21 jan Stop adapting to changes

The history of humanity is marked by moments of rupture and by individuals who, instead of waiting for circumstances to transform on their own, took the initiative to provoke change. This active stance resulted in innovations that altered the course of human development, from the invention of rudimentary tools to today’s most advanced technologies.

On the other hand, much is said about adapting to change as an essential skill in the contemporary world. Companies, schools, and consultants emphasize the importance of knowing how to deal with the unexpected in order to maintain competitiveness and relevance. But at what point can adaptation—necessary in crisis situations or in times of constant evolution—become nothing more than an act of complacency? If we’re caught by surprise and must change under duress, it shows a lack of anticipation—which, ultimately, can mean missing out on opportunities.

My proposal in this article is to discuss the contrast between adaptation and the creation of change, analyzing historical, psychological, and cultural aspects that lead an individual (or a society) to get ahead of events. It is said that a proactive stance is essential in a scenario of rapid transformations, because those who only react tend to lag behind, forced to hurriedly reshape themselves. Drawing from classical and contemporary examples, I will show how thinking and acting creatively can be the key not only to individual success, but also to changing paradigms on a large scale.

Those who wait don’t always achieve

It’s a cliché to say that the human being is an inventive animal. Precisely for this reason, the importance of this characteristic in the construction of our history cannot be underestimated. From the dawn of humankind, we needed to develop tools for hunting and for manipulating the environment, without which our survival would have been compromised. They did not find these tools on e-Bay; they had to invent them from scratch. That effort did not emerge from passivity in the face of need; on the contrary, it was the result of an active process of observation, experimentation, and innovation.

When humans felt cold, they did not wait for anoraks to fall from the sky. They observed other living beings, which seemed more resistant to the weather, and had the insight to use animal skins as protection. This simple idea—revolutionary at the time—allowed expansion into regions with harsher climates, increasing not only the chances of survival but also the possibility of developing new cultures and commercial exchanges.

This creative stance did not involve waiting for circumstances to settle; it was a conscious action of shaping the environment according to one’s own needs. The ability to alter nature and even to modify oneself—through learning and cultural adaptations—is a fundamental trait of what we call “humanity.”

The passive voice

Adaptation in itself should not be seen as something negative. It is natural and even healthy to adjust to new conditions, especially since today’s global transformations happen at an impressive pace. The Digital Revolution, for example, brings profound changes in how we work, study, and interact socially. Anyone who does not minimally adapt to these innovations inevitably ends up excluded from professional and social opportunities. There is nothing more anachronistic than using the phone as… a phone.

However, there’s a thin line between the ability to adapt and the act of simply passively accepting a set of unfavorable circumstances. In other words, when the only stance is to react after the problem has already arisen, there is a high risk of losing competitiveness, making late decisions, and undergoing unnecessary stress.

An example of passive adaptation with a delayed reaction is when an economic crisis occurs and many companies scramble to cut costs and adopt emergency measures. Had they prepared beforehand, with contingency reserves and diversification strategies, they would have much less need to chase losses. A soccer defender who waits for the striker to control the ball before challenging is just asking to be dribbled. The good defender is the one who anticipates the play. And there are many companies out there getting an absolute dribbling masterclass…

Thus, although adaptation is inevitable in certain scenarios, staying only in reactive mode can be interpreted as a form of complacency, in which one waits, almost fatalistically, for transformations to happen, and then does the bare minimum to survive.

Maintaining relevance

We live in a VUCA world (an acronym in English for Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity, Ambiguity), a term created by the U.S. Army at the end of the 1980s. In this context, acting proactively is not only advisable—it is crucial to remain relevant.

Volatility: Rapid and unpredictable changes demand a flexible mindset. Those who anticipate trends that may emerge in the future are better prepared to deal with current fluctuations.

Uncertainty: The lack of predictability in various sectors makes projections less reliable. Those who invest in market research, innovation, and the development of new products reduce their dependence on a static scenario.

Complexity: The multiplicity of interconnected factors (economic, social, technological) makes decision-making much more challenging. Creativity and innovation are powerful tools for untangling complex knots and proposing unexpected solutions.

Ambiguity: Ambiguous situations do not have easy answers. They require an experimental approach in which one tests, analyzes, and refines proposals until finding the best path. This process requires proactivity so as not to be paralyzed by the lack of clarity.

Therefore, proactivity acts as an antidote to mere late-stage adaptation. Those who anticipate trends and potential crises can shape the future and set the pace of change, instead of just following it.

People who changed the world

History is rich in examples of individuals and civilizations that thrived precisely because they sought solutions before being forced to act by the power of circumstances.

In agricultural civilizations, the domestication of plants and animals was not the result of passivity. It was the fruit of observations and experiments that led nomadic cultures to transform into sedentary communities, enabling the emergence of cities and more complex power structures. We could say that if these human groups had merely reacted to the changing seasons and animal migrations, they would never have developed agriculture.

During the Industrial Revolution, the advent of steam-powered machines and the mechanization of production processes radically changed the world. It’s undeniable that many of these innovations arose from real needs (increasing productivity, lack of specialized labor in certain sectors, etc.). However, inventors like James Watt (1736–1819), the Scottish mechanical and chemical engineer famous for decisively improving the steam engine, and Richard Arkwright (1732–1792), known as the “Father of the Factory System” and a pioneer in creating textile factories that employed hundreds of workers, establishing the model of large-scale manufacturing, did not merely react to demand; they invested time, money, and intelligence to create a new technological reality, opening markets that did not even exist. In the Second Industrial Revolution, we find examples like Thomas Edison and Henry Ford.

In the Digital Age, the pattern is the same. In recent years, technology companies—Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon—have stood out by creating products and services that consumers often didn’t even know they needed. The power of anticipation, in this case, has changed paradigms and shaped society irreversibly. Now, artificial intelligence has opened a new chapter in this saga. Who knows what could be the sequel?

Accidental innovation Is still innovation

It’s almost impossible to talk about innovation without mentioning chance or luck. Many celebrated stories of scientific discoveries and technological inventions involve some fortuitous element, like the apple that supposedly fell on Newton’s head, serving as a prompt for his theory of gravity. However, it is important to emphasize that even when chance is present, the attitude toward the opportunity is what makes the difference.

Newton himself didn’t formulate his laws of physics simply because a piece of fruit hit his head. There was extensive observation, study, and systematization that prepared him to understand the meaning of that incident. Otherwise, it could have been just one more story about someone who got knocked on the head.

Scientist Alexander Fleming noticed that a bacteria culture plate had been contaminated by fungi—an accident that, at first glance, would seem like a lab error. He observed that the bacteria around the fungus were dying and had the insight that he was witnessing a potent antibacterial substance. He was looking at what would later be known as penicillin, the most important drug in world history. Another scientist might have discarded the contaminated sample without further investigation. Other examples include the Post-it, the microwave oven, X-rays, Velcro, and even—thank goodness—Viagra.

These cases illustrate that the element of luck is often amplified by preparation and by a predisposition to insight. Intellectual proactivity (curiosity and willingness to investigate) is the key factor in turning an ordinary event into something revolutionary.

The works of Jobs

A recent example of someone who embodied this visionary spirit is Steve Jobs, Apple co-founder. Although there are criticisms of his leadership style and questions about whether he truly created or just ordered others to create, it’s undeniable that Jobs had a rare ability to foresee what people would want before they themselves realized it. He used to say, “People don’t know what they want until you show it to them.” It sounds a bit arrogant, but there’s some truth to it. Another titan of disruption—the anti-Semite Henry Ford, mentioned earlier—followed a similar line: “If I had asked my customers what they wanted, they would have said, ‘Faster carriages.’”

The smartphone revolution

Before the launch of the iPhone in 2007, the cellphone industry already existed and was highly competitive. However, Jobs spotted opportunities that went beyond just a simple phone: integrating music, internet, apps, GPS. He bet on a model featuring a touchscreen, practically without physical buttons, which is standard now but was a considerable risk at the time. He went against the usual advice that you shouldn’t start a business you have no experience in—like a beach inn, a restaurant, or a sex shop.

What makes this even more impressive is that he wasn’t up against amateurs. He took on traditional competitors that weren’t just recent cellphone manufacturers but rather century-old or decades-old telecommunications giants. Nokia, for instance, was founded in 1865. Motorola was founded in 1928. Ericsson in 1876, Siemens in 1847, and so on. These companies not only made cellphones, but were veterans in researching and developing telecommunications infrastructure. The shift to a touchscreen system, without a physical keyboard and with an ecosystem of apps, was a revolution that caught these players by surprise.

We also can’t forget another classic cringe-worthy moment: former Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer mocked the iPhone project, saying it would be “the most expensive phone in the world” and that it “wouldn’t appeal to the corporate market” for not having a physical keyboard. Today that guy is a billionaire, so he probably doesn’t care what people think. As Millôr Fernandes once said, “Money isn’t everything in life, but it allows you to be as unpleasant as you want.”

Well, I ended up straying from the topic. It’s just that any story with a lot of money involved distracts me and makes me lose focus. Let’s get back to the article.

An integrated ecosystem

The way Apple connected its devices (computers, smartphones, tablets, watches) also foreshadowed the trend of total synchronization, now adopted by many other tech companies. More than responding to the market, Apple created a market, establishing new consumption and interaction paradigms.

Perhaps the greatest lesson left by Jobs is precisely that in an environment of rapid changes, whoever leads the way enjoys competitive advantages and often becomes synonymous with innovation in the popular imagination.

Today Apple is not as disruptive as it once was, but it still lives partially off its reputation as a benchmark of disruptive innovation. I usually say that now it’s just Samsung with better design. Maybe I’m being picky, I don’t know.

Failing is bad but also good

A crucial point in the distinction between adaptation and creating change is understanding that innovation usually doesn’t spring from a single isolated “Eureka” moment. Generally, there is a continuous process of trial and error in which ideas are tested, discarded, or refined until arriving at something viable.

Thomas Edison is famous for saying that he hadn’t failed thousands of times before inventing the light bulb; he had simply discovered thousands of ways not to make it. This kind of persistence is typical of an innovative genius, who understands the importance of failure as part of the journey. Personally, I believe that in the creative process, we are never entirely wrong. Most of the time, we just don’t know how to get it right yet.

A classic case is WD-40, created in 1953 by Norm Larsen from the Rocket Chemical Company. The name is short for “Water Displacement, 40th formula”—in other words, it took 40 attempts to arrive at a mixture that worked effectively.

Corporate environments often punish mistakes severely, inhibiting creativity. Organizations that excel in innovation, on the other hand, tend to create experimental spaces where failure is part of the constructive process. Thus, the corporate culture needs to value proactivity and the willingness to take calculated risks, not just compliance with pre-established protocols and rules.

In short, proactivity means accepting that failing is part of the game and that each failure provides valuable information to adjust course—whether for a product, a project, or a life plan.

Dare to be prudent

Being at the forefront of innovation has its dangers. Many ideas fail spectacularly, creating financial losses and personal frustrations. Therefore, the courage to take risks is often associated with a good dose of prior analysis, risk management, and strategic planning. Simply acting on the urge to be different does not guarantee success; one must combine creativity with a solid understanding of market dynamics and people’s (still unmet) needs.

However, if we only copy what everyone else does, we will remain stuck in inertia. The question then is not to avoid risk but to know how to manage and mitigate it. This balance between boldness and caution is what separates successful innovation attempts from those that do not survive real market conditions.

Don’t adapt to changes. Create your own

Constant transformation is one of the few certainties in today’s world. In the face of it, we can adopt two stances: reactively adapting, waiting for circumstances to force us to change, or assuming the role of changemakers, proactively shaping the future.

The first approach guarantees, at best, temporary survival; the second allows not only survival but also thriving and positively influencing the course of history, whether personally or collectively.

Between complacency and proactivity, those who choose the latter show that they understand the main lesson of nature and human evolution: to move forward requires intentional action, not just waiting for something to literally fall from the sky. And even when it does—like Newton’s apple—it is the willingness to explore ideas and see beyond the obvious that makes all the difference. By the way, did you know that Apple’s first logo was an illustration of Newton under a tree holding an apple?

Amid increasingly rapid technological, social, and cultural revolutions, those who anticipate and lead change gain advantages, learn more, and, to some extent, construct the next stage of collective history. So the big question is: how far are we willing to go to stop being mere followers and assume the creative risk of thinking differently? If success is not guaranteed by anyone, neither is following the herd a sure path to extraordinary results. Ultimately, anyone who truly wants to make a difference needs to be prepared, at least once, to risk taking an unexplored path.

Of course it was a provocation

This article has a somewhat exaggerated bias, but that was intentional. In fact, I believe that adapting to change is one of the most important virtues of humanity. There is a phrase attributed to Charles Darwin—my man—that goes something like this: “It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who survive. It is those who adapt.” Adapting to circumstances and environments is what makes some species evolve while others get lost along the way.

Creativity, by the way, is our biological tool for adaptation. Thanks to it, we were able to accomplish everything mentioned in this article and much more. Unlike irrational animals, which can only adapt physically—a process that can take hundreds of thousands of years—we, Homo sapiens, manage to adapt by using the tools we invent. Everything around us is a tool for adaptation. Edison’s lightbulb is a tool. Fleming’s penicillin is a tool. The Post-it is a tool. Viagra is a tool, too. And the smartphone is a toolbox.

So whether you are active or reactive, the important thing is to be creative, be subversive, always question, and do things in an original way. As Steve Jobs (him again) used to say: “Think different.”