This is part 4 of an ongoing discussion.

From the initial discussion you may remember the three fundamental functions that evolution uses:

• Replication

• Variation

• Selection

Previously… we discussed how replication simply means “do today what you did yesterday.” Sounds simple, but in fact it is very hard. See previous blogs for a discussion of how to replicate your business operations.

Today… we start exploring variation – Evolution’s version of product development.

Change

How does evolution create new versions? To understand the function of variation, first we need to investigate change itself.

Evolution is very careful about how it allows changes in the genetic code. Evolution has even developed—evolved—specific processes to mix the genetic code. Presumably, evolution tried other methods to mix genes but those methods simply did not work. So now we can explore the methods which have survived with the presumption that they actually work, and others simply don’t.

Small changes – Most of the time environmental change is gradual. Average temperatures move up or down only a degree or two. Mean sea level rises by only a few inches. Average rainfall changes only gradually. Seasonal changes are often much greater than the long-term trends. The tidal flow, typically a few feet, is much greater than any change in mean sea level. Daily and annual temperature swings are much greater than changes in long-term averages.

Organisms are designed to survive and thrive across large daily and seasonal variations. Therefore, changes in long-term averages do not require large-scale changes in organisms. Perhaps some tweaking will suffice. For instance, as the mean temperature rises in some high-altitude regions, the first response of many species is simply to move a little higher, where the temperature is cooler. Over time these species will adapt to thinner air, different rainfall patterns and other localized differences in the environment at a higher elevation. All these changes are small, incremental adjustments.

To adapt to these small changes, evolution encourages random changes in individual proteins in the DNA string. DNA uses four proteins (A,C,G,T) in its genetic code. Evolution uses everyting from x-rays to intentional transcription mistakes to create single-protein changes. Think of these changes as single-letter changes in a book. Within a single word or sentence, the change may be large. Consider the sentences below:

Evolution operates over long time scales.

Evolution operates over long time swales.

At the word level, both text strings contain legitimate words. At the sentence level, you probably guessed the intent of the second sentence, even with the misspelling. Within a paragraph and certainly with a page, the change is insignificant. Most single-protein changes are like this—no long-term change in survival and only a short-term inconvenience to the organism.

Now consider the sentences below.

Let’s eat, mother.

Let’s eat mother.

A small change in a single character here makes a big change in the meaning.

Evolution likes these changes. Most of them are detrimental to the organism, reducing its survival. But a few may create a competitive advantage in survival. Evolution is happy either way. Selection removes the detrimental changes in one or two generations while the good changes eventually propagate through the species, improving its survival, even if only marginally.

Large changes – Evolution has developed mechanisms to cut and swap DNA in large chunks. If we think of DNA as computer code or a long string of text, simply cutting and swapping large chunks of DNA code will lead to confusion and disaster. Imagine reading A Tale of Two Cities, and suddenly finding a big section of Mark Twain inserted into the text. The sentence crossing the cut point will not make any sense, and the flow of the story across the cut point will certainly be peculiar.

However, evolution has co-evolved this adaptation and the response of DNA to it. Since it has proven successful in creating new variations, evolution continued to use this process. In response, DNA has generated large areas of blank space (junk DNA) between active sections of DNA. Some DNA analysts estimate that the blank space may be as much as 30-70% of the total DNA. As a result, a random cut/switch of DNA code has a good chance of cutting and switching in the blank space between active sections. Thus this process provides good randomized mixing, with only infrequent damage to active DNA sequences and organisms.

Of course, when the random cut and swap does destroy an active DNA sequence, the consequences may be fatal to that particular organism, but evolution runs millions of tests so a few failures are to be expected, just like product versions that don’t survive in the market.

The Topographic Map of Survival

If we think of a topographic map, we can better understand why evolution has developed two different strategies to create variations, also called mutations.

To climb a mountain, we can usually follow the simple strategy of making sure each step goes uphill. This corresponds to random changes of individual bits in the DNA sequence. Each individual change represents a single step– uphill or downhill we don’t know until natural selection evaluates the value of that step, but each single-bit change is only a single step. This type of change results in a slow, steady path up the hill, one step at a time.

Evolution views the environment as a topographic map, with hilltops representing areas of better survival for each species. Each species climbs the hill by becoming better adapted to its specific environment.

Mathematically, this is an optimization problem. Given some criteria of “goodness,” a species climbs the hill as it moves closer to the criteria of goodness. For evolution, the criteria is very simple – survival. While a complex set of inter-related factors all contribute to survival, the final exam is a simple pass/fail test. Did the organism survive to reproduce? Did it pass on its genetic code? Species at the top of the hill are very well adapted to their environment, so the species tends to last a long time with few changes.

Now go back to that topographic map. You are near the top of one hill, but there is a taller, larger hill nearby. How do you get there? The simple strategy of “just go uphill every step” won’t take you back downhill then uphill once again to the top of the larger, higher mountain. You need a different strategy to jump from one hilltop to a nearby hilltop. Hence, evolutions other strategy – cut and swap big sections of DNA. This approach allows evolution to jump from one hill to another. The combination allows evolution to climb individual hills and simultaneously to jump to other hills to explore the evolutionary landscape more thoroughly.

Next week we will explore the beauty of failures and the two biggest mistakes managers make in nurturing failures. See you then…

By Wes Ball. Wes is a strategic innovation consultant and author of The Alpha Factor – a revolutionary new look at what really creates market dominance and self-sustaining success (Westlyn Publishing, 2008) and writes for Leadership turn every Tuesday. Wes can be reached at The Ball Group. See all his posts here.

How can we create successful leaders when we lie about what creates success?

A few days ago Miki, for whom I guest post here, sent me an email letting me know that Nina Simosko, Global Chief Operating Officer for the worldwide SAP Education organization, had referred to one of my Leadership Turn blog posts on her blog about leadership.  Her post discussed the issue of failure and its role in developing leaders.   She was referring to a post I had written that stated that future leaders need to be mentored and nurtured through failure, because through failure comes the learning for creating success.

Her article sparked a thought chain that reminded me about a significant problem we have in developing strong future leaders organically in our organizations:  the current mythology about leadership.  Our current leadership mythology (and mythology about business in general) is self-destructive and, as with most mythologies, is not even based upon broad truth.

Everything in life has a mythology – i.e. a set of stories and examples that define what we believe about that subject.  And, like all mythologies, they change to reflect current cultural thinking.

For instance, the mythology of “dating” was once that a young woman desired to get married.  She watched for the “right” man, made herself visible to him, waited for him to “ask her out,” resisted his passions until marriage was consummated, and lived happily ever after.  This was played out in a mythology that pervaded books, movies, conversations, examples of friends, etc.  That doesn’t mean that there were not plenty of real-life examples of very different scenarios, but the mythology defined the ideal, the thing to which we were to aspire.  It was the thing that young girls held onto when confronted with tough decisions.

That mythology has changed quite a bit even in my lifetime.  There is no need to define the current mythology about dating, because you probably either laughed or cried as you read the contrast between the old mythology and what you hear shared every day about the “ideal” of dating now.

Those changes in mythology drive how we think about dating even before puberty.  Obviously, if sociologists were to do an unbiased long-term research study of what creates the most productive, least destructive dating and the best, most sustainable long-term results, they could help us turn those facts into a mythology that we could embrace.  That new mythology could then offer a much happier alternative for people to follow.

Now, we all know that mythologies are created by people.  They are the propaganda that is issued to create a desired result.  When I was a child, for the most part, those mythologies were created and spread by well-intentioned persons to help protect and guide us to happiness and success.  We also know that there are many factions who have their own agendas for how people should think that are based upon completely irrational, less than well-intentioned purposes.  Their purposes may be to make themselves feel better about pain they experienced, a desire for others to be no happier than they are, a desire to justify bad decisions they have made, etc.  That’s why there has to be some rational basis for mythology to have a good outcome.

In the business of leadership development, we have a similar problem.  There is more than enough empirical data to demonstrate that creating sustainable, beneficial success is hard work.  It takes risk. It takes time. It takes pain.  It takes making a long series of wise decisions.  It takes great investment and some losses.  It takes gaining the help of many other persons who will aid in creating your success.  It takes courage.  And, most of all, it takes failure from which learning and improvement comes.

But what is the mythology of success under which we operate?

We choose to believe that…

• Success comes relatively easy.
• It comes through minimizing risk or at least spreading it to others – mostly that happens through putting others at risk more than yourself.
• It happens quickly.
• It happens with minimal or no pain, like winning the lottery.
• It involves little in the way of acquired wisdom; there is more luck and “who you know” than wisdom involved.
• It takes minimal personal investment in money, time, or effort.
• It is done virtually on your own with little outside help.
• It requires no courage, because there is so little effort, pain, or risk required.
• Failure is a thing to be despised and ridiculed, not embraced or used as a platform for learning.  And, when failure comes, you blame it on others.

This is the mythology that has created our current age of entitlement.  “I did not ask to be born, so you owe it to me to make things go well for me without a lot of work on my part.”  To greater or lesser extent, this attitude pervades both the educated and the uneducated.  It is nourished by the stories about instant successes and greedy top executives who did not earn what they got.  It is fueled by stories about companies that are harming us with their “outrageous” profits while ignoring the investment and work that made it possible to gain those profits and even ignoring where most of those profits go to create more job opportunities and wealth for a great many persons.

I did some extensive research for the U.S. Department of the Treasury about 10 years ago.  We were looking at attitudes about investment and savings among a broad cross-section of the population.  I was stunned to discover what I called, “the lottery mentality.”  This thinking said that it wasn’t worth saving money.  If you couldn’t get 30+% return on your investment (the then current mythology about investing), then it was better to either spend it on self-entertainment or buy a lottery ticket.  It just wasn’t worth the aggravation of trying to slowly, steadily save for the future. This attitude stretched from the very poor to persons making seven-digit incomes.  Surprisingly, the only demographic that consistently resisted this and embraced the idea of “slow and steady saving is better than wasting it” were low-income ethnic women, especially black and Hispanic.  Men generally were the most predisposed to the “lottery mentality,” but white women of all incomes were almost as enthusiastic about it.

The modern mythology about how businesses run and how leaders lead was one of the greatest hurdles I had to overcome in researching my book, The Alpha Factor.  As I tried to understand what really created sustainable success and dramatic growth, I continually stumbled over mythology-based conclusions from both the corporate executives involved and the media that were covering it.  It took a great deal of deeper digging to uncover the real factors that were behind those successes.

Most of what I would hear from corporate executives involved in successes was their own brilliance at responding to market fluctuations, being able to generate short-term results no matter what the competitive environment, spotting new trends and creating the right products and business model to address them, and other self-aggrandizing perceptions of what created their success.  What I generally found was that the great products that were so “right” were discovered more by accident than by purpose.  And the short-term responses they thought so highly of actually had made things harder for them to keep moving forward profitably.

Most often, it was things they discounted as minor that were the real driving force behind customer perceptions that created the demand for their products.  Most often, these “minor” things were ones that they felt unable to control directly, so they discounted them as being irrelevant.

That has created an incorrect business mythology that says that money managers are the lifeblood of the business.  That cost-side management is the secret to long-term success.  That price is “everything.”  And, if not price, then quality is.  It focuses business watchers upon stock price as the indicator of success (and we all know how accurate that was from the “dot com” bubble).  It has created a perception of entitlement among top executives that says they deserve multi-million dollar bonuses, while ignoring the real drivers of corporate success that will continue to create jobs and wealth for generations to come.

There have been a number of articles in recent years about the failure of top business schools to turn out potential future leaders.  Much of that failure can be attributed to the reality that our mythology about what creates success taints how we think about what defines a leader.  So we generate self-serving, short-term focused MBAs who have little ability to drive long-term success.

Compounding that, in the ranks of corporations all over America, future leaders receive no real leadership training.  They simply do their jobs under the constant threat resulting from short-term management thinking that the company could sell itself at almost any time or that budgets will be cut making it impossible to accomplish the tasks assigned to them.  Managers do their best to look effective while hiding from the fact that they can’t, given the little support they receive.

Our mythology has made us into a nation expecting miracles without a willingness to make the investments required for real, sustainable success.  Instead, we fail through lack of willingness to really succeed and cover our failure under a veil of blame pointed at others around us.

If we really wish to create future leaders, we need to create a new mythology based upon what truly creates success.  That mythology should be based upon truth and not self-aggrandizing lies.  It should be based upon a rational, empirical understanding of what creates sustainable success.  That’s why I wrote The Alpha Factor.

Creating such a mythology within every organization and generally throughout the business community is a task that every person involved with leadership should pursue.  It should be based upon empirically-based reality in order to be truly valuable.  To do that, we need to understand the real factors behind success, before we can ever expect to recreate it or to develop tomorrow’s successful leaders.

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Image credit

Engagement is a hot topic, especially now, but it isn’t a new one—think buy-in, ownership, commitment, involvement, etc.

The term may change, but the behavior has been consistently on management’s radar for decades.

Whereas the way to achieve it is as old as humanity.

Disengagement is costly, “Gallup estimates it costs the US economy about $300bn a year and that 17 per cent of employees are “actively” disengaged. These employees each cost their employers $13,000 a year in lost productivity.”

But, as any successful manager knows, engagement is as simple as 1, 2, 3—4.

The Big 4 are

1. respect;
2. encouragement;
3. support; and
4. rewards.

It’s not as if this is secret management knowledge. There are thousands of books, hundreds of classes, dozens of blogs and forums all teaching variations on this theme. I most recently read it again here. (Be sure to read the comments.)

So is it’s that simple, why isn’t it put into practice more often?

MAP (mindset, attitude, philosophy™) is the reason. MAP shapes a person’s actions

If you don’t really believe in the value or numbers 1 or 2, you can talk all day and your people will hear what you say as hollow, i.e., no authenticity.

Number 3, support, includes skills training and career development, but how do you provide these when money is tight or, even in good times, when your company doesn’t believe in it?

Ingenuity. Not just yours, but your group’s. Your people aren’t dumb, they know when the company can’t/won’t fund training, but there are tons of ways work around that, such as sharing their own expertise with each other during organized brown bag lunch sessions.

Number 4 also usually involves money, as it should. But when there’s an authentic, provable lack of funds to provide significant rewards, every company can find enough, monetary and otherwise, to prove that they value their people’s contributions.

Again, people aren’t dumb. If the CEO, execs or their boss receives a bonus after telling people that the company can’t afford raises or rewards, it shouldn’t be a surprise when they disengage and eventually leave.

That’s it; not rocket science, but it must be done consistently, sincerely and with great enthusiasm.

Image credit

See all mY generation posts here.

‘Leader’ is one of the most maligned, abused and misused words in any language, but now and then it’s aptly applied.On July 9, 2007, the world lost a real leader, someone who truly deserved that appellation, Alexander Vladimir d’Arbeloff.

Co-founder of high-tech company Teradyne, philanthropist and MIT patriarch, he was a unique individual.

Unsuited to the corporate culture of the Fifties, he was fired three times in his first ten years.

Here’s what others thought of him.

A personal interaction with Alex was an event not soon forgotten.

Alex d’Arbeloff was a force of nature. We all experienced his laser-like intellect, his wry wit, his insatiable curiosity, his amazing ability to engage, cajole, persuade, educate and enlighten those with whom he came in contact.

…we will remember Alex d’Arbeloff and his remarkable leadership, deep devotion and magnificent generosity…

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

The so-called leaders who, over decades, got us into our current economic mess did so because of their MAP (mindset, attitude, philosophy™); MAP that kept telling them that they were so brilliant that they knew best.

But as a wise man said, you can learn from everyone.

When I was growing up I had an aunt with whom I didn’t see eye to eye, to say the least. Yet, it was because of this aunt that I learned something that became a cornerstone of my MAP.

My aunt had a glass topped dressing table and, like many women of that era, she would place inspirational clippings and notes under the glass. That’s where I first saw

Profit from the mistakes of others—you don’t have time to make them all yourself.

As much sense as it makes, even back then, it’s been one of the hardest for me to follow. I seem to profit well from small and medium mistakes, but have an unhappy tendency to make the really large ones myself.

The same can be said for many of our business, financial and political ‘leaders’.

This isn’t the first economic crisis brought about in the name of profit and maximizing shareholder investment, just the worst in a long time.

As I read the news a line from the sixties hit “Where have all the flowers gone…” keeps repeating in my mind—“when will they ever learn, when will they ever learn?”

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Image credit

As I told you a few weeks ago, I thought I’d use Saturday to comment on relatively obscure politcal stuff that I found amusing. Not an easy task these days.

So I was cruising around the net looking and I found this,

Isn’t it funny how the word ‘politics’ is made up of the words ‘poli’ meaning ‘many’ in Latin, and ‘tics’ as in ‘bloodsucking creatures’?

Not bad.

Then I got to thinking about what you’d get if you crossed a Democrat and a Republican.

You could end up with a Demopublican (a demonstrating tavern owner [or tax collector]).

Or a Repcrat (an advocate of tranversely corded fabric).

Not nearly as good as the many bloodsucking creatures.

Rather than leave you on this beautiful Saturday with an iffy joke, I’ll leave you with another one I ran into in cyberland.

A little girl asked her father, “Daddy? Do all Fairy Tales begin with ‘Once Upon A Time’?”

He replied, “No, there is a whole series of Fairy Tales that begin with ‘If elected I promise’.”

Image credit

Corporate social responsibility, know as CSR, is fast becoming a significant part of an attractive corporate culture.

Granted, the definitions of CSR are all over the place, but it’s generally agreed that building a positive CSR reputation is necessary to attract, motivate and retain today’s workforce, especially the Millennials.

But how important is it now that all hell’s broken out?

“…corporate social responsibility is no longer a luxury; it is an essential component of a thoughtful business strategy. At a time when customers and investors will be demanding increasing transparency and responsibility from corporations… These efforts must include a commitment to good governance and financial transparency, a commitment to protect and educate their work forces, a commitment to protect the environment, and a commitment to strengthen the communities in which they work… And by engaging staff, businesses can ensure that corporate social responsibility becomes a part of their corporate culture, rather than just a token gesture… In order to survive a sustained recession, companies, communities and the government must work together. Although companies may not be able to sustain the same levels of corporate social responsibility spending in an economic downturn, it is critical for them to retain a healthy commitment to a corporate social responsibility strategy that includes community engagement.”

A lot of CSR isn’t about spending money, it’s an attitude. An attitude that requires honesty, authenticity, transparency and reliability—all of which we seem to be in short supply these days.

Attitude is the ‘a’ in MAP and it’s MAP that has to change. It’s MAP that, at all levels, needs to bring its ego under control and recognize that the world that emerges from the current mess will be different and that CSR is here to stay.

Makes sense, doesn’t it?

By the way, the above quote wasn’t written by anyone in the US, it’s from Kiev, Ukraine. Looks like CSR has gone global, too.

Image credit

Or is it a pyramid?“A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that involves promising or paying abnormally high returns (“profits”) to investors out of the money paid in by subsequent investors, rather than from net revenues generated by any real business.”

“A pyramid scheme is a non-sustainable business model that involves the exchange of money primarily for enrolling other people into the scheme, without any product or service being delivered.”

This is what came to mind after reading CandidProf’s post yesterday; I finally decided that’s it’s both, making is a pyra-Ponzi scheme.

As CP described the situation it’s definitely a pyramid, his college is funded based on how many students are enrolled as are most K-12 schools in this country. Further, lowering standards and focusing only on retaining students in order to continue funding certainly fits the no service being delivered description of a pyramid.

The Ponzi element is seen in high promises from such initiatives as No Child Left Behind, which has done nothing to stem the downward spiral of learning—in fact, it has made it worse.

NY Times Op-Ed Columnist Bob Herbert quotes from a study published in the Notices of the American Mathematical Society that states, “The United States is failing to develop the math skills of both girls and boys, especially among those who could excel at the highest levels, a new study asserts, and girls who do succeed in the field are almost all immigrants or the daughters of immigrants from countries where mathematics is more highly valued.”

He ends by quoting “An article in Monday’s Times spotlighted some of the serious problems that have emerged in the No Child Left Behind law. Among the law’s unintended consequences, as Sam Dillon reported, has been its tendency to “punish” states that “have high academic standards and rigorous tests, which have contributed to an increasing pileup of failed schools.”

After reading CandidProf’s post, my Russian business partner, Nick Mikhailovsky, commented,

“Actually, the average education quality has significantly degraded over here as well. Although the reasons are different the outcome is the same and applies to both basic and higher education.

Our reason is simpler—low salaries in education.

Everyone who needed money or couldn’t bear living in poverty has left education. After 15 years of that, there are almost no good teachers or college professors left.  The old ones retired, and young people aren’t willing to live in poverty when they have plenty of other opportunities and all their life in front of them.”

Hmmm, Russia seems to be dumbing down by salary, but considering the salaries we pay our teachers we’re trashing US education from the top down and the bottom up.

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Image credit

By CandidProf, who teaches physics and astronomy at a state university, shares his thoughts and experiences teaching today’s students anonymously every Thursday—anonymously because that’s the only way he can be truly candid. Read all of CandidProf here.It’s all about the numbers.  Sadly, that is how many college administrators see the students: as numbers.

The college has an enrollment figure.  In my state, one of the key measures that they are now implementing to rate college performance is the increase in enrollment figures.

For a long time, as a public institution, we have been funded by how many students are enrolled, so the administration has been actively recruiting students.  It has not mattered whether or not the students are ready for college.  That was not important.  It did not matter if they had the skills to succeed.  That was not important.   Whether or not they enrolled was important, not whether or not they learned anything while here, nor even if they passed any of their classes.

Another key measure for the state is in access of college to minorities and Hispanics.  We are advertising in Spanish.  The college’s web site can be viewed in Spanish.  The registration can be done in Spanish.  But all of the classes are in English.

Students who don’t know English are up a creek.  They have little hope of passing the classes once they get here.  No matter.  They enrolled, they were counted by the state, and that was all that mattered.

Going hand-in-hand with enrollment is retention.  College administrators go to conferences with other college administrators, and they all talk about retention policies.

The idea is that getting students to enroll is not sufficient.  They want them to enroll again next semester.  So, if they flunk out, then they won’t be enrolling again.

The first strategy used by many colleges is to simply change the rules on what constitutes flunking out. When I was a student, a single F or D, or too many C’s, was sufficient to get a student put on academic probation.  If you repeated a bad semester, then you were placed on academic suspension.  That wasn’t meant so much as punishment, but rather to give you time to reassess your educational goals and strategies.  I never had to go through that, but I knew some students who did.

Now, you can fail a class every semester, and have a whole semester of D’s and C’s, and keep that up for semester after semester.  A depressing number of our students graduate with a GPA of less than 2.0.  But the students keep signing up for classes and that is all that counts.

The next step in retention is to put pressure on faculty to give higher grades.  After all, the administrators reason that if students get too many poor grades, they might get discouraged and drop out.  If they drop out, then they won’t be registering for classes and that means, of course, that there will be less state funding for the college.  So faculty are encouraged not to grade too harshly and to give higher grades.

This has been going on in the K-12 education for years, but it is now becoming more common in colleges. I have a number of colleagues who are teaching in a climate of that sort.  Many faculty just give up and quit upholding standards.  They just give out grades.  The students don’t learn. We have a few part time faculty here who do that, too, because that is expected at other places in the area where they teach part time.

But students who take the classes of a faculty member who just gives out grades without the students learning seldom do well in the follow-up classes.

Worse, this strategy makes a college degree pretty much worthless.

Holding to standards is hard, particularly when others don’t hold to those standards.

Holding to standards is hard when funding is tied to numbers that can be improved by relaxing those standards.

But an effective leader will hold standards, even if it is the hard thing to do.

I see this getting worse.  My state is now looking to change the funding formula for its public colleges and universities.  Rather than giving money for the number of students enrolled at the beginning of the semester, they are looking to fund the number of students enrolled at the end of the semester.

That changes things.  It means that simply getting students to sign up is not enough.  Now, we need to keep them in the class all semester. It is pretty obvious that there will be extreme pressure on faculty to limit the students dropping.

That means making the classes easier.

That means giving up on tough and difficult standards and setting the bar as low as possible to make it easy for students to pass without ever having to do anything.

That means giving up on teaching.

And this is what is coming down the pike from state legislatures all over the country.  They have done this sort of thing in K-12 education, making a high school diploma pretty much worthless.

Now they are working to make an undergraduate college degree worthless as well.

A lot of faculty are planning on retiring when these changes are made.  I have a few years to go until retirement, and I am not looking forward to what I see in our future.

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Image credit