The odd balls that don’t seem like a “good fit” may save your team or company from extinction someday.
"It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change."
― Charles Darwin
“Survival of the fittest”, I really dislike this often misunderstood or misused quote, especially in social Darwinism context. First it was coined by Herbert Spencer, and later used by Darwin as a synonym for natural selection. Without getting into the much discussed meaning of “fittest” here, I believe it is a poor attempt to explain individuals, who have better adapted to current environment thus have better chances of reproducing.
Let me explain two points. First of all, it doesn’t claim that “only” those individuals who best adapt will survive, it is reproduction that counts. Second, individuals who adapt better to “current environment” have better chances – as long as current environment stays the same.
Given my medical background and business experience, mere observation says that social and biological systems which share common behavioral and evolutionary patterns are not exceptions. Thus I believe we can approach patterns of social structures – like communities, companies, or teams – in this way: they are complex adaptive systems.
Having individuals better adapted to the current environment increases the chances of the survival of a species. Yet there is another component necessary to increase probability of long term survival: “adaptive capacity”. Adaptive capacity is the ability of the species to adapt the changing environment – as opposed to adapting the current environment, as in the “survival of fittest” case. And, in evolutionary terms, adaptive capacity requires having enough variety in the genetic pool. Example -if a sudden dramatic change occurs in the environment, the genetic pool may come up with individuals who can withstand or adapt to these new conditions, thus guaranteeing the survival of the species. We see that in many plant species which can withstand a wide range of climactic changes. For a more recent example I can point at the century old publishing companies that could not adapt to the transformation to digital media and internet distribution as they watched their bread taken away by new comers in less than two decades.
Thriving species which adapted perfectly to the current environment may have lesser chances of thriving or even survival in the case of a sudden change in the environment. Why? Because they don’t have enough adaptive capacity in their genetic pool (remember they are perfectly adapted). Other species which have “good enough” adaptation may have a better chance – if they have more variety. Perfect or too well adaptation may be a detriment if and when the conditions change in a relatively short time.
Companies and teams have similar patterns as they are social structures. Teams that may be thriving under certain environmental conditions may fail if these conditions change abruptly (for example in a global crisis). I remember many leadership trainings I attended which involved responding to sudden and unannounced changes in the rules. Only teams or companies that have enough adaptive capacity can successfully weather these changes.
Adaptive capacity for a social structure is provided by a diverse pool of members. By diversity here I mean in all aspects, skills, profiles (such as thinkers, action oriented people…), backgrounds, you name it.
The hiring practices I have observed – I would like to make a distinction between hiring policies and hiring practices here, as the first one is the intent the later one is the actual pattern – mostly involved interviews by peers or similar, produced tendencies to hire candidates that fit: fit the descriptions (i.e. current problems/conditions) and fit the team (low genetic variance). The new hire may start producing results quickly (as resources are limited) but it lowers the adaptive capacity – thus the team’s ability to adapt changing conditions.
That might be the reason why those companies I observed did frequent reorganizations to overcome this issue, consciously or not. However this remedy has its own unfavorable effects, like using chemotherapy on a cancer patient.
Apart from hiring, performance management practices (again emphasis on practices not policies) further favor “fittest” members, thus promotion paths, and leadership benches filling with look-alikes.
Increasing the adaptive capacity of your team, company, or community is first a leadership issue. The direction, policies, mechanisms, platforms should be in place to foster the “genetic variety”. More importantly leadership in practice should live by it.
Finally, adaptive capacity of a social structure is a cultural issue. Practices come from the culture, as opposed to policies (espoused theory vs. theory in practice). So the culture has to be consciously led towards practices that would foster variety. True leaders seek not uniformity or unanimity.