Organizational Genetics
David L. Bevett, BS, MPH
March 22, 2002
The company that learns as it grows is destined to survive longer than those that do not, because the
growth years set the foundation for the future. And though the genetic code provided by the parents
(founders) sets the framework for the phenotype (structure and culture) of the organization, it is the
way every aspect of the company interacts and learns from its environment that ultimately determines
the path of its evolution. Much like the nature versus nurture argument for human development, one
can conclude it is both. Interestingly, “The molecules of genetic material…change at a surprisingly
constant rate in the evolution of organisms, even those whose anatomy is evolving at very different
rates” (De Gues, 1997, p.132). Therefore, it becomes clear that learning and evolution-or the lack of-
in one part of an organization is genetically coded to spread to the entire organization. And in as much
as organizations must learn in order to survive, a company that fails to learn as it grows sets into
motion a fundamental pattern that will negatively affect its productivity, stability, and sustainability.
There is scientific research that provides evidence that organisms can accelerate their development
through “intergenerational learning” where the organisms “…behavior, rather than environmental
change, [was] the major driving force for evolution” (De Gues, 1997, p.133). And the characteristics
of these organisms and, for the purposes of this investigation, organizations include innovation, social
propagation, and mobility (p. 133). In other words, organizations are made up of people whose
reactions to change collectively determine the rate of an organization’s evolution through “social
propagation: the way…[they] spread their skill from one individual to members of the species as a
whole” (p.135). This highly social phenomenon is called “flocking.” Yet these individuals also have
the power to catalyze a different response to change: people are able to “…communicate with each
other in an antagonistic manner, with fixed boundaries that they do not cross” (p.135).
As stated above, a new organization given time and attention grows, and learns while growing to
increase its chances of long-term survival, and the organization is able to accelerate its growth and
evolution through intergenerational learning disseminating ideas or innovations through flocking. In
fact, organizations that flock or “remain intact, moving together” have been observed to “learn faster”
and “…increase their chances to survive and evolve more quickly” (De Gues, 1997, p.135). And
according to De Gues (1997), “There are always people curious enough to poke their way into new
discoveries…” (p.135). Yet, “The organization must leave space for them, so that they do not feel
squelched and their innovations have time to develop.” Further, “Even if [one] develops a high caliber
system of innovation, [organizations] will still not have institutional learning until you develop the
ability to ‘flock.’” And flocking "depends on two…criteria for learning: mobility of people and some
effective mechanism of social transmission.” (p.135). However, what happens when organization’s
cease to learn or learn the wrong things?
A maturing organization, like humans, is subject to growing pains, illusions of immortality, and mood
swings as it attempts to define its identity. And uncertainty or crisis will often serve as a catalyst for
the plunge into adolescence and adulthood. The founders or leaders of an organization can easily find
themselves overwhelmed by the changes it is going through, as earlier efforts to instill values and
governing principles are manifested. Will a crisis and the maturation process cause the organization to
communicate and move together or become territorial and defensive? Or viewed differently, as the
organization goes through a phase of un-harnessed chaotic and potentially innovative energy, the
question becomes: are the founders or leaders able to transform the dynamic energy into opportunities
for further growth and development or will the organization accelerate towards a state of decline?
References
De Gues, A. (1997). The Living Company. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
David L. Bevett, BS, MPH
March 22, 2002
The company that learns as it grows is destined to survive longer than those that do not, because the
growth years set the foundation for the future. And though the genetic code provided by the parents
(founders) sets the framework for the phenotype (structure and culture) of the organization, it is the
way every aspect of the company interacts and learns from its environment that ultimately determines
the path of its evolution. Much like the nature versus nurture argument for human development, one
can conclude it is both. Interestingly, “The molecules of genetic material…change at a surprisingly
constant rate in the evolution of organisms, even those whose anatomy is evolving at very different
rates” (De Gues, 1997, p.132). Therefore, it becomes clear that learning and evolution-or the lack of-
in one part of an organization is genetically coded to spread to the entire organization. And in as much
as organizations must learn in order to survive, a company that fails to learn as it grows sets into
motion a fundamental pattern that will negatively affect its productivity, stability, and sustainability.
There is scientific research that provides evidence that organisms can accelerate their development
through “intergenerational learning” where the organisms “…behavior, rather than environmental
change, [was] the major driving force for evolution” (De Gues, 1997, p.133). And the characteristics
of these organisms and, for the purposes of this investigation, organizations include innovation, social
propagation, and mobility (p. 133). In other words, organizations are made up of people whose
reactions to change collectively determine the rate of an organization’s evolution through “social
propagation: the way…[they] spread their skill from one individual to members of the species as a
whole” (p.135). This highly social phenomenon is called “flocking.” Yet these individuals also have
the power to catalyze a different response to change: people are able to “…communicate with each
other in an antagonistic manner, with fixed boundaries that they do not cross” (p.135).
As stated above, a new organization given time and attention grows, and learns while growing to
increase its chances of long-term survival, and the organization is able to accelerate its growth and
evolution through intergenerational learning disseminating ideas or innovations through flocking. In
fact, organizations that flock or “remain intact, moving together” have been observed to “learn faster”
and “…increase their chances to survive and evolve more quickly” (De Gues, 1997, p.135). And
according to De Gues (1997), “There are always people curious enough to poke their way into new
discoveries…” (p.135). Yet, “The organization must leave space for them, so that they do not feel
squelched and their innovations have time to develop.” Further, “Even if [one] develops a high caliber
system of innovation, [organizations] will still not have institutional learning until you develop the
ability to ‘flock.’” And flocking "depends on two…criteria for learning: mobility of people and some
effective mechanism of social transmission.” (p.135). However, what happens when organization’s
cease to learn or learn the wrong things?
A maturing organization, like humans, is subject to growing pains, illusions of immortality, and mood
swings as it attempts to define its identity. And uncertainty or crisis will often serve as a catalyst for
the plunge into adolescence and adulthood. The founders or leaders of an organization can easily find
themselves overwhelmed by the changes it is going through, as earlier efforts to instill values and
governing principles are manifested. Will a crisis and the maturation process cause the organization to
communicate and move together or become territorial and defensive? Or viewed differently, as the
organization goes through a phase of un-harnessed chaotic and potentially innovative energy, the
question becomes: are the founders or leaders able to transform the dynamic energy into opportunities
for further growth and development or will the organization accelerate towards a state of decline?
References
De Gues, A. (1997). The Living Company. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
| Copyright © Knowledgeark.net, 2016 |
| Terms and Conditions |
Knowledgeark.net > Organizational Research > Organizational Genetics
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |