Darwin’s ‘survival of the fittest’ and ‘natural selection’ concepts are just as applicable to the business world as they are to the natural world. But, unlike nature, organisations don’t have to leave their chances of survival to fate, says Mike Thackray 

Thanks to Charles Darwin, organisations as organisms is a metaphor that has permeated our language for many years. ‘People are our life blood’, ‘the brains of the organisation’ and ‘heart of the operation’ are all phrases that highlight just how ensconced the view has become. 

This year marks the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin and the 150th anniversary of his book, The Origin of Species. His theory is now associated with business through the concept of ‘Darwinian Economics’ — which claims that organisations that are best able to adapt are the ones most likely to survive, particularly in a recessionary climate. Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection, is largely about two concepts; an individual’s struggle to survive and reproduce within its own ecosystem, and the notion that species must evolve over time in order to fit a changing environment. His ‘Tree of Life’ was a visualisation of the idea that organisms change form over time in response to competition and environmental changes. It’s easy to see how the analogy can be drawn, as organisations too must fight for survival within rapidly changing environments. But there is a crucial difference in the ability of the individual entity to change.

An individual organism’s capacity for change is actually rather limited, as most are not able to adapt particularly well to a rapidly changing environment. If the water in a lake were to suddenly evaporate, the resident fish would not be able to develop lungs in order to survive. It is only over millions of years that such changes might take place given slowly changing conditions and chance mutations.  

No doubt many companies feel like fish out of water at the moment, but the vital difference between them and the poor fish is that organisations are able to respond to the changing environment. Where the fish is left gasping for air, we humans have a level of control over our organisations that individual organisms can only dream of. We can bring about fast change. 

Rapid response
Just as well, because in the corporate world, changes in the environment can, and do, come about quickly. One danger of these rapid changes is that organisations rashly implement quick fixes, resulting in policies, job roles, and procedures that may have may have been introduced for good reason but are never reviewed or withdrawn when the dust settles. This, perhaps, is the true dilemma. Organisations fail to notice or react sufficiently to gradual change, yet react too fast and sometimes inappropriately when faced with a sharp environmental change.  

It is our inherent nature to be seen to ‘do something about it’ which drives these actions, but often appears in hindsight to be an over-reaction. A recent example I came across was a company who responded to an incoming mail-checking error, by implementing a new procedure where multiple people had to be involved in the process, and only management could make the final sign-off. The cost of the error had been high, but was a result of a unique event that was highly unlikely to reoccur. Yet it led to a process that not only pushed the decision up the chain of command to the already over-burdened manager, but also had repercussions for staff morale as they were in effect being told they were not experienced or reliable enough to make such decisions. Although this was a fast response to a highly visible issue, it actually created more problems than it was designed to solve. Such quick fixes rarely get reviewed at a later date, so the problems continue.

No room for complacency
This is in direct contrast to when external conditions change gradually and there is no visible event that provides a focus and reason to change. John Kotter, one of the best-known writers on organisational change, believes that the main reason planned change often fails is because of complacency. Unless a sense of urgency is created to challenge the belief that ‘business as usual will suffice’, organisations struggle to respond and implement successful change because the penalties for not doing so are unclear.  

When Darwin sketched his 'Tree of Life' he was thinking of how the various species evolved over time, some of whom failed to survive a changing environment and became extinct. Species that were able to adapt successfully survived, although perhaps in a changed form. The current economic conditions reduce the survival chances of businesses in much the same way that bad weather limits biodiversity. As result, almost all organisations feel they must undergo some change right now. 

If I were writing this article 3 years ago, I may have elaborated on Kotter’s ideas about how leaders can deal with complacency by creating a sense of urgency, but it’s fairly safe to say that complacency is less of a problem for many at present. For all the negatives associated with the current downturn, one thing it has done for a lot of firms is to create a climate where people genuinely understand that the status quo may not be sufficient. It isn’t quite a meteor strike situation, but it has abruptly and permanently changed the environment – a tougher environment where organisations have no choice but to adapt or face extinction. So the most important factor in enabling change is handed to executives on a plate, but even with the sense of urgency to change in place, the issue of what to presents just as much of a challenge.  

Thankfully, unlike whole species, organisations don’t have to leave their chances of survival to fate and random mutations. Companies change and adapt through conscious strategy. They have at their disposal a rational process where they can explore the various ‘change’ options available to them and prepare for the various outcomes through modeling/analysis, which allows them to stay one step ahead of the game.  

Adapting the best strategy for your organisation
Finding the right strategy though is not easy, and this edition of Topics explores several ways in which organisations can evolve: through innovation, acquisitions, redistributing talent and revisiting their local/global business models, and how ER Consultants can help you manage, whichever change strategy you embark upon (see ‘Fit For Purpose’ below). 

For some businesses, the current environmental upheaval gives you the opportunity to bring in new blood through acquisitions. For others, it will mean balancing the need to reduce payroll costs with retaining the best talent which will not only help the organisation through the difficult period but also continue to help it move forward once the turmoil is over. A few companies will adapt by embracing and nurturing creativity whilst they search for innovate solutions or products that will help them achieve an edge over their competitors. And others may rethink their local/global business models and consider centralising various functions in a bid to achieve improved economies of scale. 

So the analogy between an organism's and organisation's struggle for survival is useful, but not wholly accurate. Changes to the way we work can be made quickly under the right circumstances. Organisations have the ability to respond and change – so long as they recognise and communicate the urgency to do so, and are willing to take bold decisions to enact the necessary changes. Those who adopt the right technology to serve customers better, will compete and function better, win market share and be profitable. But those who fail to adapt now, will – in Darwin's terms – be deselected, and go the way of the dodo. 

For more information, contact:  Mike.Thackray@erconsultants.co.uk 

Reference:
A Force for Change:  How Leadership Differs From Management, John Kotter, Free Press (1990).
   

Fit for Purpose?
Organisations are rife with policies, procedures and maybe even departments that once served a purpose, but now serve about as much use as the human appendix. Just like the human appendix, these ‘add-ons’ only really make their presence felt when they become a problem. By that stage surgery is the only solution. 

If you believe your business suffers from the stifling effect of too many organisational ‘add-ons’, and that some of these are starting to be counterproductive, ER Consultants can help. Having evolved over its own thirty-year history, through buy-outs and acquisitions, we do not take a theoretical approach to this type of work. Instead we bring our personal experiences, and experience gained from assisting other organisations through this type of change. Whichever change option(s) you embark on, our specialists in change management can help your business adapt and thrive in today’s difficult conditions, through:

• Undertaking a diagnostic to establish the utility of your process and procedure.
• Helping you to establish whether decisions are being made at the correct level within your organisational structure in order to ensure employee engagement and value for money.
• Helping to reorganise and restructure to ensure the structure is fit for purpose.