Aptus Consultants

When Charles Darwin wrote ‘Origin of Species’, little did he know that he was not only writing one of the most controversial books in history but also one of the most misunderstood. There has been a tendency for people to think that survival of the fittest primarily relates to the individual, supporting an ‘every man for himself’ philosophy where only the strongest survive. Of course in reality, Darwin was primarily suggesting that it is the fittest species that will survive, and this is often dependent on how well that species works together for the greater good.

This is pretty good news for humans given that we are by no means the strongest, fastest or fiercest of creatures as individuals. Despite these handicaps we have thrived, reaching the top of the food chain in a very short period relative to the geological timescale. The reason for this success is a trait that we share with other highly successful social species likes bees and ants, we have an incredible ability to work together in groups or communities.

This has been true since the time of the earliest hunter gatherers, and has bred a need in us to be part of a community which is hard wired in to our DNA. Indeed, according to Maslow’s hierarchy of need, our strong desire to be part of a social group is the third most important need that we exhibit, subservient only to physiological requirements like food and heat, and security needs such as shelter and safety. One of the reasons for the importance which is attached to social belonging is derived from our ancient ancestors where it was membership of the group which often meant that Maslow’s first two needs were successfully met.

Over time the nature of the communities to which we belonged has changed. In the early days of humanity they tended to be defined in terms of physical characteristics such as age, gender or location. The upheaval of the industrial revolution led to new, activity based communities such as the trade union movement or merchants forming business groups. The insurance industry and the mutual movement both have their origins in this communal pooling of resources against adverse events.

However, during the second half of the 20th century, many of these traditional community structures came under pressure from a diverse set of factors including:

• An increase in geographical mobility leading to the decline in the importance of the extended family as it was replaced by the nuclear family.
• The state provision of welfare which reduced the dependency of individuals on others.
• Changing political attitudes placing greater emphasis on individual rights. Anyone remember the ‘There is no such thing as society’ quote?
• Legislative changes, such as those which reduced the effectiveness of the unions and hence the benefits of membership.

Despite this, the underlying human desire to be part of a community has remained as strong as ever. So when Web 2.0 came along, with its plethora of social media and community building tools, it was really no surprise to see social networks multiplying and thriving. Look a little deeper at what makes a successful online community and you will rapidly see that they are the same things that make any community a success:

• Some form of common requirement or ‘hook’ around which the community can form, be it business networking on LinkedIn, sharing travel tips on WAYN or looking for a date on Flirtomatic.
• Some means by which an individual can become recognised within the group, from being given a name at birth in a traditional community to creating a full online profile.
• A means by which members of the community can meet each other, from the village fete to an online facility to search for other network members with similar interests and profile.
• A mechanism for communication, from traditional face to face speech to online tools like instant messaging, facebook walls and tweets.
• Some form of reciprocal, communal sharing, from the traditional sharing of food, shelter and protection, to online sharing of photos, video, opinions and other digital content.

So the forces that shape and motivate the growth of social networks are the same as those which have always built communities, all that has changed are the mechanisms of interaction. Even the gurus of online communities such as A J Kim have recognised this fact, indeed as she says “All communities are based on timeless social dynamics that transcend the medium of connection. People are people, even in cyberspace”.

As to what organisations need to do to so as to be able to engage with the members of these new communities, well that will have to be the subject of another article!!! Suffice  to say, it will require a set of changes, from how they use social media to communicate with their clients to how they deploy those same tools to get the best from their employees.

To return to where we started, perhaps a quote from Charles Darwin might provide food for thought on the organisational challenge. “It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one that is most responsive to change”.