In 2003, lecturers and students from the University of Plymouth conducted an experiment on the ‘infinite monkey’ theorem. They purchased a typewriter and supporting hardware for £2000.00 and placed it in a monkey enclosure at Paignton Zoo. Rather than producing the complete works of Shakespeare though, the Sulawesi crested macaques inflicted serious damage to the equipment and somehow mistook the typewriter for a lavatory of sorts. In fact, their output consisted mostly of the letter S; although, reportedly towards the end of the experiment, this widened to also include the letters A, J, L and M. But nothing approaching a legible word was ever produced, and the zoo’s Director of Science was later quoted as saying that the only benefit of the experiment was proving that the theory was deeply flawed. Now a casual onlooker would be forgiven for calling the experiment a waste of money or, even worse, nominating it for the Ig Nobel Prize. After all, despite the proselytising of physicists and mathematical types like myself, it would be hard to claim that the ‘infinite monkey’ theorem has found general acceptance with the wider public. By all indications, as far as most folk are concerned: good ole Bill Shakespeare was simply one of a kind; and, furthermore, monkeys do not produce literature—at least not fast enough to be witnessed in the lifetime of a single human. Taking a slightly wider context, individuals and their work are unique and that’s that. The intellect and passions that drive a Shakespeare or Descartes are unique to them, and cannot simply be replicated by an infinite number of keystrokes and a typewriter. No more than the work of an Isambard Kingdom Brunel can be replicated by a collection of pencils, paper, metal fittings, a crew of primates and an infinite amount of time. As someone of a scientific bent, I regret to say that empirical evidence forces me to appreciate (although not wholly accept) the view of the plebs on this particular topic. The same empirical evidence which I assume that various corporate peers are also privy to. This leads me to question why companies dependent on knowledge still operate on the theory of interchangeable human resources. In some ways, it almost appears as if those responsible for human resources have come to believe that the process of innovation has been standardised and can be manned by generic individuals. To paraphrase an old adage, if I had a penny for every time that I have been asked to replace a senior or experienced resource with ‘x’ number of juniors, or had to explain why certain members of my team command above company-average remuneration …. I cannot help but conclude that those asking the questions work on assumptions not far removed from the belief that typewriters and infinite keystrokes lead to great works of literature. This belief isn’t localised to specific companies or geographical locations but, instead, appears to be a worldwide cancer. Take for example, this HBR post by Bill Taylor in which he argues that the value attached to talented staff is overrated. He took particular exception to an article in which Mark Zuckerberg was quoted as expressing the opposite argument. I suspect that Mr. Zuckerberg’s views, and those of the likes of HCL CEO Vineet Nayar will find a warmer welcome amongst this blog’s readership than those of Mr. Taylor. For that reason, I will not bother trying to dispel some of the erroneous assertions in his article. However, my experience dictates that his point of view is one that is shared by ever more assertive budgetary and financial functions within companies. Leading me to wonder if the increased standardisation of processes across companies has been a double-edged sword. On the one hand, better processes have improved productivity; however, these same processes are often now considered in exclusion of the individuals that power them. One increasingly comes across people who hold tenaciously to the view that processes can be transposed and implemented with scant regard for the abilities of the individuals involved. Hence the ‘assembly-line’ view of innovation and creativity that has taken hold in many of today’s companies. Some of these same companies who are now no longer able to innovate internally and rely on acquiring smaller and more individualistic start-ups for new ideas. The lone wolves and renegades who drive change are being hunted to extinction in large corporations by those overly obsessed with the bottom line and incapable of seeing beyond the next financial reporting cycle. The manifestation of this is the replacement of highly effective and productive teams with ill-suited ‘identikit’ resources. Drops in productivity are often addressed by more stringent checks in processes, which inevitably also reduce productivity even further. Thereby creating a need to recruit even more of the ‘identikit’ resources in a bid to return productivity to acceptable levels. Hence we are witnessing an upward trend in the cost base of many companies, but a much slower increase in return on capital; and an even slower rate of innovation or, quite often, a complete lack thereof. One suspects that the solution to the problem would involve an approach to management that better recognises the roles played by individuals. This would however require a more long term approach to planning, which runs contrary to the short-termism which listed companies are forced into by financial reporting cycles. Java