Should a leader adapt or shape the environment?

Many studies have been conducted around the theme of the influence of environment to organizations. This paper tries to invert the perspective and see if organizations and their leaders should adapt to the environment or shape it in order to obtain better results.
We can take the dilemma between exploration and exploitation as starting point of the analysis: exploitation is closer to adaptation to the circumstances: it is based on existing skills, it does not involve risk and it produce stability. Exploration, on the other hand, can be associated with an intervention on the environment: there is no track to follow yet, people have to create it, to reach something new. Failure is a constant risk, but the success could be significant: it can bring a competitive advantage over rivals, obliged to follow.

Other companies are part of the environment and they affects actions and decision. They can bring different experiences and learning possibilities (as in the case of Amundsen with Eskimos), as well as rules and rigidity (as in the case of cartels). In the second situation, the possibilities for a leader to shape the environment are limited: he can decide not to be part of it, but there will be disadvantages for his profits. The environment includes much more than other firms: a considerable role is played by the geographical location, the different cultures, costumes, mentalities of people. Leaders must consider those factors and behave consequentially. Inside the organization, the world is still various: the culture is easier to change here than in the whole society, but it still depends on the level of flexibility and open-mindness of employees and managers, and on the styles used to handle the transition.

At least as important as the character of the team is the leader's personality. Tolerance, for example, is not a helpful feature in the process of modification of the environment. To implement this change, the leader should have an iron grip, a total dedication to his vision and sometimes he should stand to renounce to private life. High intrinsic motivation is required: if immediate profits are the goals, a more adaptive style is suggested. In fact, shaping the environment requires more resources in the short time, while it can produce benefits in the long term. This statement can found a confirmation in March (1991), who affirms that “Overabundant resources stimulate exploration”1. In the case, we can notice that Amundsen, who lack substantial financial resources, is successful in explore. Anyway, after a careful analysis, we can understand that his exploration does not involve changes in the environment: he revolutionizes diet, clothing, route and staff number, but he has to adapt to the hostile conditions of the South Pole.

A further distinction can originate by the origin of resources: external and borrowed funds can generate pressure and fear of failure. Adaptation is the most recurrent behaviour under this condition, even if brave leader could try to shape the setting. Saint Joan is an example: she tried to change the view of a society and carry her mission sustained by institutions, but they stopped to trust her at the first mistake: failure was not allowed.

The time frame is also a factor: both the establishment of routines and the process of change involve time. The only way to modify the environment quickly is trough a revolution, and, in this case, it is not shaped to fit the needs of the organization. It is just different. If we want a bigger room, we cannot just throw a bomb in the house to pull down one wall: the whole house will be destroyed. To reach our goal, we need careful planning and effort. We need to check that the wall is not load-bearing and then use a mallet, little by little. When the wall is no more there, the process is not over yet: we still have to clean and the rearrange the furniture to fit the new context.

The previous example shows well that shaping the environment: is sometimes almost impossible and adaptation is the only solution; is struggling, so it demands motivation; requires resources and competencies; causes more difficulties for people with certain character (i.e. too fond of decorations on that wall); produce long-term benefits.

In conclusion, if the conditions above matches the structure and the wishes of the company, shaping the environment is the best choice.

1 March, J.G and Weil, T. (2005). On leadership, Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub. ISBN 1405132477