Journal on Policy and Complex Systems
Behavioral Flexibility versus Consistency
Behavioral flexibility , defined simply as the ability of an actor to change
strategies , is generally a useful characteristic of actors in biological , ecological , and social systems . As discussed , flexibility is “ adaptability ” when we consider it in light of environmental changes , including exogenous ones and those brought about because of the behavioral changes of other actors in a system . Flexibility refers strictly to the change itself stripped of the context of the exogenous and endogenous environment . Finally , flexibility refers both to having more actions / strategies to switch to and the cost of switching .
To give just a very cursory overview of several vast literatures , work in biology has shown that there are species that are able to perform diverse sets of behavior outperform species with only one strategy . This has been demonstrated in the domains of the search both for mates and for food ( Bijlsma , Bundgaard , & Boerema , 2000 ; Lande & Shannon , 1996 ; Rossmanith , Grimm , Blaum , & Jeltsch , 2006 ). Behavioral flexibility does not just arise in a vacuum : researchers have also found that the heterogeneity of species ’ habitats correlates with positively with more diversity in populations . Just to give a few examples : this has been observed in crickets , butterflies , fruit flies , among others ( Ehrlich & Murphy , 1987 ; Kindvall , 1996 ; Piha , Luoto , Piha , & Merila , 2006 ; Weiss et al ., 1988 ).
One of the most prominent works on the subject of flexibility and adaptability in social systems is James March ’ s 1991 paper , “ Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning .” March ( 1991 ) shows that some balance between exploration ( trying new behaviors or looking for new solutions ) and exploitation ( imitating existing strategies ) is important for the success of firms . This is because exploration is risky . It does not always yield improved performance — in fact , explorers may fail miserably . However , some exploration is desirable because it could lead to the discovery of improved strategies . Exploitation is less risky , but comes at the cost of never discovering a better strategy or adapting to changed circumstances .
This tradeoff holds for individuals and firms , as well as systems themselves . Thought leaders in institutional analysis ( Hayek , 1945 ; North , 2005 ) also emphasize that while institutional stability is desirable , there is no guarantee that a particular institution will produce growth over time ( North , 2005 , p . 363 ); thus , institutions ought also to be capable of and act on some degree of flexibility in order to be successful in the dynamic environments — social and external — in which they operate . It is thus not controversial to argue that firms , governments , universities , and other organizations would all do well to undertake measures to be institutionally flexible and encourage flexible behavior by agents within the organization .
Nevertheless , when should they be flexible , and how flexible should they be ? Should they be flexible only in the face of environmental change ? Should they be as flexible as the environment is variable or turbulent ? If the diversity of strategies
118