Week 1 - The Foundations of Adaptation
● To understand the foundations and the process of adaptation
● To explore similarities and differences between biological and organizational
evolution
● To understand how routines influence adaptation
● To understand (broadly) how firms may strategize for adaptation
Black swans - unlikely events with big impact vs predicted events with little impact
1. Morgan, G (2006): Organizations as organisms (Chapter 3 - Nature intervenes)
● Just like organisms, organizations depend on their environment to grow and survive. They
are made up of different parts that work together.
● Organizations must adapt to changes in their environment to stay alive. If they don’t, they
can fail.
● Organizations, like living organisms, can change and evolve by adjusting to both internal and
external pressures.
● Using metaphors , applying this to a more complicated system (organisations) helps us
understand
○ organizations as organisms helps us understands open system
○ The system is in close fit with the environment
○ Is environment does not work they will not get the resources
● Adapt and succeed?
○ Not every organization can adapt (inertia, path dependance, unwilling, unable)
○ Not every adaptation is successful (change on its own is not enough)
Key Theories
● Sociotechnical Systems: A balance is needed between the technical and human aspects of
work. Both should be considered for effective management.
● Homeostasis: Organizations need balance, like organisms, to keep things running smoothly.
● Entropy: Like closed systems, organizations that don’t adapt will break down over time.
● Contingency Theory: There’s no single way to organize. The structure should fit the task
and environment.
○ It all depends…
● Lawrence and Lorsch: Different departments in an organization might need different ways
of working based on their unique sub-environments.
● Five Types of Organizations (Mintzberg’s Theory):
○ Machine Bureaucracy: Works in stable environments.
○ Divisionalized Form: Works for large organizations with different divisions.
○ Professional Bureaucracy: Works for skilled professionals who need autonomy.
○ Simple Structure: Works for small teams in unstable environments.
○ Adhocracy: Works for project-based, creative work.
Ecology and Survival
,● Organizations and Their Environment: Organizations don’t exist alone; they interact with
and depend on their environment.
● Population-Ecology: Organizations need to acquire resources from their environment to
survive, just like organisms need resources to stay alive.
Strengths of the Organismic View:
● Focuses on the relationship between organizations and their environment.
● Encourages meeting employees' needs to improve the organization's survival.
● Highlights that different types of organizations are suited to different environments.
● Supports flexible, innovative structures to adapt to changes.
Weaknesses of the Organismic View:
● Metaphors are good, but also a way of not seeing something. Organizations as organisms
leave out:
● Too much emphasis on harmony and balance, too less on conflict and politics
● Non-material inputs (e.g. vision, norms)
● Strategic choice
● Organizations are not as neatly organized as organisms
● Leaves out the social part
● The idea of "only the fittest survive" can be too extreme.
● It oversimplifies the complexity of organizational life.
● Metaphors are good, but also a way of not seeing something. Organizations as organisms
leave out:
○ It doesn't include social factors (behavior, etc) - the human part
○ Designed to be ‘stable’ where organisations are instable
2. Abatecola, G. 2014. Research in organizational evolution. What comes next?
● Summarizes the evolutionary approaches ;
○ Determinism: Change is affected by the environment (external) - beyond their
control, market decides
○ Voluntarism: Change is the result of choice company makes, their strategy (internal)
- more control, companies can shape their adaptation through their internal actions
and strategies
● Organizational evolution has been deeply influenced by biological analises. biological
metaphors are used to understand how organizations interact with their external environments.
○ Darwin as a touch-stone
○ Especially their view on evolution as a continuous, slow process of change both
within as between species - driven by natural selection
○ Variation - Selection - Retention
● Organisational Evolution more precisely: changes that are essential for an organization to
survive, and the need adapt to the environment to stay competitive.
○ Change drive by external pressures
○ A major question is whether organizational evolution is mainly driven by the
environment (external forces) or by the organization itself (internal forces).
,Distinction of Organizational Evolution approaches into Evolutionary and Adaptive:
● Evolutionary Theories:
○ Directly apply the Darwin framework - Organizational evolution is compared to
biological evolution.
○ E.g. population ecology
○ Variation -> Selection -> Retention
■ Variation: the options that we have to respond to change. Different types of
organizations being founded
● Different strategic initiatives that may challenge existing norms.
● If you’re options are limited, then the selections can not be great as
well. (you don’t have a lot of options so you won’t select a good
idea)
● In Voluntarism selection is internally (internal selection), in
determinism selection is external
■ Selection is the internal process of choosing which strategies to keep based
on their alignment with organizational goals.
● The traits that are prefered
■ Retention ensures the survival of successful strategies and best practices
by institutionalizing them.
● The surviving organisations traits are passed on - the underlying
successful geno-type persisting
○ The focus is on understanding the relationship between organizations and their
environments through adaptation and survival.
■ Theories focus on overall trends in business landscape, the rise and fall of
organizations - comparing
■ Birth and death rates of similar organizations over time, through this
darwinian lense
○ Evolutionary approaches are linked to competition and adaptation for survival.
● Adaptive Approaches:
○ Still based on the idea of adapting to the environment to survive, but don’t necessarily
map every single element of darwinian evolution (like evolutionary approach)
■ Adaptive approaches Are more generally inspired by evolution theories, more
focus on general processes.
○ More on understanding the adaptation process by which individual firm fits within
surroundings
○ This approach emphasizes the role of adaptation, where organizations change in
response to their environment.
○ The research has evolved into understanding the balance between external pressures
and internal decisions in shaping organizational evolution.
● Dialectical and Co-evolutionary Approaches:
○ These approaches integrate multiple levels of analysis (individual, group,
organization, industry, and society).
○ The co-evolutionary approach explains how organizations and their environments
evolve together through reciprocal feedback.
, ● Co-evolution is a dynamic process involving strategic actions by organizations (internal)
and external pressures.
○ Companies adapt together; influencing each other in a continuous loop
○ Combines Determinism and voluntarism: you should combine, they go hand-in-hand
● Macro-co-evolution: The relationship between organizations and their external environment.
● Micro-co-evolution: The internal dynamics within organizations, such as capabilities and
resources.
● The multi-level approach is crucial for understanding how different levels influence each
other.
Emerging Trends:
● There has been growing interest in co-evolutionary research, especially in understanding
phenomena like strategic entrepreneurship, internationalization, and competitive advantage.
● The complexity of the global environment suggests that multi-level co-evolution is an
important direction for future research.
Future Directions:
● Further development is needed in refining co-evolutionary methods and theories.
● A balance between quantitative and qualitative research methods is essential to improve
understanding.
● Future studies should focus on how different organizational types adapt to their environments
and how this shapes their evolutionary path.
3. Feldman & Pentland (2003). Reconceptualizing Organizational Routines as a Source of
Flexibility and Change
● Organizational Routines: Repetitive, recognizable patterns of interdependent actions
involving multiple actors.
○ Routines are central for organizational change
○ Routines are the may ways organizations achieve what they do
○ They are developed through time
○ Routines can be a source of inertia: changing routines that are developed through
years is very difficult
■ Once a routine is in place, it can be hard to replace it
■ Routines provide stability, therefore inertia when changing
● Routines are not static; they are both a source of stability and change.
● Ostensive vs. Performative: The framework distinguishes between the "ostensive" (abstract
structure) and "performative" (actual actions) aspects of routines.
○ Ostensive: The conceptual, structured representation of a routine. Abstract; idea
how it should happen
■ Shared understanding of how a routine should happen
● Isn’t necessarily uniform; different individuals hold different ideas;
multiple perspective on what a routine entails
■ Providing a framework for understanding the performative aspect
■ SOP’s, how you’re doing this
● To understand the foundations and the process of adaptation
● To explore similarities and differences between biological and organizational
evolution
● To understand how routines influence adaptation
● To understand (broadly) how firms may strategize for adaptation
Black swans - unlikely events with big impact vs predicted events with little impact
1. Morgan, G (2006): Organizations as organisms (Chapter 3 - Nature intervenes)
● Just like organisms, organizations depend on their environment to grow and survive. They
are made up of different parts that work together.
● Organizations must adapt to changes in their environment to stay alive. If they don’t, they
can fail.
● Organizations, like living organisms, can change and evolve by adjusting to both internal and
external pressures.
● Using metaphors , applying this to a more complicated system (organisations) helps us
understand
○ organizations as organisms helps us understands open system
○ The system is in close fit with the environment
○ Is environment does not work they will not get the resources
● Adapt and succeed?
○ Not every organization can adapt (inertia, path dependance, unwilling, unable)
○ Not every adaptation is successful (change on its own is not enough)
Key Theories
● Sociotechnical Systems: A balance is needed between the technical and human aspects of
work. Both should be considered for effective management.
● Homeostasis: Organizations need balance, like organisms, to keep things running smoothly.
● Entropy: Like closed systems, organizations that don’t adapt will break down over time.
● Contingency Theory: There’s no single way to organize. The structure should fit the task
and environment.
○ It all depends…
● Lawrence and Lorsch: Different departments in an organization might need different ways
of working based on their unique sub-environments.
● Five Types of Organizations (Mintzberg’s Theory):
○ Machine Bureaucracy: Works in stable environments.
○ Divisionalized Form: Works for large organizations with different divisions.
○ Professional Bureaucracy: Works for skilled professionals who need autonomy.
○ Simple Structure: Works for small teams in unstable environments.
○ Adhocracy: Works for project-based, creative work.
Ecology and Survival
,● Organizations and Their Environment: Organizations don’t exist alone; they interact with
and depend on their environment.
● Population-Ecology: Organizations need to acquire resources from their environment to
survive, just like organisms need resources to stay alive.
Strengths of the Organismic View:
● Focuses on the relationship between organizations and their environment.
● Encourages meeting employees' needs to improve the organization's survival.
● Highlights that different types of organizations are suited to different environments.
● Supports flexible, innovative structures to adapt to changes.
Weaknesses of the Organismic View:
● Metaphors are good, but also a way of not seeing something. Organizations as organisms
leave out:
● Too much emphasis on harmony and balance, too less on conflict and politics
● Non-material inputs (e.g. vision, norms)
● Strategic choice
● Organizations are not as neatly organized as organisms
● Leaves out the social part
● The idea of "only the fittest survive" can be too extreme.
● It oversimplifies the complexity of organizational life.
● Metaphors are good, but also a way of not seeing something. Organizations as organisms
leave out:
○ It doesn't include social factors (behavior, etc) - the human part
○ Designed to be ‘stable’ where organisations are instable
2. Abatecola, G. 2014. Research in organizational evolution. What comes next?
● Summarizes the evolutionary approaches ;
○ Determinism: Change is affected by the environment (external) - beyond their
control, market decides
○ Voluntarism: Change is the result of choice company makes, their strategy (internal)
- more control, companies can shape their adaptation through their internal actions
and strategies
● Organizational evolution has been deeply influenced by biological analises. biological
metaphors are used to understand how organizations interact with their external environments.
○ Darwin as a touch-stone
○ Especially their view on evolution as a continuous, slow process of change both
within as between species - driven by natural selection
○ Variation - Selection - Retention
● Organisational Evolution more precisely: changes that are essential for an organization to
survive, and the need adapt to the environment to stay competitive.
○ Change drive by external pressures
○ A major question is whether organizational evolution is mainly driven by the
environment (external forces) or by the organization itself (internal forces).
,Distinction of Organizational Evolution approaches into Evolutionary and Adaptive:
● Evolutionary Theories:
○ Directly apply the Darwin framework - Organizational evolution is compared to
biological evolution.
○ E.g. population ecology
○ Variation -> Selection -> Retention
■ Variation: the options that we have to respond to change. Different types of
organizations being founded
● Different strategic initiatives that may challenge existing norms.
● If you’re options are limited, then the selections can not be great as
well. (you don’t have a lot of options so you won’t select a good
idea)
● In Voluntarism selection is internally (internal selection), in
determinism selection is external
■ Selection is the internal process of choosing which strategies to keep based
on their alignment with organizational goals.
● The traits that are prefered
■ Retention ensures the survival of successful strategies and best practices
by institutionalizing them.
● The surviving organisations traits are passed on - the underlying
successful geno-type persisting
○ The focus is on understanding the relationship between organizations and their
environments through adaptation and survival.
■ Theories focus on overall trends in business landscape, the rise and fall of
organizations - comparing
■ Birth and death rates of similar organizations over time, through this
darwinian lense
○ Evolutionary approaches are linked to competition and adaptation for survival.
● Adaptive Approaches:
○ Still based on the idea of adapting to the environment to survive, but don’t necessarily
map every single element of darwinian evolution (like evolutionary approach)
■ Adaptive approaches Are more generally inspired by evolution theories, more
focus on general processes.
○ More on understanding the adaptation process by which individual firm fits within
surroundings
○ This approach emphasizes the role of adaptation, where organizations change in
response to their environment.
○ The research has evolved into understanding the balance between external pressures
and internal decisions in shaping organizational evolution.
● Dialectical and Co-evolutionary Approaches:
○ These approaches integrate multiple levels of analysis (individual, group,
organization, industry, and society).
○ The co-evolutionary approach explains how organizations and their environments
evolve together through reciprocal feedback.
, ● Co-evolution is a dynamic process involving strategic actions by organizations (internal)
and external pressures.
○ Companies adapt together; influencing each other in a continuous loop
○ Combines Determinism and voluntarism: you should combine, they go hand-in-hand
● Macro-co-evolution: The relationship between organizations and their external environment.
● Micro-co-evolution: The internal dynamics within organizations, such as capabilities and
resources.
● The multi-level approach is crucial for understanding how different levels influence each
other.
Emerging Trends:
● There has been growing interest in co-evolutionary research, especially in understanding
phenomena like strategic entrepreneurship, internationalization, and competitive advantage.
● The complexity of the global environment suggests that multi-level co-evolution is an
important direction for future research.
Future Directions:
● Further development is needed in refining co-evolutionary methods and theories.
● A balance between quantitative and qualitative research methods is essential to improve
understanding.
● Future studies should focus on how different organizational types adapt to their environments
and how this shapes their evolutionary path.
3. Feldman & Pentland (2003). Reconceptualizing Organizational Routines as a Source of
Flexibility and Change
● Organizational Routines: Repetitive, recognizable patterns of interdependent actions
involving multiple actors.
○ Routines are central for organizational change
○ Routines are the may ways organizations achieve what they do
○ They are developed through time
○ Routines can be a source of inertia: changing routines that are developed through
years is very difficult
■ Once a routine is in place, it can be hard to replace it
■ Routines provide stability, therefore inertia when changing
● Routines are not static; they are both a source of stability and change.
● Ostensive vs. Performative: The framework distinguishes between the "ostensive" (abstract
structure) and "performative" (actual actions) aspects of routines.
○ Ostensive: The conceptual, structured representation of a routine. Abstract; idea
how it should happen
■ Shared understanding of how a routine should happen
● Isn’t necessarily uniform; different individuals hold different ideas;
multiple perspective on what a routine entails
■ Providing a framework for understanding the performative aspect
■ SOP’s, how you’re doing this
