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.