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.