The Dance of Eternity (6)
Implication of Stabilizing Selection to Corporate DX
The concepts of Stabilizing Selection and Directional Selection are fascinating because, despite operating through the same mechanism, they have completely opposite effects on species over generations. This insight is also rich with implications for thinking about the evolution of corporate organizations.
To revisit the roles of Stabilizing Selection and Directional Selection, see the following histograms:
Stabilizing Selection drives a species’ traits toward the average or “mode” in statistical term, most frequent traits, converging toward the mean/mode. Conversely, Directional Selection favors traits that deviate from the mean/mode, often low in frequency initially, but become the new average or mode (most frequent traits). In Stabilizing Selection, this means trait value remains unchanged, while in Directional Selection, the mean trait value shifts, driving the entire distribution curve to slide.
Applying this analogy to corporate management, Stabilizing Selection would imply that existing strategies and operations are well-adapted to the environment. It involves eliminating variation and reducing deviations caused by different individual approaches, akin to “selection and concentration” and “operational efficiency improvement” — concepts beloved by “20th-century guy” like me.
In recent times, the terms “Offensive DX” and “Defensive DX” have gained traction, with various consultants and critics offering their interpretations. None of these definitions resonate with me to be honest. From my perspective, “Defensive DX” aligns precisely with “Stabilizing Selection.” What happens if we push this stabilization-convergence selection to its extreme?
Pushing Stabilizing Selection to the extreme means that all individuals in a given group would converge to the same traits, eliminating any variation, similar to achieving a state of zero deviation in biological evolution. If applied to corporate DX, it means completely eliminating dependence on individual skills from business processes, achieving an ideal state where tasks are streamlined according to mechanical algorithms. This is error-free, consistent, and fast completion of tasks, irrespective of who handles them — the ultimate goal of “Defensive DX.”
However, both Stabilizing and Directional Selections presuppose the existence of “choices” to begin with. In a histogram, this means having a range of traits where the frequency is non-zero. Directional Selection, as previously illustrated, involves traits initially deviating from the mean/mode but becoming the new mean/mode reacting to environmental changes. Traits of zero frequency can never become the new mean/mode from any selection process.
Examining the histogram for a state of extreme Stabilizing Selection again:
Since traits other than the mean are eliminated (state ④), Directional Selection cannot happen. If the environment changes, making the previous mean maladaptive, the species would be exterminated. For instance, in biological evolution, if all viruses of a type had completely identical genetic makeup, a vaccine effective against that type would kill all the virus without any resistance. Drug resistance arises from genetic diversity within the virus population; hence, a species with identical genetic makeup would be exterminated without any chance of Directional Selection to adapt to the drug.
In the context of “Defensive DX,” if a corporate strategy and operations are optimized to an environment completely, it implies losing the ability to withstand environmental changes. Although “biological species” and “corporate organizations” are not entirely identical, and a well-optimized corporate organization can adapt to environmental changes under a smart team of management, the histograms’ analogy highlights the dangers of excessive optimization to specific business environments.
Reflecting on Clayton Christensen’s “Innovator’s Dilemma,” an enduring management theory, this dilemma resonates with me as an interpretation of “Stabilizing Selection pushed to the extreme.” Traditional companies, dominant under certain business conditions, fail to adapt to new rules of the game brought by environmental changes, thereby being outdone by new entrants operating under different rules. This scenario epitomizes the conflict between Stabilizing Selection and Directional Selection.
