issued by the Iroquois nation to attempt to travel to Britain for the world championships. Initially, these were denied, but a compromise was reached to allow the team to travel to the games.http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/15/sports/15lacrosse.html

I note this as an example of self organizing human groups. The Iroquois nation (a good synopsis on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iroquois) seems to have constituted a “league” of 5 tribes around 1575, possibly earlier. This resulted in the formation of a “Grand Council” made up of 50 hereditary chiefs. The tribes in the Iroquois nation spoke a common language and assigned specific roles to each tribe to fulfill within the league.

Of particular interest to this blog is the role of a leader known as Deganawida “the Great Peacemaker”, a religious figure that brought the 5 separate tribes together. The 5 tribes relied on corn, beans and squash as staple crops, which were nutritionally able to support the people. These crops were strategically grown: cornstalks grow, the bean plants climb the stalks, and the squash grow beneath, inhibiting weeds. In this combination, the soil remained fertile for several decades. The food was stored during the winter, and lasting for two to three years.

Looking back on the last two posts, the Iroquois exemplify the concept of a self organizing human group. They had the leadership and resources (the Great Peacemaker and their crop selection) to organize at a higher level of complexity (nationhood) and are able to establish a strong enough sense of shared history and identity that over 400 years after the formation of the nation, members of the group are still representing themselves as Iroquois.

Self organization - the real deal

An epigenetic model of organizations has to describe development of groups based on the interaction between the genetic underpinnings of human groups and the effect of environment on those groups. The field of Cultural Anthropology points to how human beings self organize based on population. When I first encountered the following “political evolution” model, I did not think that it applied to all human groups, until I saw the spate of books emerging from business publishing touting “tribal” origins of management. Here is the real deal on how humans organize:

A band is the simplest form of human society. A band usually consists of a small kin group, no larger than an extended family or clan. Bands are often egalitarian and have very informal leadership; the older members of the band generally are looked to for guidance and advice and decisions are often made on a consensus basis. There are no written laws, customs are communicated orally, so formal social institutions are few or non-existent. Religion is based on family tradition, individual experience, or counsel from a shaman. Historically, band societies hunt and gather to obtain their food. (O’Neil, 2007; Ember & Ember, 1999)

A tribe consists of a social group organized largely on the basis of kinship. The social structure of a tribe can vary greatly from case to case, but, due to the small size of tribes (usually in the low hundreds), it is always a relatively simple structure, with few (if any) significant social distinctions between individuals. (O’Neil, 2007; Ember & Ember, 1999)

A chiefdom is a more complex society of varying degrees of centralization led by a chief. Cultural evolution describes chiefdom as a form of social organization more complex than a tribe or a band society, and less complex than a state or a civilization. The definition of chiefdom in anthropology: “An autonomous political unit comprising a number of villages or communities under the permanent control of a paramount chief”. (O’Neil, 2007; Ember & Ember, 1999)

A state is a political association with effective sovereignty over a geographic area and representing a population. A state usually includes the set of institutions that claim the authority to make the rules that govern the people in that territory. Status as a state often depends on being recognized by other states as having internal and external sovereignty over a defined geographic area. (O’Neil, 2007; Ember & Ember, 1999)

A nation is a human cultural and social community. Nationhood is an ethical and philosophical doctrine: a form of self-defined cultural and social community. Members of a “nation” share a common identity, and usually a common origin, in the sense of history or ancestry. (O’Neil, 2007)

Ember, C and Ember, M (1999) Cultural Anthropology (9th ed) Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, N.J.
O'Neil, D (2007). http://anthro.palomar.edu/tutorials/cglossary.htm#sectL

Epigenetic ground rules

In my research, focusing on Cultural Anthrolopology and Social Psychology, I found that a number of assumptions emerged that allowed me to think of a developmental model for organizations. These ground rules point to factors that permit or hinder development in organizations.

Assumptions in “putting development into Organization Development”

• Human groups are self organizing systems.

• The mechanism for this self organization is group size. (population)

• Cultural behaviors (language, rites, rituals, kinship relationships, leadership, etc) exist in all human groups.

• The culture and size of a group is a direct result of interaction with the environment in which the group exists; physical, economic, and technological.

• As groups, in what ever context, grow in size, they face developmental challenges.

• If they master the challenge, the group is able to successfully re-organize at a more complex developmental level.

• If not, they encounter difficulties in functioning as an organization

So What?

Why would a developmental model that describes organizations at many levels of complexity be valuable? Some thoughts:

• Understanding the variety of environmental, leadership and structural requirements of groups to flourish at each level of development could be a critical tool for OD consultants.

• Leadership is not static. If, in fact, humans rely on leaders to self organize, then being able to map the leadership needs at each level of organizational complexity would guide selection and development of leaders.

• An important aspect of an epigenetic model is the ability (or lack) of a group to master a developmental “crisis”. As groups move naturally from one developmental stage to another, recognition of these helps make sense of what this group needs to work on, and if they have the resources needed to progress.

Putting the "genetic" in epigenetic

The foundation of epigenetic organizations must be the genetic basis for humans to organize in social groups. How, why and what these groups actually look like is based on the interactions with their environment. The genetic underpinnings of organizational behavior is found in mammalian and primate behavior, which is probably why we are fascinated with the similarities found between humans and these groups (Gorillas in the Mist, anyone?)

Humans are social animals, and as such, have a biological predisposition to form groups. Mammals, including primates, almost always develop a hierarchy within groups (even if called a herd, pack, pride or pod), with an individual becoming “dominant”. Is this a “template” for human social groups?

In Peter Farb's book Humankind (1978), he identifies four major behavioral characteristics that distinguish primates: social learning, tool making, cooperation in hunting, and social organization. Farb states that these have important implications in the later development of a human way of life. He states that primates exploit group living in a way that confers numerous adaptive advantages. This includes the security of companions known since infancy, kinship ties with the mother and with siblings who can counted on for protection, the safety afforded by the continued presence of adult males, and pleasurable social interactions of a predictable way of life. (Aronson, Wilson, & Akert, 1999)

Underlying all social organization are the facts that group life in primates is essential for protection and that the entire complex of social learning is a hallmark of social organization (Farb, 1978). Learning, tool making, and cooperative hunting are rooted in our primate heritage… Two aspects of (primate) social organization, though, are exceptional. The first is that among the primates all social processes may occur at anytime, in most mammals specific seasons of the year are set-aside for such events as battles between males, mating, birth, and migration. Because these and other events may take place at the same time a primate group, individuals must learn to switch rapidly from one social context to another.

The second way monkeys and apes differ from most other mammals is in being attached permanently to social group. A solitary bear, elk, or beaver can survive very well in its own, but the solitary anthropoid is usually a dead anthropoid. Group life is essential for protection and for maintaining the entire complex of social learning that is a hallmark of the primate way of life. These two features of primate social life have reached their fullest expression in humankind. (Farb, 1978)

Some of the social behavior that distinguishes the human species can be found at least in prototype among the other primates. Many people condemn dominance behavior because it is based on the threat of force; but among primates it is an adaptation to promote social harmony. These hierarchies grow out of social experiences that begin shortly after birth, to teach the young monkey or ape who can be dominated and who cannot. Eventually all members of the group learn their places in the hierarchy. (Farb, 1978)

Farb makes the socio-biological link between primate and human social behavior and points out the evolutionary benefit to creating and maintaining a hierarchy in groups:

Forming relationships with other people fulfills a number of basic human needs. So basic, in fact, there may be an innate need to belong to social groups. (I)n our evolutionary past, there was a substantial survival advantage to establishing bonds with other people. People who bonded together were better able to hunt for and grow food, find mates, and care for children. Consequently, the need to belong has become innate it is present in all societies. Consistent with this view, people in all cultures are motivated to form relationships with other people and to resist the dissolution of these relationships. (Farb, 1978)

Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D., & Akert, R. M. (1999). Social Psychology (3rd ed.). Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Farb, P. (1978). Humankind. Houghton Mifflin Company: Boston.

Where is the "development" in Organization Development?

Epigenetic organizations

In the late 80s, I was watching a PBS program on street gangs. Part of the program dealt with a process that gangs use to allow new members entry, called “jumping in”. A pretty simple activity, the new member is subjected to a beating by the current members of the gang, and if they can stand up to it, they are admitted. What was most interesting was the realization that this was an initiation rite. Where did street gangs come up with this? Somehow, rites of passage have become part of street gang (and most other gangs such as motorcycle and prison gangs) culture. This was an initial clue that something significant was present in the way that human groups naturally operate. After all, if this activity did not serve some purpose, why would a gang use it?

When I moved from working with individual clients and families to working with organizations (around 1997), the developmental models used in psychotherapy were not available or didn't seem to apply in the literature to organizations. The most visible were the "form, storm, norm” stages. In my work as a therapist, developmental theory served as the underpinning of therapy practice. My sense at that time, and now, was that organizations are groups of human beings and should follow certain developmental patterns, whether they're aware of them or not.

Based on training as a family therapist, and a sense that other disciplines such as cultural anthropology and social psychology might hold the key to the normal developmental stages of organizations, I entered Fielding Graduate University as a doctoral student. The goal of this blog is to explore the applicability of cultural anthropology, related social psychology, and sociology concepts and their implications to organizations.