Our Quest for Fire
by Gary McGillicuddy, Birches Group Managing Partner
In the 1980s, a movie was produced, Quest for Fire. The movie tried to depict the conditions in which early humans lived some 80,000 years ago. Needless to say, it was not a pleasant existence that was presented. Humans lived in pre-language tribal communities. On all sides, they were beset by challenges and outright dangers from the environment, wild animals, and of course, fellow man.
The formation of tribal communities was simply borne of necessity. Survival hinged on collective activities to gather the necessary provisions and to stave off the dangers that surrounded them. The level of knowledge to engage more effectively with their surroundings, as depicted in the movie, was quite limited. Core to the plot was the need to get fire. For early humans, fire was a gift from the Gods, generated by violent storms. There was no understanding of how fire was made; all that mattered was the
uses to which fire could be put, and how devastating it could be to lose this vital heavenly resource.
In the movie, due to an oversight in vigilance, the tribe’s fire was accidentally extinguished in a rainstorm. It was decided that the two stronger men would go on a quest, a Quest for Fire. Hoping to possibly steal fire from another tribe, the men proceeded to cross territory utterly unfamiliar with unknown dangers. Wild animals stalked them, the elements harassed them, and they were under constant threat from the very people from whom they were hoping to steal.
Survival against these conditions entirely depended on teamwork, the pooling of observations leading to the progressive building of knowledge. In their quest, yes, the challenges of survival were largely dependent upon strength and luck. However, along the way, the movie shows us what separates man from the rest of the beasts in the field. We are not solely reliant on instinct; we can observe, adapt, and learn. In the quest for fire, the initial goal was to steal it from another tribe since, of course, you cannot recreate a gift from the gods. But can you? Stealth and observation give the opportunity.
Humanity is driven, or as some have thought, condemned to an endless quest for knowledge and all that brings. We are not content with seeking a harmonious life in the natural world.
Finding the Spark
In the quest of this team, it came down not to stealing but learning. With a little friction and dried wood, you could create a spark; the rest follows from that moment. This success in the quest, of course, was not just the knowledge to create and harness fire; it was the power this knowledge brought. Humanity is driven, or as some have thought, condemned to an endless quest for knowledge and all that it brings. We are not content with seeking a harmonious life in the natural world. Since our expulsion from the Garden of Eden because we ate from the tree of knowledge, we have no choice but to pursue knowledge. Fundamental to sustaining our frail existence, we need to use our brain power to control the world around us through understanding this world and how we fit in. Beyond addressing individual challenges to our existence, this has led to a deeper introspection as to our purpose and what that means for the communities in which we live. From St. Augustine, who asserted our purpose must be to build the City of God (De cogitate Dei contra paganos), following the sack of Rome in the fifth century, initially, the adoption of Christianity had weakened the empire by turning away from Rome’s traditional gods. St. Augustine argued that the sacking of Rome was the result of a focus on material wealth. He set forth that the focus of society must be to build the City of God as opposed to the City of Man.
Thomas More, in his work Utopia, articulates a view of society that rests on a collective view and supports a world built on the rule of law, as what today would be an early socialist model, where private property does not exist. Utopia reflects 16th-century humanist thought, also linked to ancient views of society by Plato. Here, humans set the rules and can shape society to their goals. In Utopia, the pursuit of leisure and pleasure is a central tenet of society.
Putting the Models in Place
Whether with a spiritual or humanistic focus, it is about how to shape and advance community. From our two travelers seeking fire, this was for the well-being of their camp. This long story of how and why we try to grow our knowledge, regardless of its objectives, is pursued from a collectivist perspective. The structures advanced by St. Augustine and Thomas More were used to guide several examples of new communities. Most notably, such movements were pursued seriously in the 19th century in America.
Two good examples are the Shaker movement and the Oneida experiment. While both had a strong religious foundation, the communities that they established were quite different. The Shakers espoused a simple lifestyle that focused on practical utility and communal responsibility. Men and women lived separately and strictly practiced celibacy. The model was very successful, and dozens of Shaker communities sprang up across the United States. The basis of the Shaker economy came under threat through advances in technology and manufacturing, following the Civil War, when their highly refined handmade approaches could no longer compete. Communities began to dissolve, and with a decision to no longer admit members, the rule on celibacy made the disappearance of the Shaker movement a certainty.
Conversely, the Oneida experiment, which began in 1848, promoted a different communal model. In their effort to create “heaven on earth,” they promoted open and shared relationships. They practiced “complex marriage,” where all members were married to each other. The Oneida community continued for thirty-two years, and while many sought to join the community, social pressures on the morality of the community ultimately led to its breakup.
Unlike the Shakers, the Oneida Community was successful in a number of industries. Most notably, as silversmiths, the Oneida business exists to this day. They were successful in transitioning both socially and business-wise to continue their economic success. Interestingly, in both the Shaker movement and the Oneida experiment, women worked in much more equal positions with men, reflecting the shared philosophy of communities of shared responsibility.
Finding the Secret of Success
Both the Shakers and the Oneida community initially built successful economic models based on the idea of communal ownership. Both St. Augustine and Thomas More envisaged societies organized around communal ownership. Oneida went on to greater success by recognizing that enduring success needed adaptation and accepting the self-interest of its members to accumulate wealth. What the Shakers and early Oneida members did not embrace, and what our initial two questers for fire learned, is that knowledge not only brings possibly wealth, but also power.
Yuval Harari, in his recent book, Nexus, examines the evolution of information networks from the Stone Age to the present. He effectively argues that the growth of information does not support a linear evolution of knowledge, which builds and deepens understanding and the building of shared consensus. Belief systems are paired with information and support the desire to act. While the Shakers and the Oneida community were quite successful in their work, it was a strong belief system that enabled these achievements for a small community. But at the same time, these beliefs ultimately led to their failure. Harari demonstrates that mythologies that lead to the creation of bureaucracies are essential, but also possess the seeds of their own demise. Information not only informs, it challenges, and as often as not generates resistance as much as inspiration.
So how can we advance in our quest for fire? The continued massing of information is the starting point, but must be accompanied by the context of our belief systems, which both spur action while also accepting “truth” in balanced and progressive doses. Too many leads to backlash, too few leads to stagnation and progressive irrelevance.
Getting to Our World and the Role of HR
Working on development and all the topics this broad category encompasses does, in fact, rest on our mythology, leading our methodologies, which we call multilateralism. From the hard lessons of World War II, a consensus emerged that cooperation is perhaps a better way to pursue inter-state relations and may be worth trying. A great and extensive network of organizations and programs was built on the tenets of the religion of multilateralism.
This has led to a widespread adherence to these tenets, the belief that progress in the evolution of humanity can only be realized through committed, and yes, unquestioning acceptance. And yes, questioning its utility is confronted not with logical counterarguments, but declarations of heresy or
worse. These challenges today have been a long time coming and do present a threat to the church of multilateralism as much as Luther did to the Catholic Church through the posting of his ninety-five theses on the door of the church in Wittenberg.
The Reformation, which sprang from Luther’s actions, yes, threatened the Church but, in the end, strengthened it. The resistance to science and knowledge gradually lessened. Recommitment to mission and basic principles as follows. This is what the church of multilateralism desperately needs today, over the clutching of our rosary, praying that all this will pass soon. Let us embrace what makes multilateralism work and the best way to address global challenges, and accept that it is a messy process that needs to be held to account much more.
Whether with a spiritual or humanistic focus, it is about how to shape and advance community.
We are Globalists
Multilateralism is by definition a global perspective. This is not only because it is nice to be global, but there are also distinct advantages that come from integrating diverse perspectives and capacities. There have been many successes that have come from taking this approach that have led to significant
progress in poverty reduction, health, education, protection, and human rights. The list is long and should never be diminished in its value.
At the same time, the fundamental weakness of multilateralism, the need for consensus to support collective action, needs to be re-examined. Yes, the mythology of multilateralism led to the formation of great and now lumbering bureaucracies. Putting the international agenda in the hands of these bureaucracies has led to the inevitable lumbering responses. It has bred an industry driven by process and court protocols, and is not getting on with it.
There are possibly better models. The size of classic institutions has, at the same time, led to their failure. It is now time to look much more closely at some of the models that have performed well. Looking at the example of the Global Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria is worth considering. The Global Fund is essentially a funding agency to pursue global priorities on these diseases. It does not maintain a network of field offices and the big bureaucracies accompanying program delivery. It seeks funding partners at the country level, best positioned to be successful at the community level. There are other examples of funding entities, such as the Gates Foundation and the Millennium Challenge Corporation, seeking effective implementation partners that can tailor the global agenda to meaningful local impact. The evolution of the United Nations Common System started with policy and technical secretariats. Over time, the system transformed into a large bureaucracy, with staff deployed to more than 600 locations across the planet. The demands to maintain working infrastructures that support such a massive reach are daunting. And of equal impact, it creates mindsets that the program goals morph into bureaucracies focused on ever greater growth. Examining performance and effectiveness becomes secondary to validating the status quo and sustaining career ladders.
From the HR perspective, what is the challenge that keeps large organizations from moving to a more flexible approach? This poses a significant threat to these approaches, which have remained largely unchanged from the 1970s. HR should bring insight into workforce formation and management essential to achieving the institutional mission, as opposed to the survival of the existing bureaucracies. In a world where multilateral programs are pursued much more with an increasingly widening network of specialized organizations seems to be the promise of improving impact and bringing value. We can see examples of these nimbler partners that combine new structural approaches with highly focused programs. In this edition of the Community Magazine, we are featuring a wonderful, small, yet very impactful organization, Amplify Girls. What makes Amplify Girls so representative of a new way to pursue a quest for fire is that they have embraced what our inevitable future is, working primarily as a virtual organization.
Where time and presence are no longer defining features of employment, it forces an organization to value skills, promote learning, and break down classic grade structures to milestones of capacity, where staff can advance as skills growth warrants.
Our Inevitable Future
Organizations, both public and private, have been moving gingerly into more forms of virtual work. The impact of the Covid pandemic was seen as a possible catalyst. However, now that the pandemic has passed, there has been a significant retrenchment in virtual work options. Most organizations take some pride in offering a thin gruel of virtual work, enabling a day or two a week to work from home. This is hardly a new working model, and effectively does not change the fundamental nature of organizational structure. It remains a model of control over facilitation and is a minimal nod to the increasing demand for workplace flexibility.
In 1995, Dave Ulrich, together with Ron Ashkenas, Todd Jick, and Steve Kerr, published The Boundaryless Organization. The book presented a challenging assessment of classic organizational structure, examining structural features from hierarchy to function and geography. While these classic divisions are deeply embedded in organizations and their culture in the modern world, this approach and its accompanying mindset will impede evolution in ways that capture new working realities.
In this updated edition, the boundaries of time and place have been added to the list of features that organizations must strive to overcome. Allowing staff to work from home two days a week is not a virtual approach. These policies perpetuate the classic limits of geography and hierarchy. Presence and input are still the defining features of how work is organized. It really is time to let go and become truly virtual, meaning anywhere, anytime.
Yes, there are factors to overcome, but most of these are traditions. When the benefits of a truly virtual organization are embraced, the advantages become overwhelming. The simple capacity to reach talent anywhere and avoid the costs and family disruption of expatriation alone merits this approach. While asynchronous work requires a sense of responsibility and understanding how your work supports the larger endeavor, an asynchronous organization essentially can be working in a much broader time footprint, expanding productivity and client support. Yes, in a virtual organization, the workday may need to stretch to engage across time zones. Early morning and evening engagement with colleagues will become the norm. The virtual environment, at the same time, promotes a greater level of accountability and responsibility for each team member. Where time and presence are no longer defining features of employment, it forces an organization to value skills, promote learning, and break down classic grade structures to milestones of capacity, where staff can advance as skills growth warrants.
To build such a world, the challenges and the need for creative thought on the part of HR have never been greater. More than a quarter of the way into the 21st century, it is high time we shed the lingering organizational models of the past. Like our two team members who crossed new territory in a quest for fire, our quest needs to bring together a global effort. Cost-effective, enabling diversity, facilitating a focus on outputs, enabling work-life balance, facilitating gender balance, enabling a focus on results and pay for performance, and capturing the generational perspective of the future of work, do we need to say more?1
HR should bring insight on workforce formation and management essential to achieving institutional mission, as opposed to the survival of the existing bureaucracies.
