Hot Topics

Impact of the Three Approaches to Adaptation

As we suggested in our first article about organizational adaptation, organizations use three basic approaches to adaptation to varying degrees and in varying combinations.

Passive Adaptation = Evolutionary
(Adaptation is barely perceptible, happening slowly over time with members of the organization investing little energy and activity to influence it in any given direction. It is usually adequate to keep the organization alive though not adequate to enable it to thrive or to weather unexpected difficulty.)

Reactive Adaptation = Revolutionary
(Adaptation is sudden and obvious, happening quickly with members of the organization investing lots of energy and activity to influence it and survive the interrupting event. It is adequate to keep the organization alive and to enable it to thrive for the short term.)

Proactive Adaptation = Dynamic/Organic
(Adaptation is continuous and paced, happening spontaneously and at the appropriate pace with members of the organization investing appropriate energy and activity to influence it in a given direction. It is adequate to keep the organization alive and to enable it to thrive for the short term, mid term, and long term.)

We further suggested that organizations tend to form patterns of adaptation – some adequate for life and health and others inadequate. Though all three forms of adaptation are needed for any organization to successfully adapt, forming a proactive pattern usually leads to the greatest health.

In last month’s edition of LazCast, one of our members shared her experience of a canoe trip and the practical understandings about adaptation she gained from the journey. As we move forward in our discussion, we will examine the three approaches to adaptation, their impact on the behaviors of those involved, and when each approach is most successfully used. We will also examine the impact that effective and ineffective use of the three approaches has on the overall effectiveness of an organization and on the relative success or failure of a specific effort.

Adaptation, Anxiety, & Personal Comfort

Understanding adaptation and how and why we do it and the impact it has would be difficult without first understanding something about anxiety and our need for personal safety and comfort. As we noted in the last edition of LazCast, adaptation almost always involves some degree of risk and loss of control that produces anxiety. Anxiety causes a reduction in our sense of personal safety and comfort and drives a response to return to safer, more comfortable waters. We might be tempted to say that anxiety is bad and safety good. However, they are two sides of the same coin. Without a healthy level of anxiety, we would be far less likely to develop a pattern of proactive adaptation that will keep us safer and more comfortable over the long term. Since it is not possible for things to remain the same over time, we would likely move back and forth from reactive to passive adaptation modes, or from one unhealthy level of anxiety to another.

What produces anxiety will vary from one person to another. For some, passive adaptation is comfortable and produces very low levels of anxiety, while for others passively approaching adaptation will produce very high levels of anxiety. Those who are made anxious by passivity will likely find reactive adaptation uncomfortable but less anxiety producing because something is happening or some change is being made. Those who are anxious with either extreme may find proactive the only position of any real comfort.

Below are the basic anxiety patterns produced from the three approaches to adaptation. Obviously, many variations and degrees will exist among people. These are not meant to be comprehensive. However, you will note that the amount of anxiety produced by any particular approach covers the full spectrum. For example, those who are made anxious by even the thought of very much change will experience lower amounts of anxiety from day to day in a more passive organization, and yet extremely high levels of anxiety from the reactive adaptation that can result from passivity.

On the other hand, those who are made anxious by inactivity and passive adaptation will experience high levels of anxiety day to day and significantly less anxiety when reactive adaptation finally happens. Finally, some organizations members may experience moderate anxiety from day to day and then increased or decreased anxiety depending on the person when the organization is forced into reactive adaptation.

Proactive adaptation seems to be the healthiest, the least tiring, and the least anxiety producing approach to adaptation for most organization members. While it produces some anxiety most of the time, it significantly levels out the highs and lows associated with more passive and reactive approaches.

Passive = In the moment
- Lower anxiety today and higher tomorrow, Or
- Higher anxiety today and lower tomorrow, Or
- Moderate anxiety today and higher or lower tomorrow

Reactive = In the past
- Higher anxiety today and lower tomorrow, Or
- Lower anxiety today and higher tomorrow, Or
- Moderate anxiety today and higher or lower tomorrow

Proactive = In the future
- Healthy anxiety today and healthy anxiety tomorrow
(Note: For those who thrive on chaos or for those who are very passively inclined, a proactive approach can cause moderate to high anxiety.)

Below is another way to think about how organization members are oriented to adaptation and how they are impacted by the three approaches. The categories below are by no means comprehensive nor meant to be inclusive of all organization members. They will, however, give us some additional food for thought.

Trailblazers
This group seems to see and understand the need for a particular adaptation and for ongoing adaptation. They will initiate and be torchbearers for needed changes. A passive organization culture is uncomfortable and anxiety producing for them since they are unable to act on or to get support for the needed adaptations they recognize. Trailblazers will shine as problem solvers and innovators in the repeated crises of a reactive organization. They will experience anxiety here as well since the more desirable adaptations take a back seat to those that are quicker and cheaper and only work marginally well. Trailblazers will be most at home in a proactive organization where adaptation is ongoing, planned, and normal.

Pilots
This group must be shown the need for a particular adaptation or for on-going adaptation. They will not come to it on their own as will the trailblazers, but once they realize and understand the need, they will be fully on board, supporting and making the adaptation and performing well. A passive organization culture is fairly comfortable for a pilot as long as no one mentions the need for an adaptation. Once they become aware of the need, however, they will experience increased anxiety. They do well in the crises of a reactive organization since they can quickly understand the needs and adapt, but experience anxiety later when they find the adaptations were not high quality. They are most comfortable in a proactive organization working with trailblazers.

Academics
This group grasps the need for adaptation intellectually. However, they are unable to actually proactively adapt. They "talk the talk" and think they are doing it, but in reality are unable to “walk the walk.” Sometimes direct feedback about the discrepancy between what they say and what they do helps. Academics are perhaps most comfortable in a passive organization where they can recognize and talk about needed adaptation but never really have to do it. They can even enjoy a sense of superiority, believing themselves capable of adaptation and held back by the organization. They have difficulty surviving the crises of a reactive organization, doing so only by fooling themselves and others. They are most anxious and least comfortable in a proactive organization where they are frequently given corrective feedback.

Late-Bloomers
This group takes a long time to understand and accept the need for adaptation and then additional time to actually make the adaptation. However, once they finally understand and accept, they are extremely enthusiastic and committed. Late-bloomers are comfortable in a passive organization since they naturally take their time making decisions or coming to things. The length of time needed for them to come to accept the needed adaptation and to act on it makes life in a reactive organization anxiety producing for them. They tend to be carried along, not feeling that they have had time to accept, adjust, and be excited about one change before another is thrust upon them. Proactive organizations may or may not be anxiety producing depending on the nature of the adaptation and the length of time required to implement it. However, once they do understand and accept the necessary changes, their enthusiasm and commitment, can make up for the time required, making them appreciated and comfortable in a proactive organization.

Weathervanes
This group seems to go with the prevailing wind of the group they are with. When they change groups or when the group with which they associate changes attitudes or opinions about the need for adaptation, so do they. They give lip service to adaptation, but never really make the change. A passive culture will be most comfortable for weathervanes because they will be required to adapt very little beyond what occurs without much conscious thought. Though they will likely experience significant anxiety in a reactive culture, they may be able to go undetected because of the levels of anxiety and crisis nature of the reactive environment. They will probably experience anxiety in a proactive culture as well because at some point they will be required to do something more than just go along with whatever is being said at the time.

Traditionalists
This group never seems to make specific adaptations and only passively adapts over time. If the organization is moving to proactive adaptation, the best that can probably be done is to give them alternative career placement. The traditionalists are the least anxious and most at home in a passive culture. They will have great difficulty functioning in a reactive culture unless they are in positions of authority where they can advise or watch others as they adapt and are therefore not required to adapt themselves. A proactive culture will likely create the most anxiety and significant discomfort unless those in authority or protect them in some way.

Responses to Adaptation

Regardless of what approach elicits the most anxiety in us or how we might be oriented, at times even the most innovative Trailblazer favoring a proactive approach to adaptation can respond negatively to a particular adaptation, and a Traditionalist favoring a more passive approach can respond positively to a particular adaptation. Both negative and positive responses seem to follow a predictable pattern. These patterns are helpful to understand as we help others navigate adaptation and as we navigate adaptation ourselves. Negative and positive responses are illustrated in the graphics below.

Negative Response to Adaptation

Positive Response To Adaptation

Regardless of whether we are making a proactive adaptation, a reactive adaptation, or a passive adaptation or whether our response to a particular adaptation is negative or positive, we all go through stages of commitment before we finally internalize a change. If we get through these stages and how quickly we get through them will vary widely among organization members. However, as with responses to adaptation, it is good to have a working knowledge of the stages of commitment to adaptation. These stages are presented in the graphic below.

Stages Of Commitment To Adaptation

A Note Personal Anxiety, Depression & Grief

When an organization undergoes a series of reactive changes or even a series of very demanding proactive changes, members of the organization will inevitably become tired, wounded, and depressed. Because any adaptation, even one desired, has an element of loss, we must experience a certain amount of grief. The amount will vary with how much we are losing or how much a particular way of thinking or doing things has become part of our lives and how we define ourselves. If the distance between the adaptations does not allow for this period of grief, a general depression and resistance to any movement will begin to emerge. Our requirement or demand to adapt has become greater than our capacity to make the change.

This is just one of the reasons why every organization must incorporate all three approaches to adaptation if it is to be healthy and successful. Periods of passive adaptation give stability to the organization and allow for the needed periods of grief, among other things.

Check in to next month’s LazCast for more information on Effectively Using The Three Approaches to Adaptation to achieve organizational health.

Questions? Comments? We would love to hear from you.
Drop us a line at info@lazarusconsulting.com .