Hi LO friends,
Too much travel has delayed this response and limited it to general
comments on numerous "Is it Alive" posts of the past several weeks. I'm
concerned with what seem to be a number of misconceptions,
misunderstandings and misinterpretations about biological systems, how
living organisms operate, anthropomorphism and machine metaphors, among
others. So, admittedly late, perhaps out of context and certainly of
time-limited documentation, I offer some comments. I feel a bit
responsible for initiating the Living Organizations thread and value the
intellect of the list too much to let misconception stand.
I'll use numbered paragraphs to delineate each separate thought or
comment.
1. Machine metaphors and models are NOT equally valid with biological
ones in describing today's organizations. One thing the synthesis of the
business, OD and management literature clearly shows is the shift in
organizational structure and operations away from the language, metaphors
and operational characteristics of machines and toward those of living
systems. Organizations are leaving machine models and metaphors behind
and adopting biological ones. The shift is no where near complete but the
direction is unmistakable.
2. The process by which large organizations such as IBM and GM lost their
dominant role in their business ecosystem is exactly the same way dominant
biological entities have succumbed in their natural ecosystems. There is
a generic aspect of both evolutionary processes. New organizations or
"organisms" arise, mutate and develop in the niches at the fringe of the
dominant organism's habitat. These new "organisms" are actually better
adapted to the niche they have seized than is the dominant one. (That's
why evolution succeeds at the fringes of the "habitat") Habitat for the
biological organism is essentially the same as a market for the business
organization. The new entity can actually out compete the dominant one in
it's small area. ( i.e. Netscape is better than Microsoft at some things)
The new one is actually more flexible, adaptive and quicker to take
advantage than the larger dominant one and slowly the balance begins to
shift. Because the environment is constantly changing, especially around
the edges, this only increases the probability of new "organisms" moving
in on dominant ones. Thus, to no surprise, Microsoft has its (currently)
lesser challengers moving into niche markets around the edges of the
business landscape it presently dominates. If and when that landscape
shifts, the characteristics of one or more of those smaller players may
well be favored and it (they) will grow to dominate the reformed landscape
- and Microsoft may recognize the changing situation and shift also to
remain competitive - and so the cycle goes - forever. The point is, the
operational evolutionary parallels between businesses and their
environments and living organisms and their environments and the reasons
these exist are massive and compelling.
3. I've said it before - let me say it again, perhaps more clearly -
trying to equate today's corporations to a person or other HIGHER life
form is totally inappropriate. Organizational evolution has not proceeded
anywhere near that far yet! Evolution of organizations in adopting the
characteristics of living organisms has proceeded barely to the stage of
amoebas and other lower life forms for most. (But the direction and the
reasons for it are clear.) We have a very long way to go in developing
organizational interconnections and communication links necessary to even
begin to think in terms of equating human organizations to higher life
forms. (let alone humans!) I doubt any of us will live to see that day.
Thus any attempt to attribute HUMAN characteristics to today's
organizations is very inappropriate anthropomorphism. A corporation is
not a person, but there are more types of life forms on the planet than
just humans! It is also very inappropriate to ignore the living concept
simply because corporations have not yet evolved human attributes. There
are many situations where the parallels between organisms and
organizations are VERY strong. Organizations ARE clearly adopting the
characteristics of early life forms to survive in a fast changing world -
and we can project - organizations will continue to grow in complexity and
sophistication toward mirroring higher life forms, just as biological life
has done over the past 3 billion years.
4. There are a huge number of very diverse life forms on the planet but
they all exhibit certain basic characteristics. Most life forms are
actually small, simple, unsophisticated ones, not large complex ones like
humans. We recognize them all as living , however, because of their basic
characteristics, whether they are small or large, simple or complex. The
same applies to organizations whether it's the corner grocery store or the
global corporation. We judge the bacteria and the Blue Whale to both be
alive, not because they are structured alike, use energy the same way,
occupy the same niche, etc. but because they possess a set of similar
basic characteristics. Organizations today are in the process of evolving
characteristics similar to living organisms. They occupy a continuum from
those that have barely begun to those that are well on their way. It
doesn't matter much whether someone judges alive or not or whether some
CEO believes their organization is alive. What matters is that the
organization develops basic characteristics that will allow them to
survive and prosper in our ecosystem styled business environment. It
doesn't matter whether Bill Gates thinks Microsoft is alive or not. But
if Microsoft had a set of active environmental sensors (like a living
thing does) it would have detected the web coming. Had Microsoft been
more flexible and adaptive (like a living organism) it would have been
able to respond quicker. No, thinking your organization is alive doesn't
matter much but structuring it and operating it as if it were will make a
whole lot of difference in whether you have sustainability over time or a
short existence.
5. All organizations can be successful and healthy in their niche.
"Success" as an organization is purely a human value judgment. Success
as a living organism is not (and shouldn't be as a human organization
either). The organism that survives long enough to pass on its genetic
information to another member or new generation has succeeded. It does
not have to dominate the landscape to be successful. It does not have to
multiply and grow to global size to be healthy. Neither do human
organizations. They spring up and disappear (die) when parts go wrong or
their situation changes. They split into new ones and evolve different
characteristics over time from the original one. Individual members of
organizations take the skills and information they gained in one
organization and "inseminate" them into another. Organizations decompose
(break up) and some of their elements (former members?) are taken up by
other organizations. And so it goes.
6. There are a lot of reasons why human organizations are adopting
characteristics of living things. Some relate to the number of humans on
the planet plus (critical mass?), survival in a steadily changing
environment and new abilities to be connected electronically and share
information. The microprocessor and DNA are both simply ways to massively
copy and share information. The evolutionary processes both triggered are
incredibly parallel. If we are to believe Laszlo, evolutionary processes
are generic and apply as much to human systems as to biological ones. The
shift of organizations to adopt characteristics that mimic living systems
is an expected outcome, not an accidental one. The organizational shift
from machine (Physics) structures and metaphors to biological ones can be
documented without understanding the reasons why it is happening.
Understanding the reasons only better confirms that the shift is real.
7. Like living things, none of our organizations will survive as they are
now forever. Not Microsoft, not Intel, not the U.S. Government, not
anything. All will evolve over time. Neither does the fact that an
"organization" exists mean in any way that it is a static entity.
Organizations of the past, built and operated around machine metaphors and
models, were often more "static" and their managers usually wished for and
defined "stability" in static terms. Some still try. Organizations are
becoming much more dynamic, fluid and flexible like the living organisms
they mimic. The virtual, collapsible, flexible, "living" corporation or
organization are all different descriptions of the same evolving
circumstance. Organizations of today are in various stages of transition
between machine models and the living models.
8. Sustainable doesn't mean static, no change, the same forever or
anything close. In biological terms, it means a continuous thread of
existance over time. Steadily evolving and adapting to change are part of
it. Ford makes cars in colors other than black and Motorola doesn't make
car radios. They produce completely different things than they did
several decades ago. If they did not, they wouldn't be around. But they
are still called Ford and Motorola. Sustainability is dynamic and
evolving in the living world.
Enough for now. Living organizations: metaphor? mental model? reality?
Call the shift and direction human organizations are evolving what you
like but ignore it at your peril. Extinction is also an evolutionary
option.
Wishing you all flexibility, continuous adaptation, individuality,
integration with your environment and a sustainable extistance.
Cliff Hamilton
Progressive Visions
cliffrh@aol.com
--CliffRH <CliffRH@aol.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>