Darwin doesnt justify change

monkeyI heard this one again recently: "survival of the most adaptable". To be clear: Darwin did NOT ever say "It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is most adaptable to change." Because it is NOT true. Change is not essential and it certainly isn't always a good thing.

Stromatolites do not adapt at all but they still exist. They are one of the oldest species of life on earth. Sure they are limited to a couple of beaches but with global warming their ideal ecosystem may return and they'll expand again. There are many other examples of surviving species that didn't adapt at all. So can we cut this crap of using Darwin to try to justify change hysteria? "Change or die" is bollocks. Be good at your niche, be strong. Ill-conceived change will weaken you and make you a worse fit.

The only criteria for survival is to be fit for purpose. The criteria to survive in the face of competition for a niche with your own or another species is to reproduce more prolifically or be better at surviving long enough to reproduce. Evolution is about gradual change of a species over generations, not of individuals. It is based on reproduction. Reproduction is not a good analogy for business. And evolution is not a model for business change (unless your business model is to spawn as many new companies as possible before you go out of business). Stop it.

It is sad that in the 21st Century people still don't understand Darwinism.

It is also sad that the pace of technological change has created a cult of change. It worries me to see organisations tearing themselves apart, consumed with a groupthink that they can turn themselves on a penny. Especially the delusion that a technology change will create that kind of transformation.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: chill, slow down, think twice. Change is not essential and it certainly isn't always a good thing.

See Slow IT

Syndicate content