How Business Is a Lot Like Life
According to Richard Pascale, if you want your company to stay alive, then try running it like a living organism. The first rule of life is also the first rule of business: Adapt or die.
by
Alan M. Webber
photographs by Debra McClinton
from FC issue 45, page
130
Leave it to the dynamic, volatile,
fast-paced new economy: Just when you think you know how to design your
strategy, organize your team, and connect with your customers, something
unanticipated, unexpected, and unsettling comes hurtling at you. It is, says
Richard T. Pascale, a lot like life. "Let's be clear," says Pascale. "The idea
of 'living systems' isn't a metaphor for how human institutions operate. It's
the way they really are." In a recent book, Surfing the Edge of Chaos: The Laws of
Nature and the New Laws of Business ( Crown Business, 2000 ), Pascale, with
coauthors Mark Millemann and Linda Gioja, proposes a system of thinking and
managing that Pascale believes represents the way that companies need to adapt
in fast-changing times.
"Rapid rates of change, an explosion
of new insights from the life sciences, and the insufficiency of the old-machine
model to explain how business today really works have created a critical mass
for a revolution in management thinking," Pascale says. Pascale's approach has
been to start with serious business practices inside of serious organizations --
from the U.S. Army to Capital One Financial Corp., from Monsanto Co. to Royal
Dutch/Shell Group -- finding techniques and tactics that reflect the principles
of living systems. From those observations, Pascale has distilled both a set of
laws and a compelling body of supporting evidence to suggest that the first rule
of life is also the first rule of business: Adapt or die!
You're calling for new rules for business. What
were the old rules?
If I had to generalize, I'd say that
the old rules of the game rested on a management method that I call "social
engineering," which operates according to three premises. First, intelligence is
located at the top; Leadership is the head, organization is the body. Second,
change is predictable. That is, when you design a change effort, there's a
reasonable degree of predictability and control. Third, there is the assumption
of cascading intention: Once a course of action is determined, initiative flows
from the top down, and the only trick is to communicate it and roll it out
through the ranks.
Those three assumptions are deeply
baked into the minds of most executives. Those assumptions are so fundamental to
how we think about business that it's hard even to be aware of how they govern
the way that organizations are run.
So if those rules no longer apply, which rules
do?
The first new law of life that leaders
need to recognize is that equilibrium equals death. Companies that achieve
homeostasis in their environment may enjoy a period of time when equilibrium
really works. It may give them a dominant position, and it may result in
outstanding economic rewards. But it makes them increasingly vulnerable to the
moment when the game changes. Because when the game changes, their winning
formula from the previous period becomes their own worst enemy.
Jim Kennedy, a former IBM executive,
tells the story of how IBM experienced a steady erosion in the mainframe
business. When Lou Gerstner took over as CEO, he wanted to understand how the
company had managed to ignore this development for so long. Kennedy and his team
were asked to take a look at strategic plans throughout the year. Kennedy says
that they actually found several rooms full of strategic plans. But as the
erosion in market share continued, the real strategic plans amounted to a couple
of senior executives stepping into a room, closing the door, and deciding to
raise prices. That's a classic example of an organization settling into
equilibrium and then becoming a captive of its winning formula.
What does it take to break free from this law of
equilibrium?
Companies have to ask themselves, Does
the formula that has gotten me where I am still work? Or am I about to become a
victim of my own success? Has the environment changed so that I'm wedded to a
former winning strategy that won't win in the new world? Think of competitors in
the world of the high jump. For decades, everyone went over the bar using the
straddle technique. Then along comes Dick Fosbury, and he invents the technique
of jumping over the bar backwards -- the famous Fosbury Flop. Which technique do
you decide to use?
When the world around you changes,
maintaining your equilibrium is a threat to your future existence. That's when
you need a new kind of agility that enables you to reinvent yourself. Very
simply, prolonged equilibrium dulls an organism's senses and saps its ability to
arouse itself appropriately in the face of danger. Survival favors heightened
adrenaline levels, wariness, and experimentation.
Which tools can companies use to escape from
equilibrium?
One way for a company to respond in
biological terms is by using the corporate equivalent of sexual reproduction. If
the goal is to create change, it's clear from nature that sexual reproduction
creates far more mutation and variety than parthenogenesis, or other forms of
reproduction through which living organisms clone themselves. So the question
for an organization that's trying to act like a living system is, Are we only
generating clones as we bring in the next generation, or are we using
cross-pollination to wake this place up? It goes back to disturbing the
organism's equilibrium.
That is what mergers and acquisitions
can do. For example, GE Capital Corp. makes 100 small acquisitions a year, deals
that refresh its corporate gene pool. In fact, if you look at how GE tends to
operate, it follows a consistent pattern: Amplify survival threats and foster
disequilibrium to evoke fresh ideas and innovative responses. Other companies,
such as Capital One, Cisco, and Enron Corp., have the same patterns. These
groups regard acquisitions as a way of acquiring the DNA of the software and
hardware engineers or of the financial engineers. That's at least as important
as acquiring the customers or the underlying technology platform.
And then there's the question of how
you can use that new DNA after you acquire it. For example, GE Capital holds
"dream sessions" in each of their 28 businesses. Once each year, they bring in a
group of their people who are under 30, who have young ideas, and who are on the
edge of the organization in some fashion. You can only come if you meet those
criteria. Then they ask them, "Where are the next new ideas?" The whole point is
to tap into the new DNA in a fresh, powerful way.
Other companies are less welcoming to
new DNA. They represent the enemies of sex. The top managers may try to bring in
outsiders, but the board will limit those new voices, rather than amplify them.
The social system of every company creates norms -- the insiders usually have a
strong defensive reaction to new people with new ideas. So the social context of
most companies usually operates to prevent new DNA from entering the
organization. In that sense, they are enemies of sex.
The second biological law you cite is that
companies need to steer near to the edge of chaos. How does that law
apply?
If you tell most executives that they
need to move their company to the edge of chaos, they will immediately think of
a place -- a precarious spot. The image is one of taking your canoe to the edge
of a waterfall. In fact, the edge of chaos is a condition, not a location: For
an executive, that means operating your company in such a way that it
experiences the maximum and most productive levels of mutation.
Take Capital One. It's another example
of a company that has come from nowhere and has risen to become one of the
largest credit-card issuers in the United States in a very short period of time.
The leaders in that company have encouraged the organization to be innovative by
embracing relentless discomfort -- and to do it without driving themselves so
hard that everyone self-destructs.
So what does the edge of chaos look
like for them? First, all of the associates in the company are given charters to
innovate. These associates see themselves as champions of ideas. They are
encouraged -- not just allowed, but encouraged -- to ignore anything that might
distract them from the next big idea. Being obsessed with creativity is a good
thing.
Second, to keep the organization from
going completely off the edge, the leaders say that if an error occurs, it's
everybody's fault, not somebody's fault. What that means is that while every
associate is encouraged to come up with the next big idea, if something
misfires, then the company doesn't engage in a lot of finger-pointing and
blaming. People within the organization see themselves as entrepreneurs who are
responsible for identifying and satisfying customer requests. Their aim is to
come up with 10 or 12 new experiments or probes each day, using pricing models,
demographic profiles, and other tools to come up with new angles and ideas. One
example: They started with credit cards, and now they've moved into cell-phone
packages, offering different pricing schemes for different types of cell-phone
users.
Third, the leaders in the organization
keep a careful watch on how teams are performing, and if a team looks like it
has moved too far back from the edge of chaos, then senior management will move
the team around. They'll pull some people out of one team and introduce some new
people, all for the sake of keeping the creative-energy level high. The
company's leaders take very seriously the idea of increasing variety, both
internally and externally: They mix things up internally on their own teams, and
they network externally with venture-capital firms to look for ideas that they
can bring inside.
What does this say about a company whose leaders
push it to the edge of chaos?
What this means is that the edge of
chaos is a condition of relentless discomfort. That's first. But it is always
uncomfortable when an environment has aspirations or structure that is so strong
that your discomfort makes you constantly hone your competitive edge. Sure, we
all know of organizations where people are relentlessly uncomfortable because
those companies are simply miserable places to work -- where the energy that's
produced by being uncomfortable simply goes toward unproductive or unsatisfying
things.
Go back to how Capital One manages the
tension. They hire hard-charging individuals and tell them to be
entrepreneurial. You have to come up with new ideas every day of the week and
ignore everybody who gets in your way. You're supposed to grow 20% a year. Those
are all things that amplify the extreme entrepreneurialism in the company -- but
how do you keep it from self-destructing? Along with growth rates and
customer-retention rates, people at Capital One evaluate their own employees on
what they call "behavioral anchors": Do you get things done through other
people? Do you play well as a team member? Overall, the company's productivity
arises from the fact that the structure of its corporate design allows all of
the entrepreneurial stuff to have coherence. The important thing to remember is
that innovations rarely emerge from systems with high degrees of order and
stability. On the other hand, completely chaotic systems are simply too hot to
handle. That's why it's important to find the edge of chaos, where a company can
experience upheaval but not dissolution. The edge of chaos is not the abyss.
It's the sweet spot for productive change.
Your third law involves self-organization and
emergence. Where can we see that law at work?
Maybe the best way to understand
self-organization is to describe what happens when it's not allowed to work --
when the old command-and-control business model is practiced. Remember January
1999, when a blizzard closed Detroit Metropolitan Airport and canceled outbound
flights? Snowplows kept the runways open, and a number of inbound planes were
able to land throughout the evening. Most carriers were able to bring their
planes to the gates to off-load their passengers. But not Northwest Airlines.
Northwest's ground staff seemed
paralyzed by indecision, held hostage by rigid policies and practices. Nearly
4,000 passengers were virtually imprisoned on 30 Northwest flights for as long
as eight hours without food, water, or working toilets. Fights broke out.
Passengers threatened to blow open emergency-exit doors. Northwest pilots
screamed at ground staff over the radio to tow the planes to the gates before
they lost total control of the situation.
The fact is that Northwest's
inflexibility in adhering to rules and procedures for passenger safety caused
them to overlook many possible solutions to the problem. They could have towed
the planes close to the gates and let the passengers off on the tarmac. They
could have let them off on the runways and bused them to the terminal. They
could have brought service vehicles out to the planes with food, water, videos,
baby formula, and diapers. What was missing that night in Detroit was
self-organization. It would have been entirely different if the company's
leaders had told the ground staff, "We have a huge disruption on our hands. Be
innovative and imaginative, and demonstrate to each other and to our customers
that we can come through when it counts." Instead, Northwest lacked the capacity
of a living system to self-organize.
If that's a negative example, where in business can
you see a positive case of self-organizing systems and emergence at
work?
The opposite of the Northwest example
would be the way that Linux has spread. It's an organization of open-system
software programmers, now numbering 35,000 worldwide, who have managed to
generate software for servers that now claim 35% of that market. This is a truly
remarkable army of people, all independent, who come up with effective and
robust solutions in their software because it's constantly being tested and is
evolving in real time. It's a far more effective way to develop, test, and
release software than its competitors' traditional commercial releases.
At the other end of the technology
spectrum, Tupperware Worldwide is a powerful, successful self-organizing system.
Each dealer is self-employed and must recruit others to host home parties. Those
who excel as hosts become dealers, and the most-successful dealers become team
leaders of protege dealers. Today, more than 80% of all homes in the United
States have at least one Tupperware product in them. Tupperware sales exceed $2
billion a year.
Your last law says that to act in a biological way,
leaders should disturb, but not direct, their organizations. How does that law
work?
Disturb, don't direct means that we
must rethink our old notions of social engineering inside of companies.
Old-fashioned leaders work under the preconception that their job is to make the
hierarchy perform. They think that if they can figure out the best course of
action, communicate it down to the troops, and then measure the results, then
they'll have a high-performance organization. The result is that you end up with
a lot of leaders who have a tendency to overreach their authority and
oversuppress their people. They end up optimizing their performance within
smaller and smaller parameters -- which means that when the world changes, they
have less and less diversity and creativity with which to respond. These leaders
think that they're producing tough organizations. But they're really producing
organizations that are less adaptable to change -- and that may cause a
cataclysmic failure. Leaders have to remember that in living systems, things
happen that you can't predict, and once they do, those events can set off
avalanches with consequences that you could never imagine.
So if leaders accept the notion that business
doesn't unfold in a predictable, linear fashion, then which principles should
they use?
There are three guidelines that work
together for businesspeople to consider: Design, don't engineer. Discover, don't
dictate. And decipher, don't presuppose. Here's a simple example of how these
rules work. Take any airport. In the lounge areas at each gate, you won't see
any signs that say, "Don't talk too loudly," "Don't move the chairs," "Don't
occupy more than one seat." But through the invisible hand of design, those
things happen: The seats are arranged so that people talk to those who are
close, and they don't shout across the room. The armrests are fixed, so you
don't see people sprawling across a couple of chairs. The seats are heavy and
bolted together, so you can't pick them up and rearrange them. It looks like it
just happens -- but the architect has evolved design principles that disturb,
but don't direct, the living system. Now, if you go to airports in Russia,
you'll see the opposite: waiting areas where the chairs are movable, where there
are signs directing people about how to behave, and where the police come and
scold people for their bad behavior. What happens: People move the chairs, lie
down on them, kids make houses out of them, and it's a shambles. They were
relying on social engineering to create and enforce the rules. Instead of
designing, they dictated. That leads to the second rule: Discover, don't
dictate. As events unfold, you have to figure out the second- and third-order
effects -- things that you could never have predicted, but that need to be
considered. You begin to realize that you can't dictate an outcome. And just as
important, once outcomes start to emerge, you can't dictate the fastest solution
everywhere. Decipher, don't presuppose tells you that there is wisdom in each
community, whether it's a team, a division, a department, or a factory. The
trick is to create a design that allows a community to learn from itself, to
come up with its own solutions to its problems. And then to have the restraint
not to try to impose those solutions on every other community in the name of
efficiency.
Alan M. Webber is a Fast Company
founding editor. Visit Richard Pascale on the Web ( http://www.surfingchaos.com ).
Sidebar:
The Four Principles of Life -- and Business
Sidebar:
Navigating the Edge of Chaos
Here are tools that function as the
compass, propulsion system, and charts for business leaders who want to move
toward the edge of chaos without falling into the abyss.
Attractors. These are analogous to a compass. They orient
living systems to one particular direction and provide them with the impetus to
move outside of their comfort zones. There are three types of attractors: point
attractors, cycle attractors, and strange attractors.
Amplifying and damping feedback. These are techniques within an
organization that can serve as the throttle of a propulsion system, either
increasing the speed of the change process or slowing it down.
Fitness landscape. This is the map that helps leaders visualize the
terrain that their company must navigate. It offers a more useful visualization
device than the traditional two-dimensional diagrams of inputs and outputs.
There are three types of fitness landscapes: gradual, rugged, and random. Each
of these can be used to describe a familiar type of business competition.