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
Monday, July 12, 2010
Thursday, July 8, 2010
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
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
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
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.
• 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.
Monday, June 28, 2010
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:
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.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
