Survival of the fittest
Is 'Business Darwinism' an inescapable reality?In business, the bad guys win. At least, that’s what we’re always told.
Indeed, it’s no coincidence that at the helm of many successful companies sits a charismatic CEO or MD with a superhuman work ethic, unrealistically high expectations and a ruthless approach to their workforce.
Research has shown that somewhere between 3% and 25% of business leaders may be psychopaths, and are only able to disguise the fact by “hiding behind their high status, playing up their charm and by manipulating others”. (At this point I can feel a tectonic plate move as HRville’s readers simultaneously nod wildly, as they recognise those traits in people they’ve worked for).
And while we’re reluctant to label these people psychopaths, let’s look at some of the best-known business leaders of modern times; they’re hardly people you’d like to get stuck in a lift with. Mark Zuckerberg, Rupert Murdoch, Ken Lay, Donald Trump – they could all be euphemistically described as ‘demanding’, and working for them, while undoubtedly rewarding, could easily be challenging for most people.
‘Business Darwinism’
One of the most successful (and notorious) business leaders of the 21st Century, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, has been described as the architect of a ‘Darwinian’ and ‘adversarial’ working culture at the retail giant.
Bezos believes that ‘constant friction’ within Amazon benefits the type of high performers he likes to employ, and he dislikes socially cohesive working cultures in which too many people agree with each other. Former employees have described an ‘everyone for themselves’ environment in which individual accountability is placed above organisational support. And if you don’t perform well as an individual, your days at the company are likely to be numbered.
It is obviously difficult to argue with Amazon’s success, and while Bezos might believe its culture fosters a competitive atmosphere that drives individual performance, surely that comes at the expense of strong team dynamics – the collective, collaborative approach that has worked equally well for other corporate behemoths?
Only the strong survive?
In some ways, Bezos’ ‘Darwinian’ culture echoes the Subway approach to franchising. As documented in Eric Schlosser’s Fast Food Nation, Subway has a fairly singular approach to franchising, which is basically to allow franchisees to open a branch of Subway anywhere they like – regardless of how near it might be to another Subway store.
Instead of fearing damaging proximity or market saturation, Subway’s parent company (the curiously titled ‘Doctor’s Associates’), encourages stores to compete directly against each other. Under this regime, the stronger-performing stores regularly survive at the expense of weaker outlets which subsequently close, leaving Subway with fewer stores, but ones which perform better. A live example of Darwinism in business?
Looking back a bit further, Jack Welch’s infamous ’70-20-10’workforce philosophy at General Electric could be perceived as Darwinian in its approach (identifying and getting rid of the 10% of poorest performers in the organisation every year). And while it might have stretched the definition of ‘evolution’, it used simple performance metrics to allow the business to continually change and develop.
Incidentally, throughout the 1980s Welch had the nickname Neutron Jack, due to his ability to ‘eliminate’ employees while leaving buildings intact. I wonder if there was much of a whip-round when he left.
What about the good guys?
Thankfully, Biz Stone, co-founder of Twitter (no small success itself), has offered a welcome reminder that not every business culture has to be a challenging, disruptive one.
According to Stone, the gist of his recently-released book is that ‘you can be successful and also be nice at the same time’.
In contrast to his fellow dotcom success story Bezos, Stone says: “You don’t lose anything; you gain things. In my case, you gain notoriety, knowledge, friends. I decided one day that I was going to be nice all the time and see if that got me anywhere. And it was fantastic.”
Stone’s approach echoes that of Richard Branson, whose Virgin culture is as easy-going and collaborative as you might expect of a company that was born in the 70s, based on Mike Oldfield and Gong LPs.
In a recent advice piece, Branson said: “There are lots of ways to get your point across and make your business successful without being aggressive. Always remember that you love what you do and your role is to persuade others to love your business, too, and, therefore, to want to work with you.
“I hope we are successful at Virgin because we engage with everyone in a positive, inclusive manner rather than in an aggressive, combative or negative way.”
When it comes to individual performance, Branson’s approach couldn’t be further from what you might see at Amazon. He said: “If a member of your team is not performing as you expect, don’t write him or her off immediately. At Virgin if an employee is not doing well in one area, I feel that he or she should be given the opportunity to try out in a different Virgin job.”
Sure, it might seem a bit soft, but decades of successful business suggests Branson knows what he’s talking about.
What will you leave behind?
When asked what he’d like written on his gravestone, Biz Stone says: “Here lies @Biz. He tried to be a nice guy,” which would presumably be a very different answer from the one you’d get from Jeff Bezos.
Clearly, there’s room for both of these approaches – and indeed many more – in business, and I’m sure there are thousands of Bezos-wannabes who admire his approach and are keen to put it to use in the pursuit of similar success.
But in an era of increasing corporate transparency and demand for social responsibility – not to mention vocal ex-employees – perhaps it’s worth asking the CEOs of the future whether they’d prefer to accumulate profits or a positive legacy.
About the author
