Advanced Change Theory – Adaptation then Evolution, NOT Just Acclimatization

Quinn, Speitzer, and Brown, have developed a very sound theory on how to beget change in one’s organization calling it the Advanced Change Theory (ACT). They advocate that through committing to a series of relatively predictable, at least if one is familiar with previous works, such as The Fifth Discipline by Peter Senge, but explained in the language of histories greatest servant leadership advocates Jesus, Martin Luther King, and Ghandi. Using quotations from these three individuals is admittedly powerful, as is the behavioral examples elucidated upon. Some expected principles of ACT are of course examining oneself first, clarifying ones values and aligning behavior along those values, the all-powerful development of a common purpose (though presented with a new twist here), and developing partner-follower relationships. Though these principles are quite valid, their thinking was not as fresh, to me, as two of the other principles: first freeing oneself from the system of external sanctions, and second taking action to the edge of chaos. These two were particularly intriguing and clearly extremely difficult to master, though if one can practice what is right and learn to work without the safety net (of course in concert with all the others… sigh) one will be able to attain adaptive change easily, evolving ones organization into the most fit of their population for the long run, instead of just acclimatizing for the short run.
Obviously I am making a reference to terms that most would consider minor differences in semantics, as many would deem acclimatization and adaptation and evolution to be interchangeable terms. It should be no accident that Quinn, Speitzer, and Brown use the specific term adaptive change (somewhat redundant though) in describing the type of change the ACT produces. What they are advocating is perfectly understandable in biological terms as an adaptation is a trait favored by natural selection making the individual with it more fit than the competition, therefore the trait is passed on to the next generation, an inherited trait. As opposed to an acquired trait, or a “tool” an organism uses to acclimatize to their environment and acquires throughout their lifetime but does not pass on. The simplest example of an acquired trait would be the blacksmith who spends a lifetime pounding his anvil with the heavy hammer in his right hand. He builds a very muscular arm on a fit but asymmetrical frame, this trait makes him more fit as it helps him with his trade, providing food for his family, enabling him to reproduce more offspring. His children however will never be born with a huge right arm. Here lies the difference in traditional change theories, and the ACT. The authors state that “three-quarters” of changes attempted in organizations fail, or do not last, because there is a failure to change the human system. Meaning that corporations acclimatize, they do not adapt. And adaptive changes lead to evolutionary changes where a trait is so beneficial to fitness that it eventually perpetuates throughout the entire gene pool. But first begins adaptation and the ACT presents two interesting ways one’s organization can begin to adapt.
Imagine the first frog/fish-like animal to develop lungs to breathe outside the ocean. His frog/fish friends probably laughed at him hanging out up on the rocks, but when the bigger fish came up from below and ate those with no lungs they certainly weren’t laughing anymore. If that frog/fish had yielded to peer pressure, followed the norm, and not “freed [him]self from the system of external sanctions” where would we all be now. That freeing was crucial to making that adaptive change for the common good of the species. Just as George Zimmer puts his shareholders last in the list of his organizations priorities, and ignores the quarterly return rollercoaster in his decision making, so did the frog/fish. This freeing from external sanctions and influences is a marked quality of successful individuals and organizations, especially those who are successful at bringing about change such as Martin Luther King or Gary Loveman. This principle is especially important with regards to multinational corporations that are committed (supposedly) to social responsibility, such as Coca-Cola or Google. Coca-Cola when operating in countries with less-stringent or nonexistent labor and environmental laws, they should do the right thing and operate in the same manner they do on US soil because it is doing what is right. And when Google went into China they continued to operate their US-based search engine so that when Chinese people logged on in China they could then see what their government was filtering. Though Google did have to submit to censoring by the Chinese Government they came to the conclusion that any flow of information was an improvement, especially when couple with their original site so that citizens could then judge their governments’ actions themselves. These are the bold decisions required of business leaders, or frog/fish, and like Jesus allow public opinion, and short-term focus, to have little influence on them.
Along the same line of “freeing oneself from the system of external sanctions” is the authors’ idea of “taking action to the edge of chaos”, working without a safety net. Think of the risks the frog/fish took jumping out onto the rocks, not knowing what could have come of it, “building the bridge even as it is walked on”. Again evolution can illustrate the authors’ point as radical evolutionary changes have always occurred on the edge of chaos, violent climactic events like ice ages, or meteor collisions with earth. If the chaos is not sufficient enough change will be traditional and fleeting, an acclimatization not an adaptation. Look at our nation’s founding fathers who would have been hung as traitors had we lost the Revolutionary War, they were true ACT practitioners working without a safety net to give birth to their shared vision. This shared vision riding hell-bent on the edge of chaos allows those involved to “stretch themselves to behave according to that vision, they can become a revolutionary force.”
Here finally the authors again use biological terms that ease the understanding of their principles, and uniquely coin the word altruism in their description of vision for the common good principle. Interestingly altruism is a very common behavior shown in animal societies that operate extremely productive organizations, and Quinn, Speitzer, and Brown state that “sacrifice for a purpose when the role model is acting in an altruistic fashion” is essential to the ACT. None would argue that meerkat populations operate in a very common purpose oriented organization, as is their survival imperative, therefore one would not be surprised to see altruistic behavior such as a sentry cat acting as a decoy to draw predators away from a nursery den at great personal risk. Similarly if an employee can observe a CEO risking their own survival for a policy initiative, or a political leader risking re-election in his district to do the right thing for the population as a whole, that will inspire employees to do their job to the best of their ability in service of that vision and citizens to rise up to support what is right.
In conclusion it seems that business leaders have finally begun to learn from historical leaders and perhaps it is time to learn from scientific study, especially the biological sciences. Why should a corporation not function like an organism? Animals are regulated by feedback loops companies should be next. Why should businesses not organize like an ecosystem? A vertical, horizontal and circular inter and intra-dependence between, suppliers, vendors, customers, shareholders, employees, managers, departments and CEO’s. Moving forward as we begin to leave old ideals of paternalistic management styles, and business practices that have been proven short and near-sighted behind, perhaps Mother Nature should be the new business professor as she has truly endured long-term volatility all while sustaining substantial productivity, the basic goals of any business endeavor.