About ten years ago a book about Silicon Valley was published called The Rainforest. The explanation its authors give for this title is that attempts to build businesses often appear to follow the ‘agricultural’ model of maximising output by intensively growing an established crop and removing any ‘weeds’ which might get in the way. But, the authors point out, often it is from today’s weeds that the desirable crops of the future evolve – and weeds develop well, not on a farm, but in a rainforest, writes Professor Simon Bridge

Essentially, when they are farmed, plants and animals are provided with the essentials for their life and growth, such as protection/shelter, water, fertiliser/food and, for plants, sunlight. However many of the plants and animals thus managed lose their ability to survive independently. They become dependent on the farmers, not only for sustenance and protection, but may even require their help to reproduce. In contrast a rainforest can be a much better place for healthy sustainable evolution.

Why We Need a Rainforest

Indeed the belief that, in order to thrive, plants just need sunlight, water and nutrients has been questioned. For instance it has been shown that at least some plants have growth inhibitors built into their DNA and only develop well in conditions which encourage them to produce hormones which counter the effects of those inhibitors.

Also studies of the eco-systems of forests have discovered that they are not just collections of individual trees which happen to grow together but are intricate networks – ‘wood-wide webs’ – in which plants and fungi are intricately linked for mutual benefit. This had been described as a ‘complex adaptive system’ which facilitates the acquisition and sharing of resources which neither plants nor fungi could do on their own.

The benefits include the exchange of minerals which fungi can release from the ground and the carbon compounds which plants can build through photosynthesis, the transmission of carbon between trees in different directions depending on varying seasonal needs and the different stages of their growth and the production and dissemination of ‘info-chemicals’ which can help plants counter harmful attacks from predators.

These links have only been discovered relatively recently, not least because they have largely taken place underground through the interconnection of fungal mycelium and plant roots. Of course trees need sunlight, water and suitable ground in which to grow – but really to thrive and be resilient as a forest community they need these connections with their heretofore hidden exchanges.

Have we in our thinking about business followed the agricultural model and tended to overlook such important but ‘under the radar’ links. Businesses may welcome official support in its various forms but are they also in danger of becoming dependent on it, especially if the official system, in effect, tries to farm them.

Nevertheless, it had been suggested, a key element in dynamic business environments, like that in Silicon Valley, is not the official support structure but the unofficial social networks which facilitate links between people in and across various parts of the system.

There is a good case to be made that such connections are more important than official support – both because connections between people, although they may not often be noticed, are very influential and because the official support may not actually be very helpful. As a friend of mine once commented about a mutual work acquaintance who assiduously did what was officially stipulated to deliver the service for which he was responsible and, as a result, “offered all possible support short of actual help”.

The view often accepted in the formal support system seems to be that it is the connections with the official support providers which matter in business as that system is established, or at least funded, to provide the assistance that is generally supposed to be needed – such as help with funding, business plans, premises, training and/or access to advice.

But if the situation is actually considered from the position of those in it and from what actually influences them, rather than what others, or even they themselves, might think is important, a different picture can emerge.

Those who have studied it suggest that social influence is so ubiquitous that we often don’t notice it and so we respond to formal questionnaires with the sort of answers which we think will impress by indicating rational analysis and/or which conform to the questioners’ perceptions.

But if we try to find out what is actually happening, we might recognise the powerful influence of social connections and, if we can do that, start to cultivate and use them.

These often hidden or overlooked connections can, for instance, let people access information about a wide variety of aspects of business, share ideas and lead to introductions to potential team members and/or mentors, as well as helping to build mutual trust and obligations and inculcating the accepted norms for operating in that environment.

Also, while the traditional (official) system assumes a financial incentive for starting a business, The Rainforest instead argues that its social network also encourages people to value other benefits such as the potential joy of discovery, the creativity and adventure this can involve; the social approval and pleasure that comes from sharing in successful teamwork, the mutual trust this can build, the possibility of making a different to society; and a sense of freedom and independence.

Like the analogy of fungi and plants, such connections and the variety of benefits they can provide have only recently been recognised. Also forest studies have suggested that, although this facility does not necessarily provide equal benefits in the short-term, in the longer term, through a fluid process of give-and-take, both sides are better off.

As The Rainforest describes, that is often how people in Silicon Valley operate – they do not necessarily expect that each transaction will have a specified direct mutual benefit for both parties but believe, nevertheless, that joining together for the fun of doing it will have an appropriate return, not for their separate investments, but from their joint involvement.

What sort of businesses would we like to have: ones in which we as individuals can maximise our income, or ones from which we can all benefit socially as well as financially from a longer-term win-win environment? So should we question any contrary perceptions and start to recognise what really builds a dynamic, sustainable and fruitful business ‘forest’?