1. PENGUIN PARABLES
REVIEW: THE PENGUIN AND THE LEVIATHAN (2011) BY YOCHAI BENKLER
This review highlights someof the results of cutting-edge research in human
interaction by drawingon the advances in technology, building effectiveframeworks
for collaborativelearning, and improvingour collectiveperformance.

2. Page | 1
PENGUIN PARABLES
The note on the dedication page, “For the millions who, by their acts of
everyday, small and large, give humanity its name” (powerful and
affirming though it is) may lead the more skeptical businessperson to
dismiss The Penguin and the Leviathan (2011) as something New-Agey,
touchy-feely. But then we have the research presented by Harvard Law
School Professor Yochai Benkler, who roundly dismisses such superficial
(and stereotypical) assessments. The subtitle of the book: “How
Cooperation Triumphs over Self-Interest” provides an in-a-nutshell précis
of Benkler’s thesis. For some context: ‘The Leviathan’ of the title refers to
a treatise written by seventeenth century philosopher, Thomas Hobbes,
in which he characterizes the “the life of man, [as] solitary, poor, nasty,
brutish, and short” (Leviathan XIII) emerging from a vision of humans as
driven exclusively by selfishness (or at the very least, self-interest). In
contrast, Benkler argues for “human beings as fundamentally capable of
empathy, of possessing sentiments that compel us to act morally,
cooperatively, or generously, not only in our own self-interest,” but often
more effectively and morally more appealing collective interest.
However, he adds (rather grandly) “This does not claimus to be saints; it
merely says that we are capable of virtue, and that we need not be
robotic slaves to the government’s Leviathan, automatons guided by the
Invisible Hand of the markets, or parts of the collective Hive of facismto
serve the common weal. In honor of Tux, the symbol of Linux [the now
famous computer operating system designed, tested and maintained by
the voluntary cooperation of thousands around the globe], I’ll call this
alternative the Penguin” (5). Hence the title, The Penguin and the
Leviathan as representing two stances: collective-interest, vs. self-
interest.
The first three chapters debunk some of the more conventional myths
that have dominated not just economic theories but have also invidiously
plagued typical attitudes in management (prominently Taylorist

3. Page | 2
management theory and its subsequent avatars) built on the assumption
that self-interest is the completely defining motivator of human behavior
in general. The next four chapters each discuss the fundamental
characteristics of cooperative behavior. Finally the last two chapters
propose practical ways in which businesses can create (and tap into)
powerful cultures of cooperation. The strengths of the book lie in its solid
research and academic assessments of upon which Benkler constructs his
arguments—this is no mere trumpeting of some half-baked opinions, but
a rigorous and disciplined reasoning. But therein lie its small limitations:
Benkler does sometimes go into some procedural detail on the research
experiments that may leave many an otherwise interested non-academic
reader skimming some of those detailed pages—which could (to my
mind) be incorporated as appendices for the more academically inclined
reader to peruse at the end of the book. Still, despite this occasional sigh,
his central arguments are persuasive both for the weight of the studies
incorporated, and for the less tangible, but nevertheless common sense
appeal they have for even the most hard-nosed of the book’s readers.
The book is built around the characteristics that create and sustain
cooperative organizations, and how that makes such an enormous
difference to our collective-interest rather than self-interest as our sole
motivator. These characteristics are: Empathy, Communication, Fairness,
Norming Morals, and Intrinsic Motivation) and each is discussed with rich
and provocative examples from actual events, the stories themselves
lingering in our minds long after we are finished reading. What follows is
a brief sketch of each attribute, followed by my concluding remarks.
*
Empathy, that (clinically) documented phenomenon of a person to
“identify and then replicate the emotional state of another person”
[emphasis in original] is Benkler’s starting point in his study of human
cooperation. Pointing to (among other examples) the value of face-to-
face client meetings in building profitable business relationships, he
argues that seeing and identifying with other people as human beings
triggers empathetic responses which “foster those feelings that motivate
us to work cooperatively with one another in a way that ends up being
mutually beneficial to both parties” (89). The dramatic example of the
Community Policing initiative in Chicago’s notoriously crime-ridden West

4. Page | 3
Side that he offers, underlines the larger manifestations of empathy—as
solidarity created within a group. This “Prayer Vigil” initiative entailed the
congregating of variously antagonistic and quarrelsome church
denominations of the neighborhood for a stand out prominently
positioned at the most dangerous of street corners of the
neighborhood—and, to stand together with the officers of the Chicago
Police Force (which was perceived as not just hostile but sometimes
downright racist to the local African American community). Two groups
of very otherwise diametrically-opposed people were able to unite in
cooperation to serve a common goal. It was an unprecedented exercise
in mutual cooperation as formerly oppositional factions united to fight a
common enemy—the drug trafficking in Chicago. Their collective
presence dismantled the various separatist factions within the
community and achieved collectively what they could not have achieved
individually or within their own partisan groups. This, Benkler comments
“is a rich example of how cooperation can be fostered within a social and
public institution by introducing humanization, empathy and solidarity”
(100).
Communication (so often touted as to be a cliché, but rarely practiced by
managers and management consultants) is provocatively illustrated
through the way a Wikipedia article gets revised. The article is on George
W. Bush, probably one of the most controversial of US Presidents, and
the section of it that was called for a “substantial rewrite” is perhaps one
of the most acrimonious in his political career—the 2000 Primary and
subsequent winning of the Election. That issue alone divided Americans
from coast to coast. It was perhaps one of the most controversial issues
of the day and definitely quite a challenge on an open-user mediated
forum. How could it realistically be possible that consensus could be
reached on a completely open platform for revising and editing the
article? A potential flame-war ended up being mediated by interested
and committed contributors, which relatively quickly led to a successfully
NPOV (Neutral Point of View) rewrite of the section. Even complete
strangers around the globe could cooperatively arrive at a solution…one
that always remained democratically open to change all the time. And
yet, consensus is achieved, and an article now exists seemingly
acceptable to everyone. Benkler’s second example is of how Chinese

5. Page | 4
entrepreneur Zuo Zongshen established a network (underground—as it
was prohibited by the Chinese government) through which various
motorcycle-part suppliers collaborated in the design and exchange of
motorcycle parts in order to construct these motorbikes at a substantially
lower cost and better quality than those produced by the government-
owned motorcycle industry. To give this enterprise some perspective, he
notes that Zongshen’s venture culminated in the emergence of the
Chonquin factories which produced “more that 40 percent of the
motorcycles produced in China; no small feat given that China produces
more than half the world’s motorcycles” (110). Benkler adds more
examples (Court mediations, Couchsurfing, and Zipcars), concluding with
his key point here: “It is the one thing that exists wherever cooperation is
successfully practiced—be it motorcycle makers in the teahouses of
Chonquin, mediations in American courtrooms, or globetrotting travelers
looking to share a couch in one remote corner of the world or other.
Cooperative systems across the globe have one thing in common: They all
depend on communication” (118).
Fairness, as Benkler describes it is actually “three distinct things: fairness
of outcomes, fairness of intentions, and fairness of process”(120), each of
which is relatively self-explanatory and amply illustrated with examples
from experimental findings. Fairness of outcomes is generally considered
acceptable if fairness of intentions and fairness of process are visibly in
place. A study of wage disparities in the trucking and cement industries
(fairness of intentions) shows that “where wage disparities were high but
were closely tied to performance” the results show improved
performance. In contrast, “high wage disparities that … were instead the
result of chance, nepotism or other factors that were not seen as fair”
resulted in significantly poorer performance (139). An illustrative
example of cooperative fairness of process with which we are all familiar
is the forming of a queue. “The line … makes the first come, first serve
rule incredibly easy to self-regulate; we’ve all seen what a crowd of
people will do to someone who brazenly tries to cut the line. It might not
be based on merit, nor might it seemcompletely random, but in our
culture, ‘first come, first served’ is widely perceived as a fair
process”(136). Interestingly, he draws attention to how these ideas of
fairness are context (and culture)-based: “You might think it perfectly fair

6. Page | 5
for the top 1 percent of all earners in the country to pay 50 percent of
their income in taxes and have it redistributed to the poorer members of
society. But imagine you were in Las Vegas, at a casino that taxed all
winnings by 50 percent and then redistributed the money to the
evening’s losers. Would you still think it fair?”(120). Benkler summarizes,
“in business and social studies, our desire for fairness, as it is understood
in a cultural context, is a critical component of human motivation and
behavior. It is independent of self-interest, empathy or solidarity…. If we
want to build a system that motivates people to work well, or cooperate
effectively, it is not enough to offer them simple rewards and incentives.
We also need to think how fair the system is” (141) [my emphasis].
Norming Morals. In most of our interactions with others, there are
certain “unwritten” rules of what is generally acceptable or not, which
industrial psychologists (among others) call “norming,” or in plain English,
are what we call “conventions.” Benkler discusses how these conventions
“help… people define what is right, what is fair, and what is appropriate
in a way that is consistent with a system’s goals” (168). He removes
morals from an ethical (or ecclesiastical) context to the more common
arena of our day-to-day experience, recognizing that morals—as we
understand them—are created, practiced and regulated within a context.
Thus, these “norming morals” become the often unwritten but
nevertheless self-regulating codes of acceptable conduct within a given
system of interactions. How do norming morals work within cooperative
organizations? Music piracy is one of the interesting scenarios which
Benkler examines, and specifically how it has been variously engaged
with by musicians, the music industry, the consumers, and of course,
those who bootleg and otherwise illegally distribute copies of music—a
process which became ubiquitous with the advent of internet
downloading. After discussing the ineffectiveness of increasingly litigious
approach adopted by the music industry, he offers an example that
seemed to fly in the face of common sense at the time. He identified the
problem as arising from the disjunction between, on the one hand, the
legal expectation and, on the other hand, the norming morals which
seemed to exist among pirate uploaders and downloaders (i.e. that it was
perfectly ok to share, download, and otherwise bootleg music, with the
cowboy adventurousness of gaming “the system”). The now famous

7. Page | 6
examples of Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails (as well as many less
established music artists) released their recent albums under a
“voluntary payment” system, which is “a Creative Commons license that
makes it perfectly legal for fans to make [and potentially distribute] as
many copies as they wish… and blanket them across peer-to-peer
networks.” Benkler then adds, dramatically, “And yet they don’t” (147).
Music fans were invited to pay what they wanted to, with a “drop-down
menu [that] indicated how much most people paid” in ranges labeled
from ‘Typical’ to ‘Better than average,’ ‘Generous,’ “and so forth,
escalating praise in $2 increments until reaching the maximum of $18
and the words ‘We love you’” (147), which had astonishing results that
far exceeded those produced by the litigious approach. Benkler argues
that “people are looking for a signal that will tell them what is normal—
not just what is normal on average, but also what is normal for a person
who wants to be seen as ‘better than average,’ or ‘generous’ and so
forth.” He concludes with his recommendation that “if we want to
encourage good social habits, we need to do more than institute norms;
we also need to set clear signals for what counts as normal and
appropriate behavior” (148). A note of caution here would be
appropriate as the setting of clear signals (evidenced by his many other
examples as well) will have to be done in a way that is both non-
antagonistic and acceptable (i.e. to be nice in asking) to most members of
the group who will then self-govern the process and be genuinely
committed to these norming morals, so that despite the fact that “we
aren’t all angels, most of us are wired to be moral beings” (167).
Motivation. It is indeed surprising that Benkler does not mention the
work of Daniel Pink that is so central to his thesis, and in particular Drive:
The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us (2010), where Pink argues
that conventional carrot-and-stick approaches to motivation are
relatively ineffective compared to intrinsic motivation (Pink, drawing on
four decades of scientific research, proposes instead that autonomy,
mastery and purpose drive people to produce work of far better quality
and results). This is consistent with the concept of Flow, proposed by
University of Chicago professor Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, which is a state
of “being completely involved in an activity for its own sake…. Your whole

8. Page | 7
being is involved, and you're using your skills to the utmost”1—and the
results are quite astonishing. Benkler uses the evocative metaphor of
Motivation as a chariot drawn by four horses (Material Interests,
Emotional Needs, Social Motivations and Moral Commitment),
commenting that the more conventional pay-for-performance schemes
to encourage motivation are quite likely to draw the horse of Material
Interests in a different direction from the other three, resulting in
undesirable and often catastrophic results. He uses examples of how
executive compensation at General Motors failed miserably in the same
period when Toyota (who’s CEO compensation was 2000 times lower)
overtook America’s automotive giant. In a non-corporate environment he
cites a Swedish study that showed blood donations by women
significantly dropped when compensation was offered, rather than
previously when blood donations were voluntarily and freely donated.
These and other examples (including the previously mentioned
unprecedented success of Linux) confirm what many have suspected,
that intrinsic motivation produces the results on a far more successful
order of performance than extrinsic motivation. In cooperative
organizations, it is precisely this intrinsic motivation that is tapped into
which produces such dramatic performance. He doesn’t discount the
value of “material rewards and payoffs into systems of cooperation” but
significantly adds that “we shouldn’t only try to motivate people by
offering them material payoffs; we should also focus on harnessing their
social and intellectual motivations by making cooperation social,
autonomous, rewarding, and even—if we can swing it—fun” (201). The
so-called Generation Y2, (who will be the employees of the 21st century)
would probably agree.
*
Just after finishing Benkler’s book, I ended up coincidentally watched a
newly-released Hollywood film, Contagion, which is centered on a
dangerous epidemic (similar to H1N1 and SARS). The most harrowing
scenes were not of the swift deaths of the infected, but of when a
1 http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/4.09/czik_pr.html Downloaded 29 September,
2011.
2 Twenge, Jean. Generation Me: Why Today's Young Americans Are More Confident,
Assertive, Entitled--and More Miserable Than Ever Before. New York: Free Press,2006.

9. Page | 8
vaccine was developed, how it lead to riots as desperate people
attempted to get hold of the limited quantities of the vaccine. There was
also the expected selfishness of those who had political power or were
wealthy enough to secure their vaccines before the general populace.
Where does the spirit of cooperation work in these kinds of scenarios?
Perhaps an answer can be found in Abraham Maslov’s well-known theory
of the “Hierarchy of Needs”3 in which he posits that human needs are in a
pyramid-like hierarchy with physiological and safety needs at the base of
the pyramid and only once those needs are satisfied that the person will
aspire to fulfill needs of love/belonging and esteem, culminating in self-
actualization at the apex of the pyramid. In this film, Contagion, we see
that when people’s basic physiological and safety needs are at stake, that
even the more typically cooperative of people suddenly morph into self-
centered monsters, in Alfred Lord Tennyson’s famous phrase, “red in the
tooth and claw.” So, I would responds to Benkler’s thesis with general
agreement, but with an important observation—that this intrinsic and
human spirit of cooperation is significantly reduced when one’s basic
needs are under threat. The cultures of cooperation that he recommends
to companies and other like organizations can exist only when the
people who compose it have their basic needs satisfied, and are aspiring
to the higher needs of love & belonging, esteem and self-actualization.
This may be as good a place as any to draw a line distinguishing one
vision (the Leviathan vision) of humans as brutish and selfish, and the
other vision (the Penguin vision) of humans as cooperative and
intrinsically motivated individuals working together to create the
enormous value of the penguin-like Linux, Wikipedia, and the like. The
companies (and the people who make decisions in them) which
rigorously protect these basic needs of their employees thus raise up
employees from the brutish selves they may become; they instead
elevate their people to the more benevolent and cooperative—more
humanistic—selves they can become.
A simple (if sadly ubiquitous) example will suffice to illustrate this point.
Organizations at a very fundamental level are composed of employees.
Now consider the effect downsizing has on people (or similar scenarios in
3 http://www.abraham-maslow.com/m_motivation/Hierarchy_of_Needs.asp.
Downloaded May 1, 2012.

10. Page | 9
which people lose their employment), which directly threatens their most
basic physiological and safety needs. Taking away that vital source of
income (plus associated health and dental benefits etc) from employees
who rely on it, may shore up flagging financial performance of the
company in the short-term, but at the invisible cost of jettisoning away
their humanity, and with it, their powerful disposition to work in
cooperation within the organization. On the other hand, those who
protect these basic needs of their employees, seeking alternative ways to
handle the challenges of the company’s flagging fortunes, will not only
have more powerfully motivated and productive employees, but will
have, in their own way, elevated those under their watch into a better
kind of humanity.
To such people is Yochai Benkler’s book dedicated, who “by their acts of
everyday, small and large, give humanity its name.”
Citations (unless otherwise documented) are from: The Penguin and the
Leviathan: How Cooperation Triumphs over Self-Interest, by Yochai
Benkler. New York: Crown Publishing, 2011.