tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post5714920899487542455..comments2024-03-23T04:01:39.348-04:00Comments on Understanding Society: How organizations adaptDan Littlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15953897221283103880noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-70968539129816620932017-03-04T07:05:20.779-05:002017-03-04T07:05:20.779-05:00Summarizing the strategic field, you write "h...Summarizing the strategic field, you write "his framework suggests that the structure and functioning of an organization is not wholly determined by a single intelligent actor ("the founder"), but is rather the temporally extended result of interactions among actors in the pursuit of diverse aims. This heterogeneity of purposive actions by actors within an institution means that the direction of change is indeterminate; it is possible that the coalitions that form will bring about positive change, but the reverse is possible as well."<br /><br />It's interesting to see how diverse actors - suppliers, state apparatuses and regulations, customers, unions, managers, workers etc. - shape the process of organizational change. The formulation "positive change" is itself the site of contestation. What constitutes positive change?<br />For organizations in market economies maybe we should look at the work of Boltanski & Chiapello (New Spirit of Capitalism) and Boltanski & Thevenot (On Justification) who claim that capitalism has some essential features (capital accumulation etc.) but needs a cultural framework to motivate people. This cultural framework is not just ideology, but has a real impact on the mode of production. You can see that in the "strategic visions", "missions" etc. that organizations employ in change management and change processes to foster commitment. Successful adapting then depends on effective visions, strategies and communication processes that bind people to some course of action and reduce heterogeneity. Of course the vision and strategy itself must be also be adaptive in the given environment. ZootXhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14632164157277339228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-57274753511680510322017-03-01T17:33:10.446-05:002017-03-01T17:33:10.446-05:00Thank you -- very thoughtful. Would you agree that...Thank you -- very thoughtful. Would you agree that those mechanisms are substantially weaker than their counterparts in biological evolution, and that there is therefore a greater likelihood of drift in organizations than species?Dan Littlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15953897221283103880noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-13637035222367965552017-03-01T17:12:35.705-05:002017-03-01T17:12:35.705-05:00Part 2:
* The group-based mechanism: "This h...Part 2:<br /><br />* The group-based mechanism: "This heterogeneity of purposive actions by actors within an institution means that the direction of change is indeterminate; it is possible that the coalitions that form will bring about positive change, but the reverse is possible as well. And in fact, many authors and participants have pointed out that it is often enough not the case that the agents' interests are aligned with the priorities and needs of the organization". <br /><br />I could argue that this is not only similar to group selection. It is in fact a group selection. While it is true that in some organizations the interest of the individual member isn't always aligned with what is interesting to the organization, it is not uncommon the other way around. This is why nowadays we can see this trend of firms trying to "engage" their employees, create some kind of "company culture" or increase the level of social capital among its network.<br /><br />* The unit-based mechanism: "A very different possible mechanism is unit selection, where more successful innovations or firms survive and less successful innovations and firms fail. This is the premise of the evolutionary theory of the firm (Nelson and Winter, An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change). In a competitive market, firms with low internal efficiency will have a difficult time competing on price with more efficient firms; so these low-efficiency firms will go out of business occasionally".<br /><br />I could argue that this is similar to natural selection. And while I do agree that market doesn't work as selective pressure for every kind of organization, it is not the case that it needs to be the only selective pressure. Even in natural selection, different resources (food, water, shelter...) can oscillate in their availability and then change the dynamics of selection. The selective pressure also doesn't need to be the same for every organism, and indeed it is not so. Different organizations compete for different resources, sometimes with different levels of necessity between these organizations. Two organizations don't necessarily compete (McDonald's doesn't compete with the US Army, for example), and even when they do so, it may be for different aspects of what resources the object of competition can generate.<br /><br />If it is so and these mechanisms of organizational change are akin to biological selection, then it seems that higher functioning must be better evaluated, for our concept of what is better may not be what makes an organization success or fail. And the capacity of an organization to succeed may or may not be what we consider that is better.<br />Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18023258495505871524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-67180663221722625502017-03-01T17:12:18.412-05:002017-03-01T17:12:18.412-05:00As there is an upper limit on how many characters ...As there is an upper limit on how many characters the comment can have, I will post in 2 parts. I hope that this is fine, professor.<br /><br />Part 1:<br /><br />Prof. Daniel Little, I may have understood it poorly, but is it implied that "evolving" means an adaptation of higher functioning? If it is so, we have a huge conceptual gap between this discussion and evolutionary theory. Especially so considering that any adaptation can be detrimental or positive concerning only some specific environments, so it is always in relative terms, and it is not the case that every detrimental adaptation will lead to immediate extinction or to any extinction at all. After all, some characteristics are detrimental or costly, and yet are selected through sexual selection.<br /><br />It seems to me that the mechanisms of adaptation in organizations [agent-based, group-based, and unit-selection, as described] are comparable with mechanisms of selection in evolutionary biology: sexual selection and multi-level natural selection (gene level and group level). <br /><br />* The agent-based mechanism: "One is the fact that purposive agents are involved in maintaining and changing institutional practices. Those agents are capable of perceiving inefficiencies and potential gains from innovation, and are sometimes in a position to introduce appropriate innovations".<br /><br />I could argue that this is similar to sexual selection, but even more complex given the scope and complexity of human organizations. In sexual selection of social organisms one have a simpler network of prestige among members in the social group, each with their own position and possibilities of copulating and transfering their genetic information.<br /><br />In an organization the number of positions tends to be higher, with clusters of similar positions designed in such way that (not considering a short-circuit caused by an informal network) information and prestige follow a determined path that enables or not network-wide changes caused by an agent.<br />Following the sexual selection, it is not always the case that agents consciously know that their behavior may or may not cause network-wide changes, and some adaptations may be the result of actions without any intention of doing so.<br /><br />Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18023258495505871524noreply@blogger.com