Biological Constraints

Article by Dr. John E. Kello

Corporate Effectiveness Confronts Biological Constraints

Starting in the 1960s, a growing body of evidence began to strongly support the view that all organisms (including organizations) are biologically prepared for certain behaviors, and that specific forms of learning (the centerpiece of behaviorism as a framework for psychology) are not totally open-ended, but are instead biologically prepared or constrained. To take but one prominent example: across all cultures, it is no coincidence that babies learning their native language progress through the same stages in the same sequence and on a very similar timeline, regardless of how a given culture approaches language training.

What does our growing understanding of our evolutionary history (as bipedal, social, communicating, visually-orienting, hunting/gathering primates) forecast about organizational effectiveness? In a wonderful Harvard Business Review article from a few years back entitled “How Hard-Wired is Human Behavior?”, author, business school professor, and dean Nigel Nicholson offered some interesting observations and speculations about biological constraints on the organization, which can profoundly influence its effectiveness.

The size of the “tribe”: Anthropologists studying primitive cultures discovered years ago that the maximum size for an effective functional social unit (tribe) is around 150. Within that range, it is possible for individuals to know and relate to each other, to feel a sense of personal obligation to the group, and to sort out the social hierarchy. Beyond that number (“Dunbar’s number” in honor of the anthropologist and evolutionary psychologist who first proposed it), there is a dramatic drop off in individual social responsibility; subgroups form, conflict increases, and the group usually splits if it can. This empirical observation has profound consequences for organizations attempting to achieve excellence.

From a descriptive/observational perspective, organizations seem to be more effective in every significant way if the workplace is relatively small. The “malaise of the factory” seems to grow in direct proportion to the size of the factory, beyond Dunbar’s number. The artificially constructed society of the 5,000-person factory is commonly dysfunctional in a wide variety of ways. We have seen a resurgence of the small-plant, mini-mill as opposed to the mega-factory of the past era, in part inspired and made possible by advancing technology, but also in part inspired by the manifest problems of the huge, amorphous factory. Other things equal, smaller plants of 150 or fewer employees just perform better. Other things equal, they are more productive and their workers are more engaged.

The size of the team: There is also an extensive research literature in social psychology and group dynamics on “small group process.” A bottom-line conclusion from this research is that the optimal size for an effective working group (e.g., decision-making group, discussion group, work team, corporate leadership team) is in the 5-12 range, centering around 7. That number, long known to be optimal for brainstorming groups, is also the typical average span of control (number of direct reports) for supervisors and managers in most organizational settings.

For a group to develop into a cohesive unit, with a sense of common purpose and commitment to organizational effectiveness, it is important that the team not be too large (too little sense of personal responsibility) or too small (below critical mass for synergy). Organizations with work units within the “proper” 5-12 size range do best, in terms of essentially every significant measure of productivity and employee satisfaction and engagement.

Anthropologists note that the typical family-unit size of our ancestors, as well as their hunting-group size, was in that very 5-12 range. Apparently, we are wired to build close, committed relationships of high trust and interdependence in groups of about that size. 

Hierarchy: It is obvious that organizations of all sorts are hierarchically organized. Even companies that have made much of their commitment to flattening the hierarchy, such as W.L. Gore Associates, Harley-Davidson, and the now defunct Saturn Corp., still have hierarchy. As a consultant in the area of self-directed work teams, I can tell you that one of their apparent paradoxes is that they still have leaders. Changing the title of the supervisor does not eliminate leadership over such teams. Even a cursory look at the applied literature on teams indicates that someone must be the point of contact and have the responsibility of linking the team to the rest of the organization. Call that person facilitator, coordinator, team resource, or whatever, that person provides direction and support for the team and in some real sense functions as the daily leader.

In our evolutionary history, truly leaderless or full-egalitarian groups are rare, if not nonexistent. The “alpha male” (sometimes female, and if so, often the mate of the deceased alpha male) occupies a position in bands of social primates, including homo sapiens, that is conceptually quite similar. He or she is the boss, team leader, department head, general manager, CEO.

Innovation/conservatism: Even a cursory review of organizations’ Vision/Mission/Values statements on their corporate websites reveals a common-denominator commitment to innovation, creativity, and the like. Indeed, some organizations have so emphasized their pioneer/innovator role that they are largely known for it (e.g., 3M Company, Apple, Google, Walmart, Amazon, Facebook). Yet it is widely noted that most organizations in fact tilt strongly toward caution and conservatism rather than risk-taking, especially to the extent they have been successful. Even organizations that trumpet their commitment to out-of-the-box thinking are prone to reward caution and conformity more than deviance from the familiar, in most cases. Of course, this can have a blowback effect on organizational effectiveness.

Professor Nicholson suggests that it would have been most adaptive for our remote ancestors thousands of years back in evolutionary history to conserve and protect resources that promoted their survival and procreation (wives, cattle, land) and to only “risk it all” if seriously threatened. Thus, there might be a biological/evolutionary base for the overwhelming appeal of “calling conservative plays when your team is ahead.” It may be a core reason why flexibility in the face of changing conditions (e.g., new technology, new competition) is historically so hard, especially for organizations that have been effective. The biologically predisposed strategy is called win-stay, lose-shift, and it is seductive indeed, arguably in our DNA.

We are certainly not blind prisoners to our biological heritage. The biological leash is long and flexible. But our evolutionary history does predispose us to act in certain ways, and to find certain structures more comfortable and natural than others. It is very instructive to be aware of those imperatives when building and sustaining positive cultures of excellence.