I am currently working on a ‘hobby project’ – a thesis about what might follow on from Corporate Darwinism. You don’t have to believe in the theory of evolution via natural selection, but the metaphor, when applied to capitalist economies and especially in competitive business, is too attractive to pass by without some comment.

The idea of Corporate Darwinism is not new - it's been heavily discussed for decades because the analogies seem so attractive (and a lot of the basic language and tenets are similar too). Initially I was looking to find some new application of the existing body of knowledge, but then I realised that Darwinism as a sole inspiration for corporate strategy is failing us. Competition implies that there are winners and losers, but the losers are starting to be whole groups and, like an overly virulent infection, we are killing the host upon which we all depend (our planet).

So far my research on the subject has produced the mind map from hell – tons of data (nodes) and lots of relationships - and organising it into a readable publication is stretching my meagre abilities, but here are a few of my key observations so far:

1. There is no discernable ‘goal’ to evolution and no one has a divine mandate or guarantee of survival
2. Time favours infinite variation – new ‘competitors’ and environments arise all the time. So, you evolve or you die – it’s that simple (it might take a while, but in the words of Agent Smith “it is an inevitability")
3. ‘Selection pressure’ is the impersonal driving force of evolution that results in the survival and propagation of adaptations that provide a competitive advantage - the part about 'survival of the fittest' (I have a whole chapter each about selection pressures and competition for 'resources')
4. The first and most important survival strategy is to be able to take advantage of opportunities – if you don’t turn up for the match you lose by default (this does not mean you attempt to compete on everything and anything)
5. The second most important survival strategy is to be able to out-compete your neighbours when an opportunity arises (selection pressure at work)
6. ‘Defensive’ strategies like Collins’ hedgehog concept, when improperly applied, are an evolutionary dead-end. At worst they lead to extinction, at best they buy you a little time; Defensive strategies must be balanced with offensive strategies for competitive adaptation.
7. The third survival strategy is to occasionally try to do something different, even if only in a limited way. What worked today has no guarantee of working tomorrow and who knows what your competitors might come up with in the meantime.
8. Not all adaptations provide a competitive benefit and most will disappear again – keep an eye open for potentially harmful mutations and weed them out but some non-competitive adaptations may give rise to a more human / humane social benefit
9. If an adaptation that might have provided a competitive advantage is unused (i.e. has no opportunity to be exploited) it is likely to atrophy and disappear - don't let a good thing die
10. Competitive adaptations can be inherited (i.e. last for a while), but only if you survive long enough to breed (or continue to remain profitable). So, secure your bread-and-butter today before worrying about jam tomorrow

To some of you this will all seem obvious and you’re wondering why bother to write about it. Well, I would like to make three final points:

1. If it is so self-evident, why do so many organisations continue to act like tomorrow will be just like today (or worse, just like yesterday)? On the contrary - of the few corporations that have survived for 100 years, none bears much resemblance to their origins – they all evolved: those that didn’t aren’t around to study.
2. As Richard Dawkins points out, Darwinism is not a suitable principle upon which to base civilisation -it does not give rise to art, social altruism and many of the other 'higher' artifacts that makes modern life so agreeable. (Dawkins argues that social altruism - acting in ways which initially appear to serve no evolutionary purpose is a by-product of an un-adapting small-group behaviour that was not lost when humanity 'scaled up'). So, if Darwinism is not essentially great for building a humane society, what makes us think it is a suitable model for corporate economics?
3. Humanity appears to be the only species that is conscious of a continuous timeline: we are aware of the past, the present and the future. This means we have the potential to create some opportunities, not just wait for them to appear.
    

As sustainability becomes more of an issue for the whole of the corporate and government communities, we have a golden opportunity to go back to basics and re-evaluate what the future role of Adam Smith's 'the Firm' will be. We need to aspire beyond our Darwinist roots - there is more to life and living than simply passing on your (business) genes.

Anyway, the next time a SAS customer says "you've become part of our corporate DNA" I'll be thinking about what they might be implying - that SAS is one of the adaptations they have made to be more competitive and secure their long-term survival. In the future it is my hope that we will be much more than that.

Finally, I want to acknowledge the contribution of Jim Davis, Gloria Miller and Allan Russell. Their book (Information Revolution: Using the Information Evolution Model to Grow Your Business) definitely was in the back of my mind when I started thinking about this whole subject. And it would be churlish of me not to acknowledge Richard Dawkins, even if I do disagree strongly with some of his views.