Yabba-Dabba-Doo! Evolutionary Psychology and the Rise of Flintstone Psychological Thinking in Organization and Management Studies

Abstract

Seven years have passed since Nigel Nicholson published his manifesto for evolutionary psychology (EP) in Human Relations. Given EP's continued popularity, this article undertakes a timely reappraisal of its assumptions and practical implications. In particular, it assesses EP's claim to unify the social and natural sciences by establishing a foundation for psychology in the evolutionary biological sciences. I demonstrate that EP is found wanting in both these areas: it cannot satisfy the rigorous demands of experimental evolutionary biology and does not deal well with some of the key problems faced by mainstream psychologists. As a result, EP's claims as they pertain to management and organizations are speculative and highly normative, despite vigorous protestations to the contrary. K E Y W O R D S biological sciences controversy Darwin evolutionary psychology management organizations From walking with cavemen to working with cavemenIn the recent BBC series, Walking with Cavemen, Robert Winston -the wellknown scientist and television presenter -made a startling observation. Reflecting on the lives of our hominid ancestors he quipped that much of 9 2 3 Human Relations

Multi-level issues in evolutionary theory, organization science, and leadership

“…Although not without critics (e.g., Buller, 2009;Ehrlich, 2000;Panksepp & Panksepp, 2000;Sewell, 2004;Usher, 1999), the goal of evolutionary psychology (de Waal, 2002;Nicholson, 1997Nicholson, , 2008Nicholson & White, 2006) is to apply the various ideas from ET to provide an evolutionary explanation of human behavior. According to Pierce and White (1999), "members of our species are born with a large repertoire of genetically encoded psychological mechanisms, which are the foundation of human behavioral responses.…”

“…Across the sciences, scholars have noted the importance of clearly specifying the levels of analysis at which phenomena are expected to exist theoretically, and that it is critical to ensure the measurement of constructs and data analytic techniques correspond to the asserted levels of analysis, so that inference drawing is not misleading or artifactual (Dansereau & Yammarino, 2003, 2005Dansereau et al, 1999;Futuyma, 2005;Gould, 2002;Markham, 2010;Miller, 1978;Rousseau, 1985;Wilson, 1980Wilson, , 2002Wolfram, 2002;Yammarino & Dansereau, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2009a, 2009b. Levels of analysis are inherent in theoretical formulations-implicit or assumed, used to develop the boundary conditions under which a theory is expected to hold, or explicitly incorporated.…”

“…Multi-level issues, or multiple levels of analysis in both theory building and theory testing, are critical in research in the physical, social, and behavioral sciences (see Dansereau & Yammarino, 2003, 2005Dansereau, Yammarino, & Kohles, 1999;Futuyma, 2005;Gould, 2002;Klein & Kozlowski, 2000;Miller, 1978;Rousseau, 1985;Wilson, 1980Wilson, , 2002Wolfram, 2002;Yammarino & Dansereau, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008, Yammarino & Dansereau, 2009a, 2009b). Work on multi-level issues in organization science and leadership (OSL) (e.g., Anderson, 1999;Dansereau, Alutto, & Yammarino, 1984;Dansereau, Cho, & Yammarino, 2006;Dansereau & Yammarino, 1998a, 1998b, 2003Dansereau, Yammarino, & Markham, 1995a, 1995b, Dansereau et al, 1995bDansereau et al, 1999;DeChurch, Hiller, Murase, Doty, & Salas, 2010;Gupta, Tesluk, & Taylor, 2007;Klein & Kozlowski, 2000;Markham, 2010;Meyer, Gaba, & Colwell, 2005;Mumford, Hunter, & Bedell-Avers, 2008;Peterson, 1998;Rousseau, 1985;Yammarino & Dansereau, 2002, 2004, 2008, 2009a, 2009bYammarino, Dionn...…”

“…Work on multi-level issues in organization science and leadership (OSL) (e.g., Anderson, 1999;Dansereau, Alutto, & Yammarino, 1984;Dansereau, Cho, & Yammarino, 2006;Dansereau & Yammarino, 1998a, 1998b, 2003Dansereau, Yammarino, & Markham, 1995a, 1995b, Dansereau et al, 1995bDansereau et al, 1999;DeChurch, Hiller, Murase, Doty, & Salas, 2010;Gupta, Tesluk, & Taylor, 2007;Klein & Kozlowski, 2000;Markham, 2010;Meyer, Gaba, & Colwell, 2005;Mumford, Hunter, & Bedell-Avers, 2008;Peterson, 1998;Rousseau, 1985;Yammarino & Dansereau, 2002, 2004, 2008, 2009a, 2009bYammarino, Dionne, Chun, & Dansereau, 2005) has been influenced by research on levels of analysis from other scientific fields (e.g., Gould, 2002;Miller, 1978;Wolfram, 2002). In particular, evolutionary theory (ET) (Darwin, 1859(Darwin, , 1871Dawkins, 1976;Futuyma, 2005;Galton, 1869;Gould, 2002;Sober & Wilson, 1998;Wilson, 1980Wilson, , 2002, a comprehensive, well-established interdisciplinary theory, can provide important insights for organization science and leadership on multi-level issues.…”

Darwinism—a new paradigm for organizational behavior?

“…The debate became even more extreme with the strident condemnation of neo-Darwinists in a volume edited by the Roses (Rose & Rose, 2000), and some trenchant responses calling 'foul' by Darwinian defendants (Kurzban, 2002). Now in the form of a newly published article in Human Relations (Sewell, 2004), with some fervent rebuttals from EP scholars (Markóczy & Goldberg, 2004;Nicholson, 2005), the debate has arrived in OB. The arguments ranged on the objectors' side are couched in terms of rejection of simplistic determinism, biological reductionism, and the smuggling in of the naturalistic fallacy-accusing Darwinians of having a social policy agenda that claims the right to socially engineer on Darwinian 2 http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/ 114 N. NICHOLSON AND R. WHITE principles.…”