Why Do We Collaborate? Why do human beings collaborate Steve Denning Why Do We Collaborate? Comment Now Follow Comments  Every man must decide whether he will walk in the light of creative altruism or in the darkness of destructive selfishness. –Martin Luther King Jr. Why do human beings collaborate? Ever since Darwin, biologists have been vexed by the question, because in evolutionary terms, self-less behavior makes no sense. We would expect altruists who act contrary to their own interest to be systematically eliminated from the species. In an interesting new book, The Social Conquest of Earth, Edward O. Wilson argues that altruism is a result not of individual selection (as biologists have thought), but ofgroup selection. Wilson argues that a tribe with many members willing to contribute to or sacrifice themselves for the common good will be victorious over other tribes that are less collaborative. His book draws from social psychology, archaeology and evolutionary biology and examines those species that have developed advanced social lives, or what biologists call “eusociality”—bees, ants, termites and human beings. These species have been extraordinarily successful and are extremely rare. “Our ancestors,” Wilson writes, “were one of only two dozen or so animal lines ever to evolve eusociality, the next major level of biological organization above the organismic. There, group members across two or more generations stay together, cooperate, care for the young, and divide labor in a way favoring reproduction of some individuals over that in others.” Wilson argues that evolutionary competition among ants is best understood not at the individual level but at the level of the colony. The battle of fitness is waged at the level of the hive, not the individual bee. Humans, Wilson argues, have become genetically hard-wired to join groups. Once having joined a group, members tend to see the group as superior to competing groups. Our groups—tribes, teams, communities, nations—compete with one another for dominance, but as individuals, we also compete for survival and reproduction within groups via individual selection. Overall, selfish individuals might defeat altruistic individuals, but groups of collaborators are victorious over groups of selfish people. The human condition, Wilson concludes, is largely a product of the tension between the two impulses. Human beings thus experience multilevel selection: individual selection and group selection. The two modes operate together on the same individual, but largely in opposition to each other. Individual selection shapes selfish instincts in each member while group selection shapes instincts that encourage collaboration within the group, but not toward members of other groups. Individual selection is responsible for much of what ethicists label morally reprehensible conduct, while group selection is responsible for the greater part of ethical or good conduct. Together, the two .

1. Why Do We Collaborate?
Why do human beings collaborate
Steve Denning
Why Do We Collaborate?
Comment Now
Follow Comments
Every man must decide whether he will walk in the light of
creative altruism or in the darkness of destructive selfishness.
–Martin Luther King Jr.

2. Why do human beings collaborate? Ever since Darwin,
biologists have been vexed by the question, because in
evolutionary terms, self-less behavior makes no sense. We
would expect altruists who act contrary to their own interest to
be systematically eliminated from the species.
In an interesting new book, The Social Conquest of Earth,
Edward O. Wilson argues that altruism is a result not
of individual selection (as biologists have thought), but
ofgroup selection. Wilson argues that a tribe with many
members willing to contribute to or sacrifice themselves for the
common good will be victorious over other tribes that are less
collaborative. His book draws from social psychology,
archaeology and evolutionary biology and examines those
species that have developed advanced social lives, or what
biologists call “eusociality”—bees, ants, termites and human
beings. These species have been extraordinarily successful and
are extremely rare.
“Our ancestors,” Wilson writes, “were one of only two dozen or
so animal lines ever to evolve eusociality, the next major level
of biological organization above the organismic. There, group
members across two or more generations stay together,
cooperate, care for the young, and divide labor in a way
favoring reproduction of some individuals over that in others.”
Wilson argues that evolutionary competition among ants is best
understood not at the individual level but at the level of the
colony. The battle of fitness is waged at the level of the hive,
not the individual bee.
Humans, Wilson argues, have become genetically hard-wired to
join groups. Once having joined a group, members tend to see
the group as superior to competing groups. Our groups—tribes,
teams, communities, nations—compete with one another for
dominance, but as individuals, we also compete for survival and
reproduction within groups via individual selection.
Overall, selfish individuals might defeat altruistic individuals,
but groups of collaborators are victorious over groups of selfish
people. The human condition, Wilson concludes, is largely a

3. product of the tension between the two impulses.
Human beings thus experience multilevel selection: individual
selection and group selection. The two modes operate together
on the same individual, but largely in opposition to each other.
Individual selection shapes selfish instincts in each member
while group selection shapes instincts that encourage
collaboration within the group, but not toward members of other
groups.
Individual selection is responsible for much of what ethicists
label morally reprehensible conduct, while group selection is
responsible for the greater part of ethical or good conduct.
Together, the two modes have created “the conflict between the
poorer and the better angels of our nature.” We are part saints—
the altruistic gene—and part sinners—the selfish gene.
Implications for management
What are the implications for the management of organizations
today? Most obviously, we would expect that organizations that
encourage the altruistic gene through a collaborative culture
will on balance tend to prevail over organizations where the
selfish gene is dominant. This is not surprising: it is a common
tenet of every management textbook.
It is less commonly stated that money brings out the selfish
gene. We know from DanPink’s book, Drive, that a team driven
by money for its members—extrinsic motivation—is less likely
to be innovative. Money creates tunnel vision. In today’s
marketplace where innovation has become central, we would
expect organizations with an internal culture of competition to
be generally less agile and innovative and also less likely to
prevail over time.
Bringing the customers inside the group
What about customers and clients? Group selection shapes
instincts that encourage collaboration within the group, but not
toward members of other groups. If customers and clients are
seen asoutsiders, then there is a risk that they will be treated
just as badly as competitors, causing the organization to
perform poorly.

4. This helps explain why at meetings, Amazon [AMZN]
founder Jeff Bezos, one of the most successful of today’s
executives, makes sure that one chair is kept empty to represent
the customer, whom he calls “the most important person in the
room.” That focus on the customer gives Amazon the
confidence to innovate freely without fretting about short-term
results, Bezos says. “We don’t focus on the optics of the next
quarter; we focus on what is going to be good for customers,”
he explains. “I think this aspect of our culture is rare.”
Wilson’s theory may also help explain why Apple [AAPL] has
been successful in innovation by keeping teams separate from
each other and even forbidding them to discuss their work with
other teams. One might have expected lost opportunity cost in
terms of missed possibilities of cross-fertilization among teams.
Is it possible that the gains from suppressing internal
competition, infighting and politicking within the organization
more than compensates for the loss of cross-fertilization?
Even more important: is it possible that an organization can be
even more effective by getting the benefits of both—cross-
fertilization and focus on customers—by developing a strong
culture in which collaboration is the norm and customers are
seen as part of the group?
Thoughts?
BA 2196 Individual Article Presentation
80 points (8% of final grade)
Background and Assignment
Your boss is passionate about her team’s continued professional
development, so she assigns one article to each office intern
(you) and requires you to thoroughly review, summarize, and
evaluate it before presenting your findings to the entire office in
a well prepared speech.

5. Presentation Guidelines and Instructions
Presentation outline:
1. Open with an engrossing “hook” to interest your audience
(should be the first thing you say)
2. Give the main argument/concept of the article (briefly,
clearly, succinctly stated)
3. Provide the most powerful proof/details/data/real-life
examples/anecdotes the author uses to support his/her point. If
the details/data were not convincing—provide the weak
examples. You must SUPPORT your reading/interpretation of
the article.
4. Conclude by arguing whether your article is convincing; did
you buy into the author’s point?IMPORTANT: YOU MUST
TAKE A STANCE ON THE VALIDITIY OF THE
MATERIAL—THIS ASSIGNMENT IS NOT MERELY
SUMMARY.
· Basis for your concluding argument should include:
· Quality of research or data—did the author(s) prove the main
point?
· Background/viewpoint/bias of authors—is this apparent? Tell
us who the author is (if applicable) and assess credibility.
· Were the details, data, specifics, and anecdotes convincing,
powerful, and effective? Were they real or theoretical? Did they
move the reader emotionally as well as intellectually?
5. Offer to answer follow-up questions from your audience
(This portion will not count toward time limit).

6. Key requirements:
· PRESENTATIONS MUST be 5 - 7 minutes long
· Define any obscure or unfamiliar terms and concepts
necessary to understanding your points
· Interest your audience! Find ways to capture their attention
and add value to their day; this is an opportunity to make a
MAJOR impression
· NO NOTES! Since you are required to keep your eyes on the
audience, you may NOT use notes
(continued)
You are required to use a brief PowerPoint following these
rules:
· No more than 6 slides (not including the title slide)
· No more than 6 bullets on a slide and no more than 6 words in
a bullet
· Don’t use only verbal information (bullets); use at least 2
instances of visual information (picture, chart, graph, table,
etc.) that enhances your point (not mere clip art). You can use
sources besides your assigned article as long as you attribute
them.
· Make the PowerPoint slides a supplemental part of your
presentation—not simply a cheat sheet to which you
surreptitiously glance. Learn to use slides naturally and well.

7. 2 - Revised 7/13/2014