I’m slogging my way through the fascinating economics book Culture and Prosperity by John Kay (known as The Truth About Markets in its original UK release). Kay offers a thoughtful and detailed overview of how markets work, or don’t work, and how economists have succeeded and failed at describing that functionality over time. He’s also particularly adept at describing our common assumptions about free markets, and then beating them apart like some party piñata.
I’m still getting to the good part, but two recent sentences stopped me in my tracks:
Evolution favours what is good at replicating itself, rather than what is good. This fundamental distinction is essential to understanding any evolving system.
We can easily see in human history (and I see it in my own biases) a presumption that evolving systems slowly create better results. We’ve used the argument in reinforcing the supremacy of humans on the earth (animals and nature are in service to man, because man was the one to evolve the best). And we often use the bundled assumption in describing healthy organizations — in the arts and elsewhere.
But Kay’s simple point cuts to the heart of these assumptions. Evolution — and even adaptation — are extraordinarily effective at advancing what can be replicated. But they have nothing to do with selecting and advancing the best responses for any larger challenge. In fact, established organizational cultures are highly effective at perpetuating themselves through these very systems.
A museum with a culture of inward-focus and civic entitlement, for example, will have a board with such a culture, who will hire administrative leaders with such a culture, who will hire staff with such a culture. The rewards, incentives, and social mores of the organization will encourage such perceptions and behavior, even among staff who aren’t quite in line. Those who don’t eventually adapt will leave or be sidelined.
Whether or not that particular culture is effective for the mission and larger success of the museum is not part of the evolutionary system. Kay discusses several organizations, businesses, and political entities that entered the same trap, where ”the behavior which is adaptive within the organization is dysfunctional for it.”
So leading organizations that have a positive, dynamic, and responsive connection to the community and the needs they serve isn’t just about creating a strong internal culture. It’s also about constantly assessing whether that internal culture advances or detracts from the thing you claim to do.
Probably a bit of an esoteric point for a Thursday morning. But it stuck in my head, so I thought I’d spread the love.
If evolution is “survival of the fittest” then who are the fittest? Those who survived of course!
Ah! But is “fittest” the same as “best” or “chosen”? I’m wondering whether we attach a bunch of other values to those who survive to replicate — especially organizations that have become exceptional at replicating their stale and disconnected culture.
I haven’t read Kay’s book but his understanding of natural selection appears to be flawed: he is ignoring the “competition” half of Darwin’s insight. This makes as much sense in terms of the real world as does quoting only the first half of Newton’s Third Law.
Simple replication is not evolution; _selective_ replication is. The “selective” part comes in response to outside pressures, i.e. competition. In nature it is competition for food supplies, or mating opportunities, or safety from predators. Among human collectives such as arts organizations it would be competition for the time and dedication of good artists, or for audiences, or for funding, or for good reviews, or whatever.
Point being that without any competitive pressure, without the “selection” half of the phrase “natural selection”, then no evolving is going on here. Darwin’s finches, left alone with unlimited food supplies for all, would not have evolved differently-shaped beaks.
Hence Kay’s description of what “any evolving system” actually consists of is simply a straw man. Like Reagan making up “welfare queens” in order to argue against federal entitlement programs.
A belated comment perhaps, but in reference to Andrew’s comment:
“Ah! But is “fittest” the same as “best” or “chosen”? I’m wondering whether we attach a bunch of other values to those who survive to replicate — especially organizations that have become exceptional at replicating their stale and disconnected culture.”
I live in New Zealand, a tiny little country at the bottom of the world that is extremely hot & passionate about it’s arts. What struck me about Andrew’s comments, in relation to Arts Administration, Arts Orgnisations and other bureaucratic bodies, such as economic development agencies is that they become adept at survival. They work so hard to maintain their own survival, but waste untold resources in suriving, instead of achieving the objectives or aims which was part of their intended setup.
All too often we see significant KPI’s as ‘securing long term contracts’, (or keeping employee’s jobs safe).
This in itself often means it’s not the person or organisation structure most suitable to deliver the strategic aims, it’s the person most adept at successful funding/sponsorship procurement who ‘survives’.
Therefore, there may be no evolution for many years as the economic climate means the fight is for survival through funding, not fights for survival of the fittest or most effective.
There’s more to be said. This is just a reaction really.
Cheers.