How Extremeophiles Thrive in Impossible Conditions:
Lessons for Business from Nature’s Super-Survivors
by Eileen Clegg
© 2002
Overview
Extremophiles are nature’s pioneers, organisms that not only survive but thrive in the harshest environments. Some live undersea in hot volcanic vents at temperatures above 200 degrees Fahrenheit, others in sub-zero Antarctic waters. There are extremophiles in saline waters where other life forms shrivel, and those living in acid where all other organisms instantly break down. They are thought to be the oldest form of life on Earth. Yet the scientific inquiry is fairly recent. The term “extremophile” – literally, “lover of extremes” – is less than 30 years old.
It is interesting timing that the secrets of these ancient super-survivors are beginning to be revealed at a time of socio-economic volatility when business strategists often look to the laws of nature for wisdom. Over the past decade, the Darwinian concept of evolutionary fitness has informed the push for organizational adaptation through diversification and innovation. At present, however, the economic climate is harsh for risk-taking and experimentation. A different biological model is called for and the extremophile is the one that demonstrates the ultimate evolutionary success in threatening times. What insights can be mined from these tiny organisms that defy the most ruthless assaults?
There is a growing understanding of the “survival kits” possessed by extremophiles. Some have protective membranes that inoculate against environmental assaults, others have “savior” proteins that are activated to rescue other proteins when the organism is in life-threatening danger, and still others are metabolic wonders that embark on a radical form of hibernation when external conditions are punishing.
Extremophiles are simple organisms; they are single-celled or in a filament of identical cells in alignment. Although their structure does not immediately appear analogous to a corporation or a country, their brilliant survival mechanisms raise questions how certain individuals or groups might rise to the fore (or should be brought into the organization) in threatening times, and how leaders can promote an “extremophile response” within their companies to fend off threats and thrive where others may succumb.
Human Counterparts of the Extremophile
Before investigating the mechanics of the extremophile for clues about organizational survival strategies, we can tune up our imaginations with an exercise in anthropomorphism by putting a human face on the extremophile. The people who come to mind are those who appear ordinary until crisis hits and they become heroes. Leaders including Winston Churchill or Rudolph Guiliani had shaky political careers in times of peace but made history with their valiant responses during world crisis. And there are the quiet, even timid people who find superhuman strength and courage to rescue others from danger or inspire the masses; for example Rosa Parks, the African American woman who refused to move to the back of an Alabama bus in the 1950s and sparked the Civil Rights movement.
As far as counterparts to the extremophile “filament” – those who align themselves and work expertly together in impossible circumstances – we can find the human faces in groups that share a certain type of training, character, and value system that have the will and ability to mobilize in life-threatening circumstances. We can think of the firefighters at the World Trade Center whose commitment and teamwork gave them superhuman strength – some who sacrificed their lives to save others, and others who defied overwhelming physical and psychological conditions in order to work hour after hour, day after day, week after week, month after month in the rubble. Our 21st century heroes are ordinary people who become extraordinary in extreme circumstances.
What are characteristics of "extremophile" organizations? Those would be companies that not only adapt but gain momentum – actually doing better than before – when faced with external circumstances that threaten their existence. Looking at trends over the past 20 years GE is one example of a business with a manufacturing base that could have been stressed to extinction in the emerging information economy but rallied by adapting to the new environment. As we look more closely at the mechanisms of extremophiles we will find corollaries in organizational systems that may provide a blueprint for how companies can induce an extremophile response.
The “Savior” Mechanism
For the moment, let’s maintain the image of those brave firefighters as we look at the “savior” mechanism possessed by some extremophiles. Living things are made up of proteins or enzymes that break down when the organism is exposed to extreme life-threatening conditions. Through the study of extremophiles, though, scientists have discovered that there are special proteins (also known as “molecular chaperones”) that are either manufactured or mobilized at times when conditions stress an organism almost to the point of death. “Thermophiles” – organisms that thrive in extremely high heat – are thought to have adapted because of “heat stress proteins,” which are molecules activated when the organism encounters various stresses. They go around repairing the other proteins so the cell can stay alive. More complex organisms also have heat shock proteins – even humans. It is possible that fevers in some way function to activate these savior-proteins to repair a body damaged by illness. Firefighters are the most obvious human counterpart. But who are the “chaperones” within other organizations? In businesses and communities? How do we find (and activate) the day-to-day counterparts of heat shock proteins to fend off threats from a hostile environment?
External threats seem pervasive as we close the second year of the 21st century. War and terrorism, an uncertain economy, violence in the youth culture, and dwindling natural resources are among the conditions that pose real threats to survival. Even people who are not directly affected are being stressed by the “fear of fear itself” (the famous Roosevelt phrase). Even if we find ourselves safe on the airplane, holding on to our jobs, with our children doing well, and electricity still flowing at the moment in California, there is still a sense of dread for many. The background murmur of anxiety thwarts mobility, innovation, trust, focus, risk-taking and other vital components of healthy society and business.
Within communities and businesses, of course, there are “extremophile” personality types who seem to thrive in difficult circumstances. Suddenly, they work faster, smarter and with increased focus. They may be people who seemed disconnected or floundering in ordinary times before threats appeared on the horizon. But in troubled times, some defense mechanism sets in to ratchet up their confidence and resolve. With “devil-may-care” or “just try and let them stop me” attitude, they achieve unexpected success and inspire others. On the other hand, there are people who are star performers when the environment is hospitable who suddenly find themselves rendered ineffective when external threats rock their stability. Often these people are vital to organizations – the ones who have been considered the most dependable and who are not likely to advertise their insecurities. In stressful times, businesses may miss opportunities by failing to recognize productivity loss from people who are ill adapted to threatening conditions. Similarly, they may not recognize or nurture the “extremophile” types who could be of most value. In response to economic threats, staff reorganizations, cuts and new hires are usually based on past performance rather than on an understanding of which people will guide the company to success in difficult times.
Looking again at GE which has demonstrated extreme sustainability over the past century, what can be learned from Jack Welch’s leadership during the last period of economic stress – when large hierarchical organizations suffered under their weight as small agile dot.coms temporarily appeared to be Darwinian winners? On the one hand he was ruthless in firing people who didn’t buy in to his plan of action. On the other hand, he attributed to his success to his high value on “the soft stuff” (his words). “It's all about people,” he told shareholders during his long good-bye. His approach was to lavish support on people he believed could carry GE’s success. His Crotinville, HR practices, and learning programs were state of the art. Perhaps human support services are the organizational counterparts of the savoir proteins.
Given the current environmental stress – threatening if not business survival at least business vitality – who are the organizational “healers” who can repair damage to others in extreme circumstances? This is a type of person or group that not only rises individually but is effective in helping others do the same. We have many models for the human counterpart of the molecular chaperone. At different points in history, European corporations brought in priests to help leadership address ethical issues during periods of war and social upheaval. Psychologists with expertise in trauma recovery were called to the World Center to assist the survivors and their families. Within current businesses, HR department typically have some form of “employee assistance center” that responds to requests for help from workers in crisis. To handle more routine challenges of the workplace, gifted mentors, assistants, and managers often function as catalysts helping others work together. Typically, however, these people work in response to requests. In the natural world, stressed components of the organism do not necessarily “know” they’re in trouble. There’s probably no biological counterpart of a 911 call by the proteins that need help, but the savoir proteins are activated and voluntarily go around repairing the damage to preserve the entire organism.
If indeed companies are stressed by the current social and economic environment, who or what should be working internally to repair internal mechanisms that may be breaking down? Often there are people who naturally operate this way – they are empathetic networkers with a natural concern for others and ability to encourage others to do their best through difficult times. Informally people help one another through tough times. But are there ways to activate a safety net that can strengthen the internal structure of an organization, checking for and repairing any damage that workers may not even recognize but that is diminishing productivity and innovation?
Achieving Equilibrium
Another intriguing survival mechanism of the extremophile is the ability to internalize components of the threatening environment, essentially inoculating itself against damage from it. For example, there are extremophiles that live in highly saline water that would instantly dehydrate other organisms. They have been found to possess molecules that tolerate very high salt concentrations. These molecules protect the water in the rest of the cell from absorbing salt. What are the aspects of the current environment that are threatening people and organizations? How can that be “brought in” to achieve equilibrium? There is general mistrust – of “different” looking passengers on airplanes, of new economy ideas some of which backfired in the past couple years, of technology that failed to deliver on its promises, of experimental business models, of fickle consumers, of the future workforce coming from generations whose ways are different than ours. Identifying the perceived threats is the first step toward invoking the extremophile inoculation. How to bring them in? Let them float around in the environment?
If the biggest danger in the current environment is “fear itself” – how can that be isolated and brought into organizations and transformed?
A starting point is to look at how the opposite of the extremophile’s equilibrium response would look in organizations. Some people, groups and businesses approach threats by pretending “everything is normal.” Despite the atmosphere of worry – as some people are seeing coworkers laid off, others are holding their breath every time they cross a bridge, and leaders are making long-distance conference calls instead of meeting in person seal business deals – there appears to be little direct discussion of the changes that have permeated daily life. Denial of the threat seems to be the opposite of the extremophile response. (“Dehydrated? Not me. I don’t think it’s too salty out there”).
So how would the inoculation response work? It would seem to involve identifying what’s getting in the way of healthy business, grabbing it by the collar, and dragging it in to the room. If businesses are threatened because of skittish customers, how can the most skittish of customers be turned into advisors? If workers’ productivity is suffering because of employment or safety fears, is there some way to have open conversations about economic and political uncertainties? If people are growing more suspicious of those who act or look different – because of their age, ethnicity, culture – is it time for some renewal of dialogue about diversity, updating it for the 21st century? Coming out of the dot.com crash, what are the leadership fears about new business models and how can they be overcome? If the threats to business are amorphous, are there ways to incorporate experimental business models so that organizations have a stronger immune system?
Radical Hibernation
A famous trick of nature is hibernation, which is evident in many species – bears being the most well known (which perhaps is a good analogy with the current market – bulls don’t hibernate). Some organisms hibernate in a radical way. For example, the embryos of brine shrimp can live for decades with no oxygen in the environment. They do this by bringing their metabolism to a virtual halt. They stay like this until the oxygen returns to the environment.
(There is scientific debate about whether or not these animal embryos are extremophiles, a term usually reserved for microbes. But this radical form of hibernation is an extremophile response that ranks brine shrimp embryos among nature’s super-survivors).
How is radical hibernation accomplished?
For bears, the message to the body to “slow down…slow way way down” comes from the brain. The hibernation is accomplished through special hormones that bring metabolism as low at it can go without killing the organism. These hormones travel throughout the organism zapping all the parts with the message and means to slow down.
In hibernation, organisms consume fewer nutrients, they do not reproduce, they produce little waste, they do not move by their own locomotion (though in the case of small organisms they may be blown or carried about). The organizational equivalent is to “wait out the storm” – slowing production to a minimum, radically reducing expenses, putting the breaks on plans to move or expand, setting aside planned changes until the environment becomes more hospitable. That assumes that previous conditions will return and that the slow-down will not kill any vital parts of the organization. What is the line between conservation of energy and dead in the water?
Neutralizing the Threat
A more assertive extremophile mechanism is simply neutralizing the threat from a hostile environment. Some organisms have adapted to extreme environments by creating internal conditions that prevent the external threats from having any effect. For example, polar fishes in the Antarctic and Arctic swim around in subzero temperatures because their bodies contain nature’s equivalent of anti-freeze: a highly concentrated mixture of antifreeze proteins as well as certain sugars and amino acids. What is the organization equivalent?
Again, naming the threat is the first order of the day; the next is figuring out what can neutralize it. The current inhospitable climate for humans involves fear, uncertainty, perceived lack of resources, social unrest, an unstable economy, and a general sense that the world is unsafe.
Using the “anti-freeze” analogy, internal mechanisms that could help an organization fend off threats from the current environment would be those that could “neutralize” fear and a general lack of stability and safety. What can counterbalance an atmosphere of uncertainty that causes productivity and innovation to “freeze” because so much energy is going into simply feeling comfortable in an uncomfortable world?
Some people have talked about experiencing a series of “small, good things” that have made them feel more comfortable at work – gestures that reassure them that the workplace is a refuge rather from – rather than extension of – a fearful world. These are things as simple as IT managers regularly reassuring people that they are cleaning up e-mail viruses, notices from the mailroom that efforts are underway to detect/prevent anthrax contamination, special attention to company rituals, regular updates on how the company is coping with uncertainty, projections about the future, suggestions for safe travel.
One of the characteristics of extremophiles is the stability of their internal structure. When moving through a punishing environment, what creates internal strength for organizations? The answer differs from company to company. Most have a sense of “business bedrock” that has carried them through past challenges. In uncertain times, harkening back to historic symbols and experiences can provide a stabilizing influence. Companies cannot expect top production from employees who feel threatened. Ideas, stamina, relationships all suffer when individuals are wasting energy worrying and trying to maintain a sense of control over influences beyond their control.
It may not be possible for companies to provide a real sense of security, especially amid layoffs and stock market plunges. But what bonds can be strengthened within the company to create an atmosphere of stability and safety as an antidote to a hostile environment?
Multiple Mechanisms
Natural law is clear then it comes to adaptation: whatever works. Evolution is ruthless. Success is defined only according to outcome – survival or extinction of the species.
Ask a biologist to translate this to organizational wisdom and the answer assuredly will come back containing the word “diversity.” Increase the number of strategies, and increase your odds of survival.
Extremophiles are the oldest living things on Earth and the organisms voted by biologists most likely to be found on other planets. Individually, their survival strategies are limited – each has a dramatic response attuned to a specific, extreme environment.
Do we know what environment we’re in? Are there ways to take dramatic steps to respond? Can different approaches be undertaken simultaneously? Is it worthwhile to risk embarking on a constellation of different, radical approaches – by different business units led perhaps by different types of “extremophile” managers?
The most daunting and intriguing characteristic of extremophiles is that their brilliant survival mechanisms do not kick in until the environment becomes so threatening that they almost die. Interestingly, they cannot survive in environments considered “normal” to other organisms.
Again the dot.com phenomenon presents an apt analogy. In the economic environment of the 1990s, the initial “bubble” of the information age, many small, simple, agile organizations thrived. It was difficult for large established organizations to find “nourishment” in this environment where the survival rules were different. Some regained their health by creating their own internal dot.com “extremophile” organizations that could go out and compete in the new environment, while slowing down in other areas. Those that quickly adapted with diverse mechanisms profited.
Like extremophiles taken out of a rarified environment and returned to the more normal conditions, many dot.coms died off when the “bubble burst” and they had to survive in a more traditional economic atmosphere where profitability and other factors returned to the mix. How was the atmosphere permanently changed over the past decade? Are there any lessons to be learned from the dot.coms that survived? From the experiments of large organizations that learned to adapt during that period? Some organizations thrived and some were damaged by plunging into harsh conditions. What lessons were learned by those adapted in the last phase – lessons that may apply as we face the new threats from the current environment?
We might find inspiration in what surely is an extremophile’s motto: “whatever doesn’t kill you makes you stronger.”
|
