The constant refrain of the 21st century is that we as individuals must continually adapt in order to thrive in the new century. While it would be wonderful if individuals were able to adapt at the flip of a switch, the reality is much more complicated than that.
Not only are individuals inherently non-adaptable due to biological considerations but we have built social and economic structures that reinforce conformity and discourage adaptability. From the biological perspective, individuals are inherently non-adaptable due to our flight or fight response that over human evolution has protected us from physical harm but has also made us resistance to change.
From a social and economic structure perspective, we as humans have built up our current society based on conformity rather than adaptability. Rules and regulations are designed to ensure not only compliance but conformity as well.
There are many who would argue that the role of society and the role of government is to ensure compliance. Indeed, government institutions around the globe have been setup to ensure compliance of individuals to so called social norms. From a high level perspective, the need for compliance isn’t such a bad thing as it establishes a common framework and understanding of which individuals can rely on to form the basis of their daily interactions with other individuals.
Unfortunately, though, the technological change that we have seen over the past number of decades is fundamentally causing a rethink of the underpinnings of the social framework. In many respects, it is not surprising as there has always been tension in terms of those who believe in the existing framework and those who continue to push the boundaries of said framework.
Why is this coming to a head now? Quite simply the old frameworks are coming under pressure from forces that yearn for greater freedom and individuality as they have always done in the past. Indeed, if you look at history there seems to be an interesting trend where we as a human civilization yearn for greater independence and autonomy. One only has to look at the decline of emperors and kings and queens to more devolved forms of governance such as constitutional monarchies and full fledged democracies. It is not to say that the trend has been on a constant devolution trajectory as we’ve seen recently but the signs are there.
How does this continual devolution of governance play out when it comes to individual behavior? In many respects, it is forcing a fundamental rethink of the responsibilities of individuals and their interactions with overall society. We are fundamentally at a tipping point where individuals have the ability to drive their own behavior without the need of others at a greater point in our history than ever before. And for many individuals that scares them immensely.
In innovation centers around the globe, one can argue that there are greater preponderance of individuals who are more flexible and adaptable than the general population. In many respects, it is not surprising as startups and their basic fundamental operating principles breed a requirement for flexibility and adaptability. Who in the startup community hasn’t heard of a startup having to pivot their concept due to the fact that it is not getting sufficient traction in the marketplace and investors were getting anxious. While that self drive and motivation is naturally predisposed in startup founders, the reality is that it is (a) not representative of society as a whole and (b) of all startup founders as well. Just like any ecosystem there are multiple levels that are required in order to have an efficiently functional ecosystem to work and human civilization is also in the same boat.
Indeed, the inevitable push back that should have been expected and anticipated is occurring around the globe across the political, economic and social systems. The rise in populism has forced individuals who advocate continual rapid advancement and change to address the increasing numbers of individuals who have been left behind by the changes in society.
There are many that would argue that this is a normal response as human civilization develops and grows, where we bounce from one extreme to another before we find an equilibrium that works for a short time before the cycle continues again. The chaos wrought by these transitions between polar opposites is not only damaging for society but individuals themselves that have to live through the chaotic transition.
It is this chaotic transition while useful in many respects is also damaging considering the fact that most individuals are ill prepared for these transitions. A combination of the majority’s natural human preference for routine and the systems that human civilization reinforce the desire and need for conformity and routine has made individuals lacking in ability or natural inclination to adapt to change.
This lack of ability to change is fundamentally creating the tension and friction that we are seeing on a global scale. With that being said, there are many in the startup community that would wonder why this is of concern to them. Simply put it is a critical imperative for startups to ensure that individuals and groups of individuals are comfortable with change. Without that desire and thirst for change, startups would wither and die.
The desire and willingness to try new and different things are what makes the “estimates” concerning startup market size turn from fantasy to reality. Indeed, one could argue that the entire consumer economy is driven on the willingness of people to try different things however over-hyped it maybe. But for every over-hyped product and service that is merely a copy of something that was done in the past, there are other startups that are truly doing innovative and unique things that have the ability to revolutionize our society for the better.
If individual willingness to change and adapt is a fundamental requirement for startups to succeed and thrive, why do we not do more to encourage it and support it? There are a number of reasons but the fundamental flaw that we are seeing in today’s society is the inability to transition from a rigid widget based approach to viewing humans to one that acknowledges that we are all individuals with a vastly infinite number of viewpoints and thoughts that should be encouraged.
How do we encourage individuality while maintaining social cohesion? That’s a discussion for another article. 🙂
Leave a Reply