Evolution on Steriods?

- Frankly we should aspire to do better!

A friend was telling me the other day that he is giving a keynote speech on "change" soon and will focus on evolutionary change. When he said this, the hairs on my neck went up, even though this is not a new term and I was not sure why.

Then a few days later another contact told me that his message to managers is "enhancement & evolution".

At this point the light went on and I realised what was unsettling me and it was the word evolution and the suggestion that this is where managers should aspire in a world of growing pace and complexity.

As a scientist by training I can sometimes be too literal, but there is huge power in the words we choose to use and the messages they give to others, often subliminally and unintended. So what is my problem with "evolution"?

Well, I have three big reasons:-

• Evolution is the result of CHANCE! In simple terms the theory of evolution is that a population of similar creatures will be subject to a set of chance mutations (triggered by cosmic rays impacting on genes?) and that a mutation that makes the single creature slightly better suited to its environment, will have a (slight?) advantage for survival and/or reproduction and thus is more likely to be perpetuated. Unless we resort to theological discussion (and I don't intend to here) there is no purpose or conscious decision making in these changes, it is just chance and the changes that a single steps brings are all but indiscernible.
• Real significant change is usually the result of thousands of mutations/iterations over many generations and is accompanied by as many extinctions. This luxury of time is not open to modern management.
• Successful evolution is selected by the enhanced survival of the changed creature. Irrevocably linked to this is the extinction other creatures whose changes were less successful. The supposition of "chance" in the earlier point means that the creature has no determination in the likely success of its future, they don't choose to be faster of stronger! Few businesses really set out just to survive, they wish to thrive. Survival is based very much in the "now" while to thrive requires a forward view and all the uncertainty and risks that brings.

So the term evolutionary change lacks purpose, ambition and pace. That is my problem!

I understand the psychology of making a change seem simple and easy to accept - the term "evolutionary" plays to this - but can we live with that any longer? Business cycles are shorter and shorter, management tenure is dropping and the level and nature of competition seems to grow and change at a frightening pace. Survival is really not good enough and aspiring to evolution would seem to set a business up to fail.

The alternate to evolutionary change is usually cited as revolutionary or transformational change. For many this is neither easy to conceive and accept, nor to execute. My thinking is something in between, something that injects the sense of purpose, something like "directed evolution".

(NB I quite like "evolution on steroids", but I guess that sends as many wrong messages as right ones.)

Of relevance here are some other quotes that I have seen from leading entrepreneurs. I will paraphrase them as stating that the modern successful entrepreneur is someone who travels from failure to failure without losing heart until he or she finds success. While there are some true overnight successes there are many more who have taken a long while and carry many scars before they succeeded. They have purpose!

To be clear I am not suggesting that every manager and company should bet his/her/its existence on every change, or even on any change unless the situation is truly dire, but that progressive change should not be left to chance, and it needs to be bold enough that it will not be 100% safe.

Maybe the challenge should be, "What do we think we we need to be and how much can we afford to fail?" Of course the debate is more complicated than this, being more like, "How much of the business can we risk, for the benefit we believe we can generate?"

This will be more uncomfortable for many managers, but few business can afford to stand still and just keeping up with others is not good enough.

I hope you get the idea and please do let me know what you think?