A rejoinder by Jeffrey Braithwaite: Darwinian evolution and the social sciences

Citation

(2009), "A rejoinder by Jeffrey Braithwaite: Darwinian evolution and the social sciences", Journal of Health Organization and Management, Vol. 23 No. 2. https://doi.org/10.1108/jhom.2009.02523bae.004

A rejoinder by Jeffrey Braithwaite: Darwinian evolution and the social sciences

Article Type: Commentaries and rejoinder From: Journal of Health, Organization and Management, Volume 23, Issue 2

Journal of Health Organization and Management, Vol. 22 No. 5, 2008, pp. 525-59

This year, science is celebrating the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s birth (in February, 2009) and the 150th anniversary of the publication of his magnum opus, The origin of the species (in November, 2009) (Darwin, 1859). While the champagne corks are popping over in the science laboratory, the social science tutorial rooms are strangely silent.

Why? It is a compelling truism that human behaviour is the product of both biology and culture, genes and experience, nature and nurture (Mayr, 2001; Ridley, 1993). Yet most social scientists, persistently, almost never include in their work any acknowledgement, let alone explanation, of how the contemporary social behaviours they observe are the result of natural selection. Perhaps, they think that natural selection does not apply to humans, or it is not relevant to the behaviours they see and the attitudes they measure. Some might deny evolution on fundamental religious grounds or because of alternative existential beliefs (Dawkins, 2006; Hitchens, 2007).

But we, like every other species, are evolved, and display the naturally selected features that evolution forges. In the case of Homo sapiens, much of evolutionary history was spent in the environment of evolutionary adaptedness (Barrett et al., 2002; Bowlby, 1982) that is, Pleistocene hunter-gather environments, originating in the African savanna, and later, radiating to other continents (Barkow, 1992; Tooby and Cosmides, 1992).

The challenge for scholars of contemporary behaviours in modern settings such as workplaces, hospitals, schools and institutions is to appreciate, theoretically and empirically, the manifestation of those behaviours not merely in their own terms, but with regard to the evolutionary past which shaped them. Some prominent examples include that in both ancestral hunter-gatherer and modern settings we can see evidence (fossilized remains in ancient cases, and social science data in modern cases) of tribal behaviours, turf protectionism and collaboration and cooperative endeavours such as negotiating and trading with others (Braithwaite, 2005, 2007; Relethford, 1990).

In my paper Lekking displays in contemporary organizations: ethologically-oriented, evolutionary and cross-species accounts of male dominance (Braithwaite, 2008), and some earlier work, which was based on foundational research of various biologists (Petrie et al., 1999; Boyce, 1990; Balmford, 1991; Höglund and Alatalo, 1995). I sought to appreciate modern social interactivity and behavioural displays in an evolutionary context. I drew on Darwinian ideas and a deal of contemporary social science data I had gathered to formulate a description of male managerial behaviour in healthcare settings. I looked at their habitats (meeting rooms, offices), appearance (business attire for the most part), how they accomplished their work and tasks (by exercising influence, delegating and through indirect suggestions), how they interacted (informal meetings and political huddles but without much physical touching) and the tenor of their discourse (jargon-laden managerial talk in the main). An examination of the kinds of benefits conferred ubiquitously on successful managers (perks, larger offices and bigger salaries) completed the observations.

To explain these data I invoked the synthesizing framework of the organisational lek – the playgrounds in which animals of many species congregate in order to mate. These are places where male displays are prominent. It seemed to me that male managers in my studies were lekking – rendering eye-catching displays of power and authority – not necessarily for sex, but for other, organizationally and institutionally sanctioned perks and rewards.

Casebeer and Fitzgerald, each well-known for work in the health organisational behaviour field, have developed well-targeted critiques of this paper. Fitzgerald is interested in exploring the methods used, and shows her long-standing fascination with research by asking for more information on how the observations were done, and interpretations made. Casebeer wants to re-read Desmond Morris’s The naked ape (Morris, 1967), to provide more context for my findings.

Aside from these acute observations, both raise a further key point which is worth discussing: what is the place of contemporary women managers in organisational settings which have traditionally been dominated by males, but which have now thankfully given way (particularly in the health sector) in the last quarter of a century or so to increasing participation of women in the middle-level or upper organizational echelons? My focus on males was because they offered the most explicit displays for systematic inspection, but this preoccupation is too myopic for some scholars’ tastes, and presents the challenge to a researcher or research group to observe female managers using similar approaches. While I have not conducted a longitudinal multi-methods study of female managers in the way I have with male managers, and a lot of extant work on women is couched in feminist theory rather than taking an evolutionary stance using ethological means, nevertheless it is possible to speculate on that phenomenon.

Two possibilities come to mind. There is work (Barrette, 1995; Buttner, 2001; Coleman, 2000; Kanter, 1977; Pines et al., 2001; Rosenthal, 1998; Sheppard, 1992; Webster et al., 1999; Wolf, 1991) to the effect that female managerial and leadership behaviours are more likely to be relational, team oriented and nurturing when compared with male approaches. Whether this is because of traditionally conceived roles, or reflects evolved female characteristics as chief caregiver, keeping families together and functioning, is not clear and possibly contentious. A second female managerial type we could explore is the alpha female. The argument could be examined that to survive and compete in institutions dominated by male social rules, based more on competition than collaboration, successful females need to be tough-minded, combatitive and power-oriented, and they will by necessity adopt approaches predicated on such behaviours. Belligerent environments, this argument contends, beget belligerent managerial behaviours in both genders.

Casebeer suggests that in seeing human behaviour via a framework such as lekking, and in reflecting on the data I have presented, she may never look at displaying males in a meeting quite the same way again. Even though she seems less comfortable with my approach, Fitzgerald resonated with some of the findings, too. She has seen male managerial behaviours of the type I describe in her research and personal experience.

This is encouraging. A useful “proof of concept” for any researcher’s schema is that other experienced researchers can attest to the veracity of it by comparisons with their own data or knowledge. Another validation is when the work is judged by peers to provide new windows into seeing ordinary events. Despite the critical perspectives taken by the commentators, my lekking paper seems at least to pass these tests.

There is much research to be done in this area. The lekking lens can be applied elsewhere – in other industries and settings, and in studies of females as well as males. More importantly, understanding social behaviour illuminated by the deep past and evolutionary explanations is in its infancy, despite it being 34 years since EO Wilson started this field, in controversial circumstances (Alcock, 2001; Segerstråle, 2000; Wilson, 1975).

Russian evolutionary theorist Theodosius Dobzhansky once famously titled a paper “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” (Dobzhansky, 1973). Are social scientists prepared to accept the equivalent? We might say, in parallel to Dobzhansky: “contemporary human behaviour is never fully understandable without an appreciation of our adapted characteristics.” For some of us, this is obvious; but not everyone. Surely it is time for social scientists examining the present, and scientists investigating the past, to get together and rejoice, clinking glasses together to Darwin’s achievements?

Jeffrey BraithwaiteInstitute of Health Innovation, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia, andCentre for Clinical Governance Research, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia and School of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of New South Wales,Sydney, Australia