To move to X you must work through adjacent possible spaces
Business literature is full of stories that portray massive leaps to a new future. It’s sexy and it sells because we desperately want instant solutions that bypass work.
If only these stories were true!
If you dissect these stories (try interviewing the business owner or project manager) you will find that no magic occurred but instead considerable trial and testing, and incremental successes that moved in a particular direction. This is simply the power of incremental changes over time – it’s compound interest applied to product or service development.
There’s another lesson from the history of innovation: most innovation comes by leveraging established ideas and practice in a new space, or applying new ideas to an established space.
Let me introduce you to a concept from theoretical biology and particle physics: Adjacent possibles.
We observe that organisms occupy a particular niche in an ecosystem. Although there are many potential niches in an ecosystem, organisms are only directly affected by the niches which are adjacent to them. From an evolutionary perspective, all the adaptive pressures are coming from these adjacent niches.
In physics terms, a particle has a particular energy state at a particular time. It can only go up or down one level in energy– the adjacent possible energy state. It can’t “jump” over adjacent possible states.
The rules of adjacent possibles are simple:
- I can only be in one possible state at a time.
- I can only move from where I am to an adjacent state; I can’t jump over adjacent states.
This is a great way to think about your team, your organization, your business, and all your projects!
Strong leaders find ways to get to the desired future state in practical steps, never losing sight of the desired direction and eventual goal.
The key question becomes “How do we take a step which moves to an adjacent possible state, and be positioned for the next adjacent possible state on our way towards a desired future?”
Another way to leverage this concept is to think about product or service improvement. “What exists in an adjacent state that we could apply to our current state?”
A fun exercise with your group is to explain the concept of adjacent possibles and then brainstorm ways to move to a new adjacent possible. You will find it becomes part of the language your group uses to describe your progress.
The final graphic of the grid shows “O” trying to get to “X.” A sample “prescribed path” is highlighted in gray with arrows pointing to the four adjacent possibles on this route from “O” to “X.”
Another route is shown in dotted curved lines, which seems to imply that “there are no shortcuts.” However, given the grid analogy, most astute observers would quickly see that the shortest route to “X” involved only two adjacent possibles: diagonal-right-up and then straight-up. This is essentially congruent with the dotted “you-can’t-do-this” path; yet it requires no skipping of steps on the way to “X.”
This leaves the gray four-step path with arrows looking inefficient. I mean, it even steps AWAY from “X” by making a step DOWNWARD. And then, why the sidestep to the right at the end, instead of just continuing the straight path upward?
This leaves the question as to whether this is really a good graphic analogy for the concept of adjacent possibles or incremental growth. While no analogy is perfect, I suggest that the grid analogy DOES work well for what it represents.
First, for the sake of ease in my thought process, let’s call the most direct route (diagonal-right-up, straight-up, diagonal-up to “X”) ROUTE A. Let’s call the gray four-step path ROUTE B.
While ROUTE A looks the most efficient, in real life, ROUTE A is not always possible. Often, as in ROUTE B, to get where we are going NEXT requires some un-doing or un-thinking. In a perfect world, every step we might take in a process is onward and upward. But the reality is that none of us can predict the future; nor can we control external changes, project members dropping out, availability of new and more efficient methods or technology, etc. And this often mandates a move to rethink, let go of bad strategy that would have roadblocked us later, invest in remaking established branding and identity, etc. — all of which can feel like a step BACKWARD, yet which are absolutely necessary before we can move forward in strength toward a goal.
So why the side-step at the end? Why not continue straight up, which seems more efficient in terms of distance? Again, bull-charging straight to a goal without consideration might get you there. But what next? The truth is that in a vibrant and growing system, “X” … is never the end goal. It’s only ever an INTERMEDIATE goal on the way to whatever comes NEXT. We have to keep this in mind and plan not only for the bright and shiny goal dangling close to us, but for what will be required as we move past that point and onward. Often, that is a side-step to gain more experience and training, seek out a new key team player, etc.
“Well, why can’t we go straight to ‘X’ and THEN get the training and the new member, etc.?” you may ask. Because time is linear. All opportunities are not available at all times. If we charge straight for “X,” we may MISS OUT on opportunities that would have been available if we’d been patient enough to side-step and take them when they presented themselves. Good people get hired by competitors. Free sources of information now charge.
I like to think back to the adventure/quest games of the 80s (e.g., “Raiders of the Lost Ark” from Atari or “Legend of Zelda” from NES). Sure, you could charge right straight through to the end of the game — but you’d still lose. Why? Because to successfully complete the quest required patience and knowledge, as well as taking strategic steps backward and around to collect key objects and spells necessary to get to the end game with the final combination you needed in order to win.
Great comments, Erik, and excellent insight about the circumstances that are only options at particular times. It is about an ongoing journey. I could extend your thought by pointing out that over time the X moved! (disruptive tech, changed business strategy, etc.).
I love how you included physics into this leadership post. Love your insight every time, Glenn. I especially love what you said here – “Strong leaders find ways to get to the desired future state in practical steps, never losing sight of the desired direction and eventual goal.”