May 12, 2025 • 11 mins
Karl Marx and Herbert Spencer, buried near each other in Highgate Cemetery, had opposing ideologies. Spencer believed in individualism and social Darwinism, viewing society as an evolving organism. This text draws parallels between biological and organizational dynamics, highlighting how organizations, like living creatures, have DNA, require energy, and maintain boundaries. Organizational behavior, including inherited patterns and resistance to change, mirrors biological processes like evolution and immunity. The discussion delves into how these dynamics affect growth, innovation, and adaptation, emphasizing the importance of viewing organizational development through a biological lens to understand challenges and opportunities.
#OrganizationalBiology, #KarlMarx, #HerbertSpencer, #SocialDarwinism, #OrganizationalBehavior, #Innovation, #Adaptation
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
Welcome to the Colig Experience episode. Get ready to dive into bold insights, experimentation,
(00:11):
and groundbreaking leadership strategies. Today, we're exploring the intriguing parallels
between societal evolution and organizational dynamics, inspired by the ideas of Karl Marx
and Herbert Spencer. Discover how embracing change can transform your organization. Let's
dive in. Karl Marx, the father of communism, is buried in Highgate Cemetery in London. In an
(00:37):
astonishing irony, Herbert Spencer lies no more than five meters away from him. Spencer, a sociologist
and philosopher who hasn't received his rightful place in the history of modern thought, believed
in ideas completely opposite to those of Marx. He believed radically in individual freedom and
individualism, arguing that society develops through the natural rise and fall of groups in
(01:02):
the social hierarchy structure. Any attempt to support underdeveloped groups, those that fail
to adapt themselves to the situation, represented interference in the process of social progress.
If this reminds you of Darwin, it's no coincidence. Even before Darwin, Spencer coined the term
evolution to describe biological and social development, and he's considered one of the
(01:27):
fathers of social Darwinism. Darwin, whose life overlapped with Spencers, both lived and worked
in London during the second half of the 19th century. Admired Spencer, and even wrote in his
book's introduction that Spencer's writings inspired his ideas on evolution and the origin of
species. The Industrial Revolution and the awakening of nationalist movements in Europe led
(01:53):
Spencer to believe the world had changed. He was right. He perceived older social models as
militaristic structures. While in contrast, he thought that in the modern society of his time,
diplomacy and international relations had replaced the role of force and war.
(02:14):
Well, let's say he was less accurate in identifying these processes.
About 10 years after Spencer's death, World War I broke out.
Spencer interests us because at the centre of his perception exists the assumption that
the same scientific principles governing the biological world also operate in the sociological
(02:35):
world. In his view, human society is a living organism that functions according to the rules
of biological organisms. Can we really treat human organisations as living creatures?
To answer this, we need to first understand what defines and characterises a living creature.
We've chosen to focus on three characteristics for now. Living creatures grow and develop
(03:01):
organically. They reproduce and pass their genetic material to future generations.
They need external energy to function and perform what they are designed to do.
They have a membrane separating inside from outside, but there's constant transfer of
material and energy between the internal and external environments. There are, of course,
(03:25):
many more characteristics. We'll get to some later. But meanwhile, it's easy to see the
similarities between these characteristics and those of organisations, organisations that grow
organically, pass their culture from generation to generation. We often use the biological term
DNA when talking about organisational culture and style. It's not entirely clear how this happens,
(03:52):
right? But somehow, even as the organisation grows, it continues to inherit the same behavioural
patterns to its new components, even when these patterns no longer serve it or even harm it.
We witnessed this first hand when working with a pharmaceutical company that had maintained an
overly cautious approval process for over 20 years. What began as a necessary safety protocol,
(04:18):
following a product recall in the 1990s, had become an organisational habit that slowed innovation
dramatically. Despite new leadership and changing market conditions, this organisational DNA persisted,
even though it was now causing them to fall behind more agile competitors.
When we helped them map their decision-making pathways, many executives were shocked to discover
(04:43):
how these inherited patterns were actively undermining their stated goals of faster development
cycles. By the way, speaking of self-harm, perhaps another similarity between organisations and living
creatures relates to autoimmunity. Living creatures sometimes get confused and use their
immune system which is meant to protect them from foreign agents to attack themselves. If you think
(05:08):
about it, this is an organisational phenomenon that's not so rare. Sometimes it's amazing to see how
an organisation gets confused and attacks itself. It doesn't have to be through aggressive force,
fight. Usually it will be through avoidance, flight. Everyone who has worked in a system that
(05:30):
drags out processes and doesn't know how to make decisions, please raise your hand.
This isn't unfamiliar, right? On one hand, acting with great energy in one direction while on the
other, putting sticks in the wheels as if pressing the brake and gas pedal simultaneously.
Thus, organisational resources meant to advance the organisation are actually directed,
(05:55):
unconsciously, of course, against it. We encountered this exact scenario when consulting for a
communications agency that had implemented a new collaborative platform. The goal was to improve
information sharing across departments, but several teams had developed unofficial work
arounds to avoid using it. When we investigated, we found that the senior leadership team had
(06:20):
championed the platform publicly while continuing to use their old email systems privately.
This created a confusing double message where the organisation was simultaneously investing
resources in the new system while its cultural immune system was rejecting the change.
The organisation was effectively fighting itself, deploying energy both for and against the same
(06:43):
initiative. We've talked about organisational DNA. Let's say a few words about energy. Systems need
energy to develop. Where does this energy come from? That's an interesting point. On one hand,
employees bring energy from home. On the other hand, organisational activity is also what charges
(07:06):
them with new energy. We've addressed this before in this framework when dealing with burnout.
There is no sustainability for an organisation that can't serve as a charger for those who work
in it. To thrive, an organisation needs employees who bring their passion and creativity,
and for them to do this, their experience must be one of meaning and potency. In this sense,
(07:30):
the organisation, just like a living organism, is a small energy factory.
The third similarity between living creatures and organisations relates to boundaries, membrane.
Living creatures depend on their ability to maintain a membrane that preserves balance between
their internal part and the external environment. This membrane is never completely sealed.
(07:56):
It's designed to enable connections and exchange of materials with the environment.
Organisational boundaries are also never completely sealed. Organisations are constantly
in an ongoing process of interactions and material exchange with their ecosystem.
Not everything should penetrate the organisation's boundaries. Sometimes, the organisation exists in
(08:18):
a toxic ecosystem and must ensure that toxins don't penetrate and destroy it from within.
And not everything should exit. Even within the organisation, boundaries exist between
different units, and these two are never completely sealed. These similarities don't prove, of course,
Spencer's claim about the tight connection between biology and sociology.
(08:43):
Discussion on this topic continues to this day. Is the behaviour of a collection of biological
individuals, i.e. an organisation, society, subject to the rules of biological behaviour?
Despite our tendency to think the answer is affirmative, it's important to remember that
this point is still at the centre of scientific and philosophical debate, and different positions
(09:08):
mainly represent inclinations of the heart, rather than scientific proof. Either way,
until this debate is settled, we can certainly use biological models as analogies for organisational
systems. We find great value in this, even if these are just analogies and not necessarily
scientific explanations. For instance, biological systems developed through bugs.
(09:33):
Malfunctions. Science calls these mutations. Mutations happen all the time. Usually,
they have no impact and don't survive. Sometimes, they're sources of disease and suffering.
But ultimately, the fact that we evolved from single-celled organisms to what we are today
(09:53):
is thanks to these bugs. That's an interesting prism through which to think about your organisation,
isn't it? What mutations are developing in your organisation? And what's even more interesting
to consider is which of them will become a source of suffering and difficulty,
and which will add capabilities your organisation didn't have before?
(10:15):
And perhaps an even more interesting question is which organisational mutations could have
become promoting factors if you hadn't rushed to stop them? And that brings us to the end of
today's podcast, where we explored the contrasting philosophies of Karl Marx and Herbert Spencer,
(10:37):
touching upon how Spencer's biological analogy aids in understanding organisational dynamics.
Don't forget to like, subscribe and share this episode with your friends and colleagues,
so they can also stay updated on the latest news and gain powerful insights.
Stay tuned for more updates.
Welcome to the Colig Experience episode. Get ready to dive into bold insights, experimentation,
(00:11):
and groundbreaking leadership strategies. Today, we're exploring the intriguing parallels
between societal evolution and organizational dynamics, inspired by the ideas of Karl Marx
and Herbert Spencer. Discover how embracing change can transform your organization. Let's
dive in. Karl Marx, the father of communism, is buried in Highgate Cemetery in London. In an
(00:37):
astonishing irony, Herbert Spencer lies no more than five meters away from him. Spencer, a sociologist
and philosopher who hasn't received his rightful place in the history of modern thought, believed
in ideas completely opposite to those of Marx. He believed radically in individual freedom and
individualism, arguing that society develops through the natural rise and fall of groups in
(01:02):
the social hierarchy structure. Any attempt to support underdeveloped groups, those that fail
to adapt themselves to the situation, represented interference in the process of social progress.
If this reminds you of Darwin, it's no coincidence. Even before Darwin, Spencer coined the term
evolution to describe biological and social development, and he's considered one of the
(01:27):
fathers of social Darwinism. Darwin, whose life overlapped with Spencers, both lived and worked
in London during the second half of the 19th century. Admired Spencer, and even wrote in his
book's introduction that Spencer's writings inspired his ideas on evolution and the origin of
species. The Industrial Revolution and the awakening of nationalist movements in Europe led
(01:53):
Spencer to believe the world had changed. He was right. He perceived older social models as
militaristic structures. While in contrast, he thought that in the modern society of his time,
diplomacy and international relations had replaced the role of force and war.
(02:14):
Well, let's say he was less accurate in identifying these processes.
About 10 years after Spencer's death, World War I broke out.
Spencer interests us because at the centre of his perception exists the assumption that
the same scientific principles governing the biological world also operate in the sociological
(02:35):
world. In his view, human society is a living organism that functions according to the rules
of biological organisms. Can we really treat human organisations as living creatures?
To answer this, we need to first understand what defines and characterises a living creature.
We've chosen to focus on three characteristics for now. Living creatures grow and develop
(03:01):
organically. They reproduce and pass their genetic material to future generations.
They need external energy to function and perform what they are designed to do.
They have a membrane separating inside from outside, but there's constant transfer of
material and energy between the internal and external environments. There are, of course,
(03:25):
many more characteristics. We'll get to some later. But meanwhile, it's easy to see the
similarities between these characteristics and those of organisations, organisations that grow
organically, pass their culture from generation to generation. We often use the biological term
DNA when talking about organisational culture and style. It's not entirely clear how this happens,
(03:52):
right? But somehow, even as the organisation grows, it continues to inherit the same behavioural
patterns to its new components, even when these patterns no longer serve it or even harm it.
We witnessed this first hand when working with a pharmaceutical company that had maintained an
overly cautious approval process for over 20 years. What began as a necessary safety protocol,
(04:18):
following a product recall in the 1990s, had become an organisational habit that slowed innovation
dramatically. Despite new leadership and changing market conditions, this organisational DNA persisted,
even though it was now causing them to fall behind more agile competitors.
When we helped them map their decision-making pathways, many executives were shocked to discover
(04:43):
how these inherited patterns were actively undermining their stated goals of faster development
cycles. By the way, speaking of self-harm, perhaps another similarity between organisations and living
creatures relates to autoimmunity. Living creatures sometimes get confused and use their
immune system which is meant to protect them from foreign agents to attack themselves. If you think
(05:08):
about it, this is an organisational phenomenon that's not so rare. Sometimes it's amazing to see how
an organisation gets confused and attacks itself. It doesn't have to be through aggressive force,
fight. Usually it will be through avoidance, flight. Everyone who has worked in a system that
(05:30):
drags out processes and doesn't know how to make decisions, please raise your hand.
This isn't unfamiliar, right? On one hand, acting with great energy in one direction while on the
other, putting sticks in the wheels as if pressing the brake and gas pedal simultaneously.
Thus, organisational resources meant to advance the organisation are actually directed,
(05:55):
unconsciously, of course, against it. We encountered this exact scenario when consulting for a
communications agency that had implemented a new collaborative platform. The goal was to improve
information sharing across departments, but several teams had developed unofficial work
arounds to avoid using it. When we investigated, we found that the senior leadership team had
(06:20):
championed the platform publicly while continuing to use their old email systems privately.
This created a confusing double message where the organisation was simultaneously investing
resources in the new system while its cultural immune system was rejecting the change.
The organisation was effectively fighting itself, deploying energy both for and against the same
(06:43):
initiative. We've talked about organisational DNA. Let's say a few words about energy. Systems need
energy to develop. Where does this energy come from? That's an interesting point. On one hand,
employees bring energy from home. On the other hand, organisational activity is also what charges
(07:06):
them with new energy. We've addressed this before in this framework when dealing with burnout.
There is no sustainability for an organisation that can't serve as a charger for those who work
in it. To thrive, an organisation needs employees who bring their passion and creativity,
and for them to do this, their experience must be one of meaning and potency. In this sense,
(07:30):
the organisation, just like a living organism, is a small energy factory.
The third similarity between living creatures and organisations relates to boundaries, membrane.
Living creatures depend on their ability to maintain a membrane that preserves balance between
their internal part and the external environment. This membrane is never completely sealed.
(07:56):
It's designed to enable connections and exchange of materials with the environment.
Organisational boundaries are also never completely sealed. Organisations are constantly
in an ongoing process of interactions and material exchange with their ecosystem.
Not everything should penetrate the organisation's boundaries. Sometimes, the organisation exists in
(08:18):
a toxic ecosystem and must ensure that toxins don't penetrate and destroy it from within.
And not everything should exit. Even within the organisation, boundaries exist between
different units, and these two are never completely sealed. These similarities don't prove, of course,
Spencer's claim about the tight connection between biology and sociology.
(08:43):
Discussion on this topic continues to this day. Is the behaviour of a collection of biological
individuals, i.e. an organisation, society, subject to the rules of biological behaviour?
Despite our tendency to think the answer is affirmative, it's important to remember that
this point is still at the centre of scientific and philosophical debate, and different positions
(09:08):
mainly represent inclinations of the heart, rather than scientific proof. Either way,
until this debate is settled, we can certainly use biological models as analogies for organisational
systems. We find great value in this, even if these are just analogies and not necessarily
scientific explanations. For instance, biological systems developed through bugs.
(09:33):
Malfunctions. Science calls these mutations. Mutations happen all the time. Usually,
they have no impact and don't survive. Sometimes, they're sources of disease and suffering.
But ultimately, the fact that we evolved from single-celled organisms to what we are today
(09:53):
is thanks to these bugs. That's an interesting prism through which to think about your organisation,
isn't it? What mutations are developing in your organisation? And what's even more interesting
to consider is which of them will become a source of suffering and difficulty,
and which will add capabilities your organisation didn't have before?
(10:15):
And perhaps an even more interesting question is which organisational mutations could have
become promoting factors if you hadn't rushed to stop them? And that brings us to the end of
today's podcast, where we explored the contrasting philosophies of Karl Marx and Herbert Spencer,
(10:37):
touching upon how Spencer's biological analogy aids in understanding organisational dynamics.
Don't forget to like, subscribe and share this episode with your friends and colleagues,
so they can also stay updated on the latest news and gain powerful insights.
Stay tuned for more updates.
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.