Session 1: Foundations of adaptation (variation, selection, retention)
Morgan, G. 2006. Images of Organization. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications [Chapter
3: Nature intervenes: Organizations as Organisms.]33-71
Organizations can be considered organisms, like living things. The human aspect is very
important to understand why and how companies change. Looking at organizations from a
biology perspective, the following principles arise: (1) Open systems, organizations are open
systems where internal and external influences exist, these open systems have multiple black
holes that all have their own role. (2) Homeostasis, self-regulation and the ability to stay
stable in environments. (3) (Negative) entropoly, closed systems have entropoly but open
systems create the ability to adapt. (4) Structure, think about differentiation and integration.
There is no right way to manage an organization to adapt. According to Mitzberg the
following structures exist: machine bureaucracy, divisionalized form, professional
bureaucracy, simple structure and adhocracy. They all react differently in different
environments. Successful organizations evolve appropriate structures to react to their
environment. Also called; the contingency theory. Organizations go to a variation -
selection - retention - modification process. Variations arise by cross-reproduction, then the
most competitive ones are selected, and these remain. This will be subject to random
midiciation.
Abatecola, G. (2014). Research in organizational evolution. What comes next? European
Management Journal, 32(3), 434-443.
Evolution in firms has been a hot topic in strategic management research. First it was thought
that it came from a similar process as biology, Darwin his approach, so slow but constant
change due to adaptation to environmental developments. Biological change comes from
three things: (1) the natural selection process,(2) an off-spring’s inheritance of its parental
genetic code (3) the random variations within the inherited genetic code. Also known as
deterministic, completely external. A later view argued that evolution came from proactive
choices firms’ behavior from internal forces. and was a choice made by management, known
as voluntaristic, strategic intent internal.. Only in the 90’s both views were conjectured as
dialectical. This was done under the coevolution flow where both the biological and
evolution thoughts. Coevolution always focuses on multilevel (micro, macro and meso).
Looking at adoption through differentiating between to subsequent stages of natural
competitive selection over a firm’s life cycle. In sum, considering organizational adaptation,
thus organizational evolution, is now seen as a combined (and different) mix of environmental
determinism and strategic choice.
Feldman, M. S., & Pentland, B. T. 2003. Reconceptualizing Organizational Routines as a
Source of Flexibility and Change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(1): 94121.
Organizational routines are a central feature of human organizations and an explanatory
mechanism in many of the most widely accepted theories. It has been hard to define
organizational routines as it consists of agency but does not involve human capacity only.
Therefore, it can be distinguished between the ostensive aspect and the performative aspect.
Where the ostensive aspect explains the actual steps of the process and because it is used
more often, the steps or the SOP. The performative aspect explains the agency, human
involvement, difference in execution and interpretation, specific time, place and person.
Whether ostensive causes performative or vice versa is still in discussion, but it’s assumed it
goes both ways. And they have a strong relationship. The ostensive part of the routine can
provide guiding (template), accounting (sense) and referring (story). Whereas the
performative aspect of the routine provides creation (repetition), maintenance (exercising)
, and modification (deviate). This way of looking at routines includes subjectivism, agency and
power as additional influences.
Burgelman, R. A. 1991. Intraorganizational Ecology of Strategy Making and Organizational
Adaptation: Theory and Field Research. Organization Science, 2(3): 239262
Strategic change and adaptation are important for survival. Whether the change is necessary
because of external forces or a strategic decision, indicates the process it goes through.
Induced and autonomous strategic processes are distinguished. They can both be applied in
incremental renewal as well as in discontinuous transformation. Induced means initiatives that
require internal structures and existing resources which are within the scope of the
organization’s current strategy and build on existing organizational learning. The induced
strategic process is intended to preserve the coupling of strategic initiatives at operational
levels with the organization's strategy through shaping managers' perceptions about which
types of initiatives are likely to be supported by the organization. Autonomous means
initiatives outside the scope of current strategy, looking for new resource combinations which
emerge outside of it and provide the potential for new organizational learning. Autonomous
initiatives often derive from new combinations of individual and organizational skills and
capabilities, and are often triggered by external events. Some managers choose autonomous
initiatives to show that they do not feel risk and are confident and they also explore and
extend boundaries. These internal selection processes are important for: inertia, adaptation,
reorientation and strategic renewal.
Morgan, G. 2006. Images of Organization. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications [Chapter
3: Nature intervenes: Organizations as Organisms.]33-71
Organizations can be considered organisms, like living things. The human aspect is very
important to understand why and how companies change. Looking at organizations from a
biology perspective, the following principles arise: (1) Open systems, organizations are open
systems where internal and external influences exist, these open systems have multiple black
holes that all have their own role. (2) Homeostasis, self-regulation and the ability to stay
stable in environments. (3) (Negative) entropoly, closed systems have entropoly but open
systems create the ability to adapt. (4) Structure, think about differentiation and integration.
There is no right way to manage an organization to adapt. According to Mitzberg the
following structures exist: machine bureaucracy, divisionalized form, professional
bureaucracy, simple structure and adhocracy. They all react differently in different
environments. Successful organizations evolve appropriate structures to react to their
environment. Also called; the contingency theory. Organizations go to a variation -
selection - retention - modification process. Variations arise by cross-reproduction, then the
most competitive ones are selected, and these remain. This will be subject to random
midiciation.
Abatecola, G. (2014). Research in organizational evolution. What comes next? European
Management Journal, 32(3), 434-443.
Evolution in firms has been a hot topic in strategic management research. First it was thought
that it came from a similar process as biology, Darwin his approach, so slow but constant
change due to adaptation to environmental developments. Biological change comes from
three things: (1) the natural selection process,(2) an off-spring’s inheritance of its parental
genetic code (3) the random variations within the inherited genetic code. Also known as
deterministic, completely external. A later view argued that evolution came from proactive
choices firms’ behavior from internal forces. and was a choice made by management, known
as voluntaristic, strategic intent internal.. Only in the 90’s both views were conjectured as
dialectical. This was done under the coevolution flow where both the biological and
evolution thoughts. Coevolution always focuses on multilevel (micro, macro and meso).
Looking at adoption through differentiating between to subsequent stages of natural
competitive selection over a firm’s life cycle. In sum, considering organizational adaptation,
thus organizational evolution, is now seen as a combined (and different) mix of environmental
determinism and strategic choice.
Feldman, M. S., & Pentland, B. T. 2003. Reconceptualizing Organizational Routines as a
Source of Flexibility and Change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(1): 94121.
Organizational routines are a central feature of human organizations and an explanatory
mechanism in many of the most widely accepted theories. It has been hard to define
organizational routines as it consists of agency but does not involve human capacity only.
Therefore, it can be distinguished between the ostensive aspect and the performative aspect.
Where the ostensive aspect explains the actual steps of the process and because it is used
more often, the steps or the SOP. The performative aspect explains the agency, human
involvement, difference in execution and interpretation, specific time, place and person.
Whether ostensive causes performative or vice versa is still in discussion, but it’s assumed it
goes both ways. And they have a strong relationship. The ostensive part of the routine can
provide guiding (template), accounting (sense) and referring (story). Whereas the
performative aspect of the routine provides creation (repetition), maintenance (exercising)
, and modification (deviate). This way of looking at routines includes subjectivism, agency and
power as additional influences.
Burgelman, R. A. 1991. Intraorganizational Ecology of Strategy Making and Organizational
Adaptation: Theory and Field Research. Organization Science, 2(3): 239262
Strategic change and adaptation are important for survival. Whether the change is necessary
because of external forces or a strategic decision, indicates the process it goes through.
Induced and autonomous strategic processes are distinguished. They can both be applied in
incremental renewal as well as in discontinuous transformation. Induced means initiatives that
require internal structures and existing resources which are within the scope of the
organization’s current strategy and build on existing organizational learning. The induced
strategic process is intended to preserve the coupling of strategic initiatives at operational
levels with the organization's strategy through shaping managers' perceptions about which
types of initiatives are likely to be supported by the organization. Autonomous means
initiatives outside the scope of current strategy, looking for new resource combinations which
emerge outside of it and provide the potential for new organizational learning. Autonomous
initiatives often derive from new combinations of individual and organizational skills and
capabilities, and are often triggered by external events. Some managers choose autonomous
initiatives to show that they do not feel risk and are confident and they also explore and
extend boundaries. These internal selection processes are important for: inertia, adaptation,
reorientation and strategic renewal.
