Grooming without Mirrors: The Primate Roots of Social Media and Recruiting Success

When our remotest ancestors were still gorillas in the mist, they neither had nor needed mirrors, Facebook, LinkedIn or any other social media.

Any troop member that needed or wanted to connect with another enjoyed the circumstance that others were usually and literally within reach.

Moreover, much of that communication comprised information about and confirmation of one’s social rank and physical condition—accomplished by obliging troop mates who, if suitably disposed, ranked or hungry, would meticulously inspect and groom another, one parasitic or sloughed morsel at a time.

This gorilla grooming dynamic of two-way communication, information (as one-sided communication), collaboration and validation is, as will be argued here, a behavioral quadruplet that the wise recruiter will try very hard to, yes, ape while “grooming” candidates.

Mirrors vs. Social Media Gorilla Goals: Communication, Information, Collaboration and Validation

Now, miles and millennia from the jungle, we use Facebook and LinkedIn (as well as their accessories, such as digital cameras and iPhones) to provide the modern equivalents of pack members’ eyes and hands to inspect, groom and validate each other and ourselves.

We also use mirrors.

As a more modern grooming tool, the silver-backed mirror replaced the silverback gorilla’s troop, only to, in turn, be supplemented with, if not supplanted by social media, such as Facebook and LinkedIn.

As a technology, the mirror has been a primate anomaly, because even though it has been used, in part, to achieve the very ancient primate social objectives of (self-)validation and information (about one’s fur, hair, skin, health, social acceptability, etc.), it has generally been fundamentally anti-social and solitary in its narcissistic self-gazing applications (although some scholars argue that classical Japanese mirrors served far more elevated meditative purposes ).

Unlike grooming, Facebook, LinkedIn and social media in general, the mirror sacrificed group collaboration for individual convenience and focus on the self.

Indeed, it has been conjectured that the correlation between the extreme Renaissance fascination with mirrors and the rise of individualism and greater personal social autonomy was not coincidental.

Moreover, it has been argued by Morris Berman, historian and social critic, in his 1989 book Coming to Our Senses, that physical intimacies, such as those embodied in grooming, have been challenged by, where not altogether replaced with, the more observational, impersonal, no-touch and abstract states of mind mirrors induce—frames of mind highly valued in modern business, I might add.

As a grooming tool, Berman’s research suggests, the mirror’s main limitation is that it eliminates the pleasures and patterns of physical and social interaction, while reinforcing the mind set of less personal business and scientific interactions.

The Evolutionary Road Leading to the Information Highway

Yet, what is of great importance in the midst of this technological evolution along the jungle path leading through the mirror on to the information highway is how our primate patterns and priorities have, in other respects, changed so little over the centuries and eons. Clearly, the success of social media depends, even in our advanced civilization, on the social gorilla within us and its tactics and goals.

The two historically all-important and functions of the technology of mirrors and social media common to both, viz., obtaining information and validation—were, at the dawn of mankind, accomplished through the searching gazes and probing digits of hairy others, rather than through our own modern solitary, reflected, reflective or scrutinizing stares at shiny illuminated polished, silvered or digital screen surfaces.

The third and fourth critical social-animal functions—reciprocal communication and symbiotic collaboration—were inseparable from such literally “hands-on” validation and information gathering. Bobo grooms Nugu; Nugu knows it.

Of course, gorillas can communicate, collaborate and gather/transmit information without individual grooming or validation, e.g., by one-way bellowed warnings, stealthy snooping, or vigorous chest thumps.

In this respect, being primates (although, like the rest of us, higher-order), recruiters can utilize such one-way communications (post an ad that gets no replies), as well as gather information (collect resumes) and (in)validate (job applicants’ credential claims).

But communication and collaboration are always present in grooming, which, in addition, meets the ancient social primate deeply-rooted needs for information and validation, thereby completing the quartet of functions that define harmonious social interaction.

Despite the huge stretch of time that separates ancient primate grooming from the modern social media equivalent, the ape within us still enjoys and requires frequent and personalized “grooming” during job hunts, mate hunts and quests for personal-meaning, in the form of information exchanges along channels of communication that validate the groomer as well as the groomed (or ostracize the otherwise uninvited, de-invited and defriended).

Such is the tale of ape as recruiter mentor—and the primal moral of that story.

From Jungle Book to Facebook

To clearly see how intimately social validation, communication, collaboration and information are intertwined like jungle vines, consider the original primary (and primate) purpose of Facebook and its history, when it was crude (in both senses): to find, profile, rate, communicate about and maybe mate with nubile females at Harvard and other elite schools—i.e., to gather and transmit information for the purpose of ranking and (in)validation.

In these respects, we can categorize the story of Facebook as kind of Jungle Booktale.

Recruiter Grooming

It is clearly the case that recruiting success, like that of social media, is based on the same four social parameters: gathering information (about applicants), communication(of the results to the employer and the candidate), collaboration(with employer and candidate) and validation (of all their credentials and references, of the wisdom in choosing the eventual winner and of the HR manager or independent recruiter who did the vetting).

Appreciating these parameters, recruiters should not lose sight of how similar recruiting is to gorilla grooming, especially with regard to validation: In both kinds of interactions—gorilla-gorilla and recruiter-candidate—important information is being gathered, while equally important relationships, rankings and standing are (in)validated.

In particular, recruiters must not overlook or ignore how important personal and social, as well as professional validation is to job candidates, including those who, in being rejected, are likely to feel invalidated to some degree and therefore especially require validation—any validation.

The mantra, for gorilla and recruiter alike: “Collaborate, communicate, validate and stay informed.”

Smart Recruiter as Dependable Groomer

Gorilla Bobo sniffs, pokes, scratches, picks over Nugu, meticulously gathering information about Nugu’s fur, skin, parasite infestations and, by implication, Nugu’s general health.

While grooming Nugu, Bobo is symbiotically strengthening their troop and two-way ties and Nugu’s rank within the group, by validating Nugu as a troop-mate worthy of a good grooming session (perhaps to enhance Bobo’s own rank, if Nugu is a higher-ranking gorilla).

Through grimacing, posture, time invested, vocalization, etc., Bobo communicates her findings and judgments about Nugu to the rest of the troop.

That’s the prototypical and ideal job-candidate grooming model. However, things have changed since the Pleistocene era.

Now and in contrast, business is supposed to be primarily business and not “social”. Hence, it is easy to overlook aspects of the validation dimension of recruiting that extend beyond just professional (in)validation of the candidate who, in the end, does (not) get hired.

There is also the psychological, even “existential” validation that a recruiter can provide a job seeker, even if the job goes to someone else. In creating for ourselves a “professional” vs. “social” dichotomy, we have tended to lop off one of the key functions of our interactions, viz., social and personal validation.

However, social media have served to undo that separation by blending professional and social validation in one platform and frequently on one personal/corporate, e.g., Facebook, home page.

Primate Hate

Social media redress of this shortcoming aside, exclusion of social validation from the recruiting process is a primordial reason why applicants hate non-responses to their applications.

In addition to making job applicants anxious about their job prospects, recruiter silence can, in making them feel that they do not deserve the simplest of replies, also make them feel angry, socially worthless, and invalidated as members of their human community.

In gorilla terms, that feels like troop shunning or banishment and a ticking grudge.

Do you think Facebook or LinkedIn would be the multi-billion-dollar companies they are today if, like an unresponsive recruiter, they provided neither personal, social nor professional validation?

Does anyone imagine that hundreds of millions of people set up personal shrines on these sites merely for informational and pragmatic objectives, such as finding or filling a job or clients, selling stuff, or letting the folks know how big the dorm room is and that it is safe?

Sure, they serve those purposes, but personal and social validation is, as part of the social media mix, functioning more like social media glue than frosting.

Multiple Functions, Multiple Cultures: The Grooming Matrix

Of course, social media serve multiple modern functions: recruitment, marketing, branding, entertainment, archiving of treasured files, self-definition, venting, etc.

But without the social (and professional) dimension of validation (of people, products, organizations, networks, etc.), the appeal and impact of both Facebook and LinkedIn would be substantially diminished and offer the kind of emotional and social engagement a handy train schedule, albeit embellished with photos of the routes and complaints about the service, would.

That’s why they are called “social media”, just as gorillas, chimpanzees and we are called “social animals”.

Comparative Culture Grooming Dynamics

However, the degree to and forms in which online “grooming”, in the form of social validation, social reassurance, etc., occurs is a function not only of our social biology, but also of our cultures.

One 2011 cross-cultural study, “Cultural difference in motivations for using social network sites: A comparative study of American and Korean college students”, highlighted cultural differences: “A recent study of Internet users in the U.S. and Hong Kong reported that respondents from Hong Kong, a collectivistic culture, tended to view the Internet as a means of social interaction; whereas Americans, from an individualistic culture, were more likely to use the Internet as a device for seeking and gaining information.”

Translated into primate grooming terms, this may be taken to suggest that Americans prefer the information function of grooming (e.g., gathering information by following others on Facebook for the purposes of competitive comparison, maneuvering for position and social intel gathering) than the validation function (validation as a social V.I.P—“Very Important Primate”).

However, human nature being everywhere what it is, I suspect that in a culture that is not only individualistic, but also correlatively very self-focused, social validation is likely to be given very high, if not the highest, priority on social media sites.

The Wisdom of “Fapebook” and “Missing-LinkedIn”

Given this fusion of primate grooming and cultural priorities, it is unsurprising that Facebook and LinkedIn have become so successful, far beyond anyone’s wildest imaginings ten years back. Both instinctively, perhaps unconsciously, recognized and utilized our wild-primate grooming needs and wants, circa 500,000 years ago, as well as how they adapt to and fit into cultures all over the world

A smart recruiter will likewise recognize, utilize and blend getting and offering information, communication, collaboration and validation as the four faces of grooming….

….and hustle to keep up with the gorillas.