# 158: Free Radicals
Story behind the Passage
Today in a business meeting someone summarized my input as that of a “free radical.” I spontaneously agreed and could not have done a better job at boiling it down to the basics. This is what I love about the collaboration between structured business people and unstructured free radicals: we complement each other. It is not just that I personally love this, this actually creates value. But it is not something that is self-evident. To the contrary, you can usually only practice this kind of sparring partnership with people who are very much settled in their own identity and who have a high degree of tolerance when it comes to thematic diversity and whose brains are able to follow all this.
If these criteria are met, the fun can happen.
This is indeed what happened today. I mostly experienced our conversation as fun but I would have loved to talk longer because there were so many things that I did not learn yet but would have liked to hear more about. Still, the most important learning for me was exactly what I heard about the free radical. This is not a completey new or surprising learning but really such a nice metaphor. Only my best friend once used the term “free-floating atom” which I also liked; having worked with physicists for quite a while. But there was one problem: Yes, I spontaneously agreed on the concept. However, I had no idea what it actually meant — at least beyond the metaphor. I mean, if there is one field that I am really not knowledgeable about, it is chemistry.
Now you know why I had to look up a paper on this today to find out about the definition. As you can see below, there are so many things you can learn about free radicals that I could immediately start a new research project on the analogy between free radicals and business/life. Since this is not possible in one blog entry, my usual short reflection will have to suffice. What I really liked about the fact that one of the conversation partners came up with the idea was that it signaled trust. It actually reflected the atmosphere of the conversation we had had. It was open and honest (for the most part, at least between him and myself). And throwing in such a metaphor is also very honest given that we had never talked before. So, I really liked that.
The question is: Will I still like that after taking a closer look at the passage above?
My Learnings
“A free radical can be defined as any molecular species capable of independent existence that contains an unpaired electron in an atomic orbital.” This is so me, I can hardly believe it! Yes, “capable of independent existence” is probably the best way of describing an artist-scholar-entrepreneur. Or is it just another way of saying that someone is incapable of teamwork, anti-social, and chaotic? No! Let us interpret it in a positive way, right? No negative thought patterns here. So, the fact that the free radical “contains an unpaired electron” probably keeps it in motion. I know, physicists and chemists will laugh their butts off when reading this simple and entirely uninformed speculation (they will probably not read it anyways) but that is my assumption. If something is “unpaired” so far, that means it might still be looking for the right match. As long as it does that, it keeps moving.
Makes sense, right?
“Many radicals are unstable and highly reactive.” Oh, goodness, I already regret I have started this metaphorical reading. Again, the definition is right to the point. If there is one thing I can definitely NOT claim to be, it is: stable. Well, but only in some ways, of course. An “unstable” radical like me is one that wants to create impact and therefore keeps changing perspectives and mobile. It is therefore “highly reactive” when it comes to responding to outside events. When it comes to other aspects, like staying true to its own orbit and other atoms in this orbit, the free radical is very stable. In addition, free radicals are very stable when it comes to social bonds. As you can read in the sentence that follows the one above:
They can either donate an electron to or accept an electron from other molecules, therefore behaving as oxidants or reductants.
Is that not so beautiful and open-minded? They are completely open to giving and taking (that reminds me of Adam Grant’s book: Give and Take). Even though I have no idea what exactly “oxidants” and “reductants” are in the language of chemistry, I am quite happy about the fact that free radicals are not just takers and not just donors of electrons. They must choose wisely, I guess, what is the right thing at the right time.
There is still something coming, however, now we are really getting to the point.
“Free radicals attack important macromolecules leading to cell damage and homeostatic disruption.” Geeeee, that is a statement, right! Imagine these cool free radicals how they “attack” the big guys, the “macromolecules.” I mean, if there is one thing I do remember is that molecules are already bigger than just atoms because they stick together. But now, we are talking about the biggest among the big ones, right, the MACROmolecules. Free radicals obviously have the power to attack them — no, even disrupt them (here it is again, that by now famous word that I have written about already in different instances.)
The only downside is that, as the sentence reveals, that disruption is not necessarily a good thing, I guess. I mean, if you cause cell damage, I cannot believe that this is really a positive disruption. But let us hold on to the positive perspective and ask: Is disruption not always a good thing in the end because it leads to the creation of something new? That is what we are seeing in the market. Established businesses get disrupted from the sides and a new type of economy emerges. I am not saying that the new companies that grow this way are “better” or “worse” than the ones that might have been destroyed by them. But somehow, nature wanted it to happen this way.
Nobody can protect the entire orbit from the impact of free radicals, I guess…
The only question that I am left with now is: Is there a right or wrong orbit for the free radical? Are there orbits in which that destruction tends to have more positive, i.e., productive, consequences, or more negative ones? And if so: How do you find it? Are there maybe orbits in which there are more attractive electrons floating around that stick more easily to the free radical? Are there orbits where the poor free radical does not find any fitting electrons and therefore keeps donating up to a point where it destroys itself?
I am pretty sure, most of these answers can also be found in the remainder of the article. And they can probably be found in the person that came up with this nice metaphor today. As far as I am concerned, I am now a bit more informed about the power but also danger of free radicals. As everything in life, this seems to be a matter of balance. An organism without any free radicals does not exist, I suppose, at least no human organism. Therefore, free radicals need to have a function. Nothing in nature was created for no purpose. But if there are too many flying around, that is destructive, I guess.
There is one situation, however, in which free radicals for sure can create maximum impact: i.e., in times of crisis, when nobody sees any solution to a given problem and when — that is even more troublesome — nobody has any hope anymore that the situation can be rescued. This is when free atoms can really unfold their potential. In this kind of crisis orbit, the free radical cannot crate more “damage” because all the damage has been done already. But the the free radical then has the potential to attract and absorb all the electrons that might be causing the crisis and help find a new order in the orbit. In other words: crisis mediation and chaos managmeent form the natural habitat for free radicals, this is where they feel at home and where their “nature” can create maximum value.
So, I am happy that this metaphor has triggered this reflection in me. I was not aware of this before, at least not that clearly. Yes, people have often signaled to me that crisis management is a field in which they see me. But I never really followed up on it. What really raised my interest in the topic was one real case in an organization which I simply happened to be part of. In these two days of crisis mediation, I really felt flow because I could unfold all my free radical power. The same happens, to a lesser degree, when you coach individuals who are in crisis situations. In all these cases, the free radical cannot do any harm, it can only do good — to a degree that hardly anybody else can. Since free radicals are used to chaos, ambivalence, and constant movement, they have the ability to see solutions in seemingly desperate situations. This is not only fun, it brings fulfilment, the kind of fulfilment that you feel when you see that you are really helping people by reducing their stress level.
Talking about stress: Let us see how much stress my conversation partner felt today. All these are just my thoughts now; the thoughts of the free radical. I am curious to see which kind of orbit he comes from and whether he thinks that free radicals can do more good than harm.
Reflection Question
1) What do you associate with individuals who are considered or call themselves “free radicals”?
2) Do you think that disruption, defined as damage done to existing systems, can also do good? Which examples do you see in society and/or business?
3) Was there ever a case when you found a new job or role that you had never thought about before because someone else told he what he saw in you? Who was that or can you be this person for others?