Research Library
Monthly Research
& Market Commentary

Towards an Antifragile 21st Century Business

The amount of change in the world is exciting, but the combination of the level of innovation being generated by technology and the fierce competition of global markets means that we are seeing – and will inevitably continue to see – slip-ups. The recent issue with Samsung Note 7 batteries catching fire is a prime example. Even examples that seem to be about specific bad choices, like Volkswagen manipulating emissions test results, are driven by the immense pressure to innovate and compete. I worked for the venerable English merchant bank Barings in the early 1990s, and when it collapsed, largely due to the actions of Nick Leeson (the ‘Rogue Trader’), it was against a backdrop of tremendous pressure to perform. We can add examples of hackers actively looking to bring us to our knees.

Anti-fragile futre

‘Not-business-as-usual’ and ‘no slack in the system’ are increasingly prevalent in all business contexts

In the fascinating book Deals from Hell: M&A Lessons that Rise Above the Ashes, Robert Bruner cites studies of the common conditions that create real world disasters such as the Bhopal chemical plant leak, collapsed bridges and fatal Everest climbs. He argues that all of the conditions – such as ‘not-business-as-usual’ and ‘no slack in the system’ – are prevalent in M&A contexts. I would argue that they are increasingly prevalent in all business contexts. 

In the 1980s, three physicists, Bak, Tang and Wiesenfeld, introduced a concept they called Self-Organized Criticality. More specialized than the general statement that entropy is increasing, this concept implied that systems naturally evolve to the point that they are close to chaos – on the brink, standing at the edge of the precipice – where one small shove will bring the whole thing tumbling down. 

As businesses, what is our defence against self-organized criticality and the failure that almost certainly follows it? We might try to make our businesses robust: businesses that stand strong in the face of change. This has been a popular topic in the LEF research community recently, with my esteemed colleague Doug Neal contemplating how technology can help with robustness, reliability, incident response, etc.

The unusual and fascinating cross-disciplinary author Nassim Nicholas Taleb, perhaps best known for his book and meme The Black Swan, argues in his later book Antifragile: Things that Gain from Disorder that the opposite of fragility is not robustness but antifragility. Antifragile systems actually benefit from chaos, shocks and change. For example, we can (and Taleb does) argue that evolutionary biological systems actively benefit from shocks and change – the gene pool gets stronger (even if many individuals in that system do not). This is equivalent to Nietzsche’s assertion that “what does not kill me makes me stronger.”

Hence, arguably, the goal of 21st century businesses is not just to be robust in the face of unexpected and undesired shocks (the conventional risk management perspective), but to be antifragile – to get stronger from expected and unexpected change. And even if we can’t always be antifragile in an absolute sense, we can seek to be antifragile in a relative sense – improving our relative market position compared to competitors.

Getting better at three things:

What can we do to become antifragile? We would argue that getting better at three things helps: sensing, choosing and changing.

First, sensing. If we know what’s coming – both opportunity and threat – we simply have more runway to exploit it. This presupposes having the skills and knowledge to understand and evaluate what’s coming. Early evidence from the first 33 responses to our ‘21st century readiness’ survey show that technology sensing is the discipline most strongly correlated to overall 21st century readiness (a correlation of +0.76). Much of the LEF’s work to date, and in particular our two-day 21st Century Human Upgrade Programme, is explicitly aimed here.

Second, choosing. In times of stasis, the number of choices and the amount of VUCA (volatility, uncertainty, complexity, ambiguity) surrounding those choices is limited. In highly complex, chaotic times, the opposite is true. We have to continually make smart strategic choices, even in foggy conditions. ‘Meat and potatoes’ disciplines like value-based management, combined with more sophisticated overlays such as scenario planning and option valuation, can help us be more antifragile in the face of change. In the 21st century organization model, digital strategy, digital governance and the whole ‘value-centric leadership’ section are most relevant here. (Digital governance is, perhaps unsurprisingly, the discipline second most strongly correlated to overall 21st century readiness.)

Third, working on our ability to change is a powerful tool in the quest for antifragility. Underlying this are a whole host of disciplines, including those in the ‘adaptive execution’ section of our 21st century organization model – agile methodologies, collaboration, transparency and fluid organizational structures. But perhaps most important, especially viewed in the light of the examples mentioned earlier, is the ability to estimate change capacity.

Strive not just to be robust. Strive to be antifragile.

How much change can your business handle? Do you know? Do you have a means of finding out? If the answer to those questions is negative, there may be a problem. If you accept too little change as a business, and/or as an IT organization, you will get left behind by competitors/the market – which is a form of relative/absolute fragility. On the other hand, if you try to push through too much change, at best you will fail to reap the full value of that change; at worst, you will create chaos, vulnerability, demotivation, confusion, and/or failure. 

If we want to win in the 21st century, we must strive not just to be robust. We must strive to be antifragile.



Dinakar Rajasekaran 07.28AM 25 Sep 2017

A thought provoking article on how to bring a concept like "Antifragile" to mainstream and significantly benefit clients in addressing risks. Apply it as one of the qualities in technology solutions we design and build for our clients .The outcomes will be significant like lower risks,better tco, flexibility and reduced complexity tax . e.g Do you want your DR solution Robust or Antifragile ?

Dave Aron 12.21PM 25 Sep 2017

Strongly agree Dinakar. And I think specifically, the outcome of competitive advantage comes from true antifragility. Getting stronger under tough conditions when fragile competitors are damaged, and robust competitors are standing still.

Emilio Perez 17.13PM 26 Sep 2017

Great Read! Fully agree, businesses need to develop a lasting competitive advantage by evolving and continuously changing going beyond frameworks. I'm developing the concept of Frameworkless Agility which is about creating conditions for enabling Antifragility.

Dave Aron 16.32PM 16 Oct 2017

Great stuff Emilio. Good luck with your very worthwhile endeavour!

Dinakar Rajasekaran 08.23AM 16 Oct 2017

Recent security breaches@Equifax,SEC,Deloitte Is it time to replace with these new examples in this article? It is becoming more critical and apparent that we need to take antifragile as a key "pillar" for Business & Technology architecture of an organization .The impact seems to be too high if one does not "strive to be antifragile" by sensing, choosing and changing.

Dave Aron 16.35PM 16 Oct 2017

Dead on Dinakar. And I would add that of course it is not just security threats that antifragility helps with - also managing other forms of risk, including competitive.

dinakar.rajasekaran 09.28AM 20 Oct 2017

Absolutely agree Dave. I just grabbed from the recent headline news a bunch from security perspective. Antifragile is becoming more critical than robustness or resilience in the current chain of events and that might unfold in near and foreseeable future. It cuts across multiple facets for e.g. "outsourcing" of drug manufacturing “FDA Works to Prevent Global Drug Shortages from Damage to Puerto Rico Factories” Broadly, one can believe there are some big factors like Globalization, Outsourcing, Growing Interconnectedness / Boundary less information for which the tradeoff is fragility. The technology disruptions like AI, IOT, Cloud & Internet enabled through new algorithms etc. directly infuse these risks as well. It is imperative we embed antifragility as the core concept and channelize the attention of decision makers who I believe are looking towards making systems resilient or robust which is not very productive or feasible.


*{{ error }}
*{{ error }}
*{{ error }}
*{{ error }}
*{{ error }}
*{{ error }}


Research Commentary

PDF (202.2 KB)



21st Century
Adaptive Execution
Proactive, Haptic Sensing
Reimagining the Portfolio
Value Centric Leadership


The Counter-Industrial Revolution
19 Feb 2019 / By David Rimmer
How far along is the success of the Distributed Ledger and DApps?
23 Jan 2019 / By Krzysztof (Chris) Daniel
2019: The Year of Digital Decisions
15 Jan 2019 / By Richard Davies
Defending Digital
12 Dec 2018 / By David Moschella
Our Research Agenda 2019
30 Nov 2018 / By Simon Wardley, David Reid