It might seem strange to study the symbolic outside of the humanities, like anthropology or linguistics. However, if we consider symbolism to be biological, it makes sense that a foundational part of what makes us human also contributes to how we bond and work. According to research from Christine Moser (SBE, Management & Organization) and her co-author Nelson Phillips (Professor, Technology Management at UCSB), looking at symbolism as a cornerstone of human evolution broadens our understanding of how we communicate, produce and store knowledge, solve problems, and more. Looking at the symbolic origin of humanity can help us better understand management and organization on an intrinsic level—like understanding DNA is essential to modern-day science.
Human evolution begins with the symbolic
Phillips and Moser’s research starts with the idea that human evolution begins with the symbolic, not the other way around. Instead of the symbolic serving as a tool from which to view and analyze societal development as a separate entity, Phillips and Moser claim that the symbolic is a key part of what it is to be homo sapiens. A symbol, by this research’s definition, is something that represents another object or idea outside of itself that uses intentionality, representation, and generality to do so. The ability to create and interpret symbols, evolved in the very nature of our species, gives us three abilities that separate us from animals and earlier evolutions of humanity: language, sociality, and cognition. According to Phillips and Moser, these aspects of human behavior can all be linked back to how we manage and organize, making an evolutionary perspective key to understanding these processes on a foundational level.
The symbolic is a key part of what it is to be homo sapiens.
The next portion of this research tackles, as mentioned earlier, how a symbolic perspective can affect the way that researchers actively approach management and organization. Phillips and Moser contend that, like animals who take up ecological niches in the wild, humans build niches that include vocabulary and social know-how, as well as physical inventions such as computers and highways. Cognition, language, and sociality help us create and inhabit this “cognitive niche,” which allows us to plan for the future, remember the past, and work in large groups. Through this perspective, humans are biologically wired for social construction, in the same way that animals are wired to fit certain habitats. This is important for management and organization because it fills in a gap in our prior understanding—the origin—of the way that humans manage and plan. In the past, research has focused on how managers use culture as an instrument or mechanism of control instead of looking at it as the result of something innate to mankind. While managers can have an effect on culture, this perspective provides more context for their activities and results.
Humans are biologically wired for social construction, in the same way that animals are wired to fit certain habitats.
Symbolic machines change our cognition
Finally, Phillips and Moser raise questions about how recent technological advances will factor into this cultural conversation. If the symbolic is to be considered a fundamental part of human biology, then what does that say about symbolic machines and their growing role in human spaces? The fact that technology like AI is still growing, and that it can already produce written texts and imagery in a similar way to humans, highlights the impact that systems like it can have on the cognitive niche. As stated in this MIT Technology Review article, it’s predicted that as AI becomes more established in the workplace, it will drive the human workforce to focus on more complex tasks. If symbolic machines are capable of driving change to the cognitive niche in this way, humans may also not be aware of how that niche is changing. Having this perspective would allow researchers to catch and track these changes with much more precision and forethought.
If the symbolic is to be considered a fundamental part of human biology, then what does that say about symbolic machines and their growing role in human spaces?
In conclusion, symbolic evolution shifts the very perspective from which we look at the construction of society. Concepts that seem limited to humanity can be drawn back to our singular ability to abstract ideas. If evolutionary theory, focused on symbolism as its keystone, can be accepted as a foundational part of management and organization, this could be used as a stepping stone for future research.
What can we change about our approach to management, organization, and future research?
This paper questions whether the study of management and organization is behind, considering that other related areas, like psychology, have long adapted to and incorporated evolutionary theory. With these questions in mind, managers and employees can better approach their behaviors as a product of innate biology, instead of focusing on actions in isolation.
Here are some questions we can ask:
For managers: How can we rebuild our management processes based on what we know about human evolution—our origins? How can we work to ensure that management is less reactionary in the short-term, and takes longer-term biological contexts into account?
For employees: What information can we provide to our managers that better inform their judgments based on contexts beyond the situation at hand? How can we be more adaptable and understanding to communication errors and mistakes as a result of broader symbolic challenges or evolutionary barriers?
For new technology or tools: If symbolic machines—like AI—are starting to take over the creation of new symbols, previously something only humans could do, what does this mean for more antiquated processes? How will we create new methods of organization that cater and adapt to these developing tools?
For broader research: What patterns can we draw from viewing human social behavior from an evolutionary perspective, and what seemingly isolated actions can we better understand? Are there old works that could benefit from a new look through this perspective?
Ultimately, shifting perspectives beget change. It’s important to make sure, as we uncover new ways to consider or reference old concepts, that we’re able to apply these to the past and present, as well as remain open to how they could change our future.
